Because of injury or potential for injury. The team wants Kobe Bryant healthy and on the court, so wants to limit excessive practice to avoid reinjury or new injury.
But claiming someone has privilege isn't a value judgement on the person, or a sin. Its not claiming they did anything wrong, or that its their fault. I'm not sure why people are so offended when others point out their privilege. Saying someone has privilege is just pointing out the state of the world, it isn't a judgment.
People without food allergies have privilege in that they don't have to constantly worry whether what they eat will kill them. The people with privilege often just don't have to think about or deal with stuff that those without do.
> Saying someone has privilege is just pointing out the state of the world, it isn't a judgment.
It could, in principle, be just a claim about the state of the world; in practice, its quite often an ad hominem to dismiss a position they've taken, and often its that with a side of implicit moral judgement that the position is not only invalid because of the claimed privilege, but also that it is maliciously offered as a defense of that privilege at the expense of the unprivileged.
That's not to say that privilege doesn't exist (it does), or that it doesn't at times blind people to others' experiences (it does), or that it doesn't at times lead to people, consciously or not, defending it at the expense of the unprivileged (it does that, too!)
But to pretend that claims of privilege are non-judgemental is ignoring how they are actually used in practice.
>But claiming someone has privilege isn't a value judgement on the person, or a sin...Saying someone has privilege is just pointing out the state of the world, it isn't a judgment.
That is exactly the same argument that bigots use when they talk about {minorities, poor people, immigrants, LGBT people}. "That person fits into category X, and everyone in category X shares some characteristic Y because they're in that category. I'm just saying that because it's true!" It doesn't matter who that generalization is made about, whether they're the dominant group in society or not. It's still a terrible generalization and an intellectually lazy argument and in and of itself carries a judgement. If you grant that something like "white privilege" or "male privilege" exists (and most people that buy into the concept do) then by that logic a homeless, illiterate white man has more privilege than a black woman millionaire CEO.
>People without food allergies have privilege in that they don't have to constantly worry whether what they eat will kill them.
That's absolute nonsense as well. There exist people without food allergies that have other conditions where they constantly have to worry about what they eat, diabetes being an example. So check your cis-gylcemic privilege you fascist!/s Do you see how ridiculous and divisive that sounds?
An idea for NetFlix would be to have a higher tier package that has access to content for longer. So if the average agreement for access to material is six months, people with the higher tier package have access to it for six months and people without it have access for four months. Higher tier customers get it a month early and a month after it rotates out for lower tier customers.
>Piracy fails the "what if everyone was doing it?" test.
Yup, which is why TV didn't exist before pay TV, because if everyone viewed content for free over the air then it would be massively unprofitable. Oh, wait...
Profitable OTA TV was (and is) not free, the content creators are paid by the content deliverers out of money the content deliverers get paid to provide advertising.
With piracy, even if the deliverers are getting paid by advertising (which is certainly true in some cases), the content creators aren't getting paid (because if they were, it be legal delivery, not piracy.)
You could easily teach a course on it. Have the students purchase a GBA flash linker and GBA and then teach the course. The students can flash their GBA games into the flash linkers, and you make the term project a completed game.
I went to a university where my direction was programming/game development. We had a course in, I can't remember for sure, C perhaps, and it included making a game for the GBA. It was some time ago but I remember it was quite interesting.
It truly is astonishing sometimes just what a remarkably thought-terminating taboo the topic of rape and sexual assault is. Of course it's a gravely serious one, but I don't exaggerate when I say most people are more comfortable talking about genocide than they are about rape.
Is it because a mass atrocity is more impersonal, or is there a degree of puritanism to the whole angle?
That said, mjg59 has always been a vested partisan on these topics, so I wouldn't use him to make any broader points.
Lets just start with "rape" being used as an all encompassing term for all sexual crimes, which can get very confusing, after all it happens everyday where someone willfully engages in sex and is simultaneously the victim of rape (e.g. statutory rape). So it is a word covering a vast topic.
Historically, victims of rape were more inclined to keep it to themselves than tell someone, because they were not believed; when they were believed nothing happened to the perpetrator; and sometimes the victims were made out to be deserving of the rape. This is not just true of women, but there are many stories of children who told their parents that people at their churches touched them and then the parents did not believe their own children (double victimization).
Lets take a single modern day accusation...Jameis Winston accused of rape by a freshman college girl. Just look online and you will find opinions on everything from: people assuming he is guilty because he is black she is white; people feeling its just another white girl making up lies about a successful black man; that the redneck town of Tallahassee was persecuting a poor black kid; that the good ol' boys club helped cover up a rape for the start football player; that she was just a drunk freshman slut or a gold digger; that he later didn't pay for crab legs from publix so he must be a rapist...it just goes on and on. The reality is there is one fact, no one knows what the hell happened, maybe even the two subjects don't know because of alcohol, but everyone has an opinion as to what happened instead of an honest conversation about prevention.
You generally won't have these types of controversies with genocide victims, because...well the victims are dead, and its hard to fake dead. Then again there are still many holocaust deniers around the world. Further, still there are many people who don't know there are active genocides taking place right now, and I'll tell you this I have talked to people about Darfur who claim that is not a genocide and I have to admit that makes me pretty damn uncomfortable.
Unless you're white and male, and then you'll be accused by the radical fringe as wanting to rape everything you come across and kill everyone not like you.
Consider another explanation: If you use the term "rape culture", you essentially claim that in today's society, oftentimes rape will be accepted (FWIW, I agree with this statement). However, there appears to be a consensus in today's society that genocide is always a bad thing; generally that opinion is expressed without any qualifiers (as opposed to qualifiers like "legitimate rape" etc.)
I definitely think that's a big part of it. A lot of the people involved in these discussions probably have been sexually assaulted, but relatively few have had their lives affected by genocide (or even murder).
Puritanism probably plays a role, too. Even consensual sex is often considered an inappropriate topic, so it wouldn't be surprising if that applied doubly to rape.
I don't think this is an appropriate parallel... apples and oranges as it were.
Admittedly, I only skimmed both articles, but this article appears to be about misinformation regarding recidivism rates affecting the judgment of legislators. The article you linked is in regards to someone being confused about what constitutes rape.
Why should OP be scared that somebody may label them as a rape apologist for linking this? For broaching the subject of what happens to people convicted of sex crimes?
I had the same thought as you, having also skimmed the articles. Having now read them more fully, it seems that patzerhacker's (admittedly, somewhat kneejerk) reaction draws closer parallels than I initially thought.
In that email, Ted Ts'o disputes the common knowledge that 1 in 4 women are raped. It does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of rape apology (though clearly, that is subjective), and attempts to explain that perhaps the "1 in 4 women are raped" statistic (that seems pervasive) is an exaggerated claim. His best piece of evidence, IMO, is that of the women cited in the statistic that results in the 1 in 4 claim, only 1 in 4 of the 1 in 4 even categorize their own reports as "rape". Whether that's right, wrong or indifferent is not mine to say, as I can see merit on both sides of the argument.
The article here, regarding recidivism of sexual offenders is doing the exact same thing as what Ted Ts'o attempts to do, which is to take a popular, but possibly wrong statistic, and give it more context which may render the original statistic moot.
The parallels are indeed close, which makes me glad that I did not initially downvote patzerhacker's comment without reading both articles. That said, I am not savvy to the nuances of either statistic, so I cannot claim to be authoritative on either, but as a non-interested, passive observer, it seems that Ts'o's branding as a rape apologist seems unfounded, from the information that was linked in the article, and Garrett's claims seem overblown, and predicated on the false dichotomy that because Ts'o doesn't believe A, he must believe B, which does not seem to be the case in his email.
I would half-disagree. There are some high level parallels like you mentioned, but the Ted mail is attacking the statistic by it's definitions, whereas this article attacks the statistic directly because it has no basis in reality and simply persists due to the nature of politics. (Publicly trying to correct this misconception would make a judge/lawyer/politician look like a rape apologist, or weak on crime, or sexual predator friendly in headlines)
By my reading of this article, it is also attacking the statistic by its definition.
The implied definition is that recidivism means "repeated the crime for which they were convicted" or "relapsed into criminal behavior". When it clarifies that the highest rate of recidivism is related to merely parole violations, like going to a bar, or visiting a friend who is also an ex-con, it is attempting to clarify the definition of recidivism, or at least our perception of it.
Side note: On this matter, I'm actually somewhat torn. I think that parole can be onerous and unjust, and some parole officers can tenaciously seek out any and all infractions, while on the other hand, parole is the alternative to a longer prison term, and the parolee has agreed to abide by those extra-stringent rules in exchange for an earlier, supervised release.
I don't think its the fear of getting called nasty names, its the fear of people calling your boss, spouse, etc. and bringing down the modern, low-energy, high-damage version of a mob. When it only take a couple of minutes a day to ruin someone's career or life, the risk is a bit high.
>Even satellite links can be altered, either you hack the satellite system or you intercept the signal at a higher altitude than the receiver is operating in.
Or, if the case of total war, you blow the freaking satellites out of space with missiles. Yes, I know space weapons systems are technically banned, but how long do you think a nation like the US, Russia, India, or China would put up with satellite controlled autonomous drones running roughshod over their sovereign territory before they just blow the satellites out of space?
Satellites can actually be destroyed using weapons that aren't in space. Back in 1985, the US had a F15 launch a missile which took out a satellite in orbit. China also recently destroyed a satellite with a ship-launched missile.
>copyright and trademark are poor excuses - if the search engine wants to be in the default set of search tools provided by the browser, they can trivially authorize the redistribution of a a simple icon
Debian's policy does not allow them to accept "special dispensation" for copyright and trademark permission - either everyone has to get it or Debian can't accept. This is part of why Iceweasel was split from Firefox in the first place:
Per the Debian social contract:
>License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
>_The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system._ If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system.
Why would you assume that such permission would be "special" to Debian? It's an icon. There is zero reason for a search engine to restrict such use (and distribution).
>There is zero reason for a search engine to restrict such use (and distribution).
Because these logos depict their trademarked images, and the licensing that they'd offer would likely not allow use for any purpose. Debian's social policy requires that everything included in their distribution be freely licensed for any use.
> and the licensing that they'd offer would likely not allow use for any purpose
Then they don't want to be in the default set of search providers. Seriously, has the art of negotiating been lost completely? Google/Yahoo/etc need that strategic placement far more than they need to enforce some minor point about their logo's trademark. Debian's social policy doesn't mena they have to let themselves be browbeat by businesses without even an attempt at negotiating.
Do you really think Google or Yahoo would just say, "No, we don't care about being in Firefox/Iceweasel's default search list."? Would their shareholders be happy about losing market share over want of a trivial licence?
>Do you really think Google or Yahoo would just say, "No, we don't care about being in Firefox/Iceweasel's default search list"?
Given that they haven't freely licensed their images and this has been an issue for some time I'm going to have to say the answer is "yes" because Firefox/Iceweasel download the missing images on startup.
