Because...innocent until proven guilty. But according to the parent comment, guilty until proven innocent. The author of the story doesn't need to prove anything to you. His experience and the fact that he was ultimately released from prison should be enough.
>That isn't something that can be argued against with facts.
Yes it can. In the context of a law class, there's tons of laws which clearly state that rape is a crime, so it clearly does matter. That's just as factually incorrect as saying "Fraud does not matter because suckers aren't important." You can't just say: "_______ isn't important." in a law class.
If I were a history professor and someone tried to bring up Holocaust denial in my class, I'd first explain why it's absurd to try and argue that all that evidence is somehow fake, which then shows that anyone who tries to defend this position either:
1. Has legitimately no idea what they're talking about.
2. Has willfully taken up the agenda of bending the truth to support Nazi-ism.
I wouldn't shout them down though. That's counter-productive.
With the practicality of something that only worked on Debian systems aside...
> Between Let's Encrypt and StartCom ...
What do we have?
StartCom doesn't allow their free certificates to be used for commercial purposes and will hold you to ransom if you need to revoke it (eg. after a major vulnerability which exposes private keys).
Let's Encrypt only issue certificates that are valid for 90 days because they want you to automate renewal by having your server automatically run their script which needs root privileges, and they use Google as the gatekeeper of who is allowed a certificate.
We are still short an option that issues certificates that are valid for 1+ years, which can be revoked at any time, can be used for any purpose and doesn't pass every request to a corporation for approval.
You're missing the thrust of the argument entirely.
The author does not advocate validating factually invalid statements - see his anecdote in the second article linked in GP regarding "whether or not the economic collapse was caused by poor black people":
"I gave a quick response about how most experts would disagree with that assumption, that it was actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest, and isn't it good that someone made the video we just watched to try to clear things up? And, hey, let's talk about whether that was effective, okay? If you don't think it was, how could it have been?"
In other words - in the case of "bunk" it can be summarily dismissed with a proper basis. Which is entirely different from vilifying and personally attacking a person for their beliefs or thoughts which are doing no actual harm to anyone else. People can have bogus ideas and those bogus ideas can be completely harmless no matter how much you might find them distasteful.
Viewpoint diversity is entirely about bringing different perspectives and experiences to bear on a subject.
Essentially, there's a public DNS A record that maps a Dell subdomain to your local machine's IP, namely localhost.dell.com to 127.0.0.1
An attacker who can either abuse an already running local webserver (like Apache configured to listen to *:80) or start up a locally running webserver (using something like python's SimpleHTTPServer) can serve their content under a Dell subdomain.
This requires some sort of local filesystem privileges or potentially RCE, but if the original commenter is correct, this can be pivoted to SYSTEM RCE.
Putting aside the merits of allowing or disallowing refugees, this comes across as incredibly smug and juvenile. It's this kind of disingenuous "anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" logic hiding behind the stated intent of "opening a dialogue" that divides people. That, and social media comment areas will usually attract the most extreme views. I assume that the comments posted aren't the views of the entire town and so it's not fair to call the entire town racist.
In order to use p-values properly, that is to make decision, you should explain what are you going to do with the information that the p-value provides. Rejecting the null hypothesis when the p-value < 0.05 is a sensible thing, but making a strong decision when the p-value is < 0.0001 doesn't make sense in many circumstances. You should have a scheme for the decision before having the p-value.
Hey! Thanks you guys for your feedback. I've been working out some kinks with the site this afternoon, now it should work for all you smoothie lovers aswell :) I hope!
And just so you know I'm not just bullshitting you,
try typing in "I am a smoothie lover" on the rorchach test
and it will know you came from here. Also, it won't be as hurtful in the end, sorry about that.
I might agree that "CS is the great equalizer" if everyone is given an equal opportunity to pursue it. But I don't think they are. Boys are given the focus by default: just watch any Hollywood movie with a "hacker" -- are they a man or a woman? I believe girls are taught from a young age that CS isn't for them.
How many potentially brilliant female computer scientists are we missing out on as a society because our media and culture barrages them with images of male programmers? It's in my selfish interest as a white male to promote CS among underrepresented groups -- because one of them might come up with the next innovation that changes my life. But they don't get the chance, because they're told they can't be programmers.
That's why I think outreach focused on young minorities & girls is important.