slow n easy

mikethemartian said:

rob53 said:

chris-net said:

The people who’s info is accessed should be told who accessed it, when, for what reason & under what authority. If doesn’t have to be real time, maybe a 90 day delay between access and notification. 

I think people will be much more mindful what they publish once they know they’ve been snooped on. 

If any of this is done without a legal order from a judge I want to know what law(s) is being broken or what laws allow them to monitor a free society the way this article is mentioning. I agree with your comment and I don’t want to have to file a FOIA to try and get it. This isn’t Nazi Germany, Russia or any other country that’s afraid of their citizens. 

A legal order or warrant is only required if the company doesn’t want to voluntarily cooperate. If they do want to voluntarily cooperate they can provide law enforcement any information they have on you just as if you were on the street and witnessed an incident involving someone else.

Exactly. I find it so odd that so many people don’t seem to understand that Apple owns the iCloud servers and can do whatever it wants with that information. You own the content of whatever is on your phone because it is your device but iCloud is not your device.

Just like when you buy music or a movie from iTunes. You own it as long as it’s on your personal device, but if you only have a copy in iCloud, then you don’t really own it. So if a song or movie is no longer available in iTunes for example, then you could lose that content. That’s why it’s smart to always download everything and keep a backup.

This is a huge waste of taxpayer money. I don't know how in the hell it's Google's fault that people prefer their search engine over the competition. Are they supposed to intentionally make a bad product? there are plenty of free search engines for people to use. Does the Government want to force people against their will to use a search engine they don't prefer? I remember when MySpace was king before they were dethroned by Facebook. Unlike Facebook, it would be very easy and painless to switch search engines. Nobody is being forced to use Google. I actually use Bing quite a bit, but it shouldn't be up to the government. Why does it matter when search engines are free anyway? Nobody is forcing you against your will to use Google.

The government doesn't seem too concerned that we only have one choice when it comes to cable companies, though. Why is that? Cable companies charge crazy high prices and there is nothing you can do about it other than drop cable altogether. Where is the government outrage regarding that? I actually did drop cable television. I use an over the air antenna with a lifetime TiVo subscription. It pays for itself in less than 3 years. I just supplement with Amazon Prime and tv+. I will likely get rid of cable altogether after Starlink becomes more established. Charter Spectrum charges me $75/month for 100Mb/s. Why are politicians not up in arms about cable?   

JustSomeGuy1 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

waveparticle said:

StrangeDays said:

waveparticle said:

darkvader said:

"Pregnant man" and "pregnant nonbinary person" are actual real-world things that happen.  They exist.  Sure, they're uncommon, but they are absolutely 100% real world people.

To not intentionally not include them would be incredibly bigoted.

Trans women are women.  Trans men are men.  Right wing nutjobs are easily offended snowflakes.

Can trans man become pregnant? 

Absolutely.

Not just in principle. Any successful case? 

You are conflating gender with sexual characteristics.

And, saying a 'trans man' typically would mean a female who transitioned to living as a male.   So yeh, unless the person had sex reassignment surgery or the hormonal therapy disrupted her cycles, then he could become pregnant.

But all of that, I think is separate from this emoji question which suggests a biologic male becoming pregnant -- which is ridiculous.

I'm fine with everything you've said (though I think it's odd that you think that you get to have the last word on what words mean)... up until this assumption. You're so far out on a ledge that Wile E. Coyote is looking at you dubiously.

There is no reason to assume that the Emoji suggests "a biologic male becoming pregnant". In fact, since it's just a glyph, you get to decide what you think it is... and so does everyone else. Most people will say "it looks like a man, but pregnant". And that's the point. It *looks* like a man, just like a typical trans man. It says nothing about genetics, epigenetics, and antenatal development.

The name of the glyph gives you no support either. "Man" or "male", you don't get to decide if it's referring to gender or sex.

Yes. That is very well stated. Thank You.

GeorgeBMac said:

Pregnancy has nothing to do with gender -- so that makes this especially ludicrous.

That is:

Gender is a mental constuct.  It's how a person perceives and feels about themself.

Sex is a wide ranging set of physical characteristics from the pitch of the voice to the width of the hips (and of course what resides between the legs and on the chest).

Efforts to eliminate gender distinctions are mostly all good and constructive.

Efforts to eliminate distinctions of physical sex are mostly misguided. 

[While a transsexual can have a penis replaced with a vagina (and vice versa) and have breasts added or removed, those are mostly superficial rather than real change.  While they can and do provide much needed comfort to the person (because it's hard to feel feminine if you look more like Donald than Ivanka), they did not actually change the inherent sex because the inherent sex is created by decades of sex hormones that produce permanent changes in almost every part of the body -- from the brain to the feet]

In short:

Efforts to erase gender distinctions are good.

Efforts (like this one) to erase sexual distinctions are silly (like this one).

So do you believe that the pregnant man emoji should or should not exist. It seems like if a person is biologically female but has the physical appearance of a male, then they may wish to use the pregnant person emoji that they identify with the most. Would you agree? 

jmtl1712 said:

This all made perfect sense to me until this section:

The proposed names of the new characters, "man with swollen belly" and "person with swollen belly", are completely semantically detached from the meaning of U+1F930, which is never the case for emoji that form a gender triplet. 

This shows a clear preference the a non-existent reality “pregnant man” over the semantic detachment of “swollen belly.” 

I’m all for gender fluidity and for people to have the freedom to identify how they want to identify. I honor and appreciate people’s subjective experience. 

I also recognize biological sex as an objective reality. With that, biological men can’t get pregnant. Biological women who identify as men, can get pregnant. Both may have swollen bellies for different reasons. But they both can’t be pregnant. 

So, logically, the best way to include everyone here and have the emoji serve communication without trying to make a political statement would be to simply rename it swollen belly. That would allow its meaning to be created and interpreted through each use case. 

Of course that may not help people who want to be mad, but at least it would be consistent. 

I think that you are reading too much into that quote. I don't believe they were trying to make a political statement. It is totally accurate to say that "man with swollen belly" and "person with swollen belly" are completely detached from the meaning of U+1F930 (Pregnant Woman). Of course "person with swollen belly" has a different meaning from "pregnant woman" Why would they have the same meaning?