Posts by dan1980

Re: Interesting

I see it.

Yes, the fonts are different but they share many important similarities.

I think it's similar enough that Cisco probably needed to challenge to make sure that they are seen to protect their marks, as this is a requirement of actually keeping them and winning future cases that are more of an issue.

So, I guess I agree with MJI, above - it is right that it didn't succeed but it is close enough that it was probably prudent from Cisco to make a (legal) point of it. A pity it wasted everyone's time but that's the reality of a world fast losing all common sense in such matters.

Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

@Dan (Paul)

Okay, three things.

One is the question of whether the country was, as you say, "officially founded" as a Christian nation. This assertion, essentially, relies on the proposition that when a small collection of Puritans landed (mostly) in New England, that that was the "official" founding of the country.

Your opinion on the matter seems to be clear, but I would point out that you also hold up the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. So, is the important part the Pilgrims and Puritans who arrived in the early 17th century or the wars of independence and creation of the "United States of America" in the late 18th century?

I think you might find that, while the Puritans (and Pilgrims before them) certainly established colonies, it would be a bit of a stretch to suggest that they, in any sense, "officially founded" the country. You don't specifically claim they did, of course, but your assertion about it occurs in your post about the Puritans rather than the one that mentions the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

Second, your statement that the Puritans left England to avoid persecution is not entirely accurate. Not entirely inaccurate, but missing some important subtleties that matter rather a lot. At the time of their migration, there had developed a measure of peace between the religious divisions in England and independent churches were already being established. There were also mainstream figures who were openly puritan. Which is not to say that there was not conflict, but that the conflict was not of the nature that some suggest.

Further, one important reason for their emigration was that they were dissatisfied with the reforms occurring in England, though the specifics are somewhat more complex given that there were different groups with different sets of beliefs and goals. But, essentially, the main reason for their emigration was not to escape 'torture' but to set up their own colonies with their own specific sets of beliefs, following from the Dutch.

Third, and this is the big one. The you do not have a right to practice your religion however you want. You have the right to believe what you want and, if you want to hold services in your front room dressed in turquoise shorts and wearing a dead fish on your head, then that is your right. BUT, that freedom only extends so far.

If part of your religious PRACTICE is to sacrifice children then, well, you don't get to do that, no matter how old your holy book or how well-established your religion. You don't get a free pass by indignantly shouting "you don't get to tell me how to practice my religion".

Now, you can't be told how you must practice your religion but the law tells you things that you can't do, regardless of whether a holy book or a preacher tells you to or not.

So, you can't be forced to go to a particular church and preachers and priests and rabbis and muftis can't be forced to wear certain official robes or speak in latin. Nor can you be forced to pray to the god Set, nor forced to have your children circumcised.

But, while you can't be forced to do something religious, you can be prevented from doing something religious - if it clashes with the existing laws. So, a woman can't be forced to wear a niqab or hijab when she goes out but she can be banned from walking around a shopping centre stark naked and no amount of appeal to religious freedom trumps the existing laws on public decency.

This is the whole debate over Sharia law in non-Islamic countries - you don't get to beat your wife for being unfaithful and you don't get to flog or hang or behead someone because they said mean things about a religious figure.

That's because beating, flogging, hanging and beheading people is against the law.

So, while you have absolute freedom to believe as you want, the freedom to excercise your those beliefs is limited in practice.

That limit is that you may not "excercise" your religion - i.e. perform (or refuse to perform) some action - where there is a compelling interest against that.

Any practice that has sufficient (compelling) reason to satisfy such criteria is likely already illegal or regulated. Discrimination against people on the basis of race (in the context of businesses offering services) is legislated against and, while sexuality and gender identity is not a protected class federally, many states have enacted such provisions, thus providing the same non-discrimination protection for (e.g.) homosexuals as apply to other groups.

Therefore, there are several main points around this issue.

The first is whether having one uniform set of laws applying to everyone regardless of religion (i.e. not legislating based on religion) is a compelling enough reason to restrict the ability of people to discriminate against people based on gender and sexuality.

I believe that one uniform set of laws that apply to ALL people, is a good thing and once you start - effectively - making or applying laws differently for different religious groups, why not allow Muslims to operate under Sharia law?

The second is whether there is even a good religious reason to claim that providing flowers for a gay wedding somehow infringes upon a religious conviction in the first place. I appreciate that some people certainly believe that homosexuality is wrong, and a 'sin', and that the Christian Bible has passages that decry it but I can't remember the part where it is specified that one must not provide flowers to homosexuals getting married.

Now, it's not for me to dictate what is and is not part of a person's religion but it would seem to me that if someone is claiming that providing flowers for a homosexual wedding is against their religion, then any test to determine whether the belief is "sincerely held" should probably ask our florist which dictum of their religion is being contravened by the action they are being asked to perform.

To me, that would be a logical question because the very purpose of that test is to ensure that the objection is actually a religious objection rather than a personal prejudice masquerading as religion.

The final point that is at issue is whether this should apply to businesses and, while it certainly does apply, I have yet to see one compelling argument that shows me why it should.

Just like free speech, freedom of religious belief and religious practice is not absolute.

Re: It's called freedom, folks

@Jamie Jones

Actually, that story about the florist and the admission that she would server adulterers is rather to the point here.

The legislation required a test to satisfy the criteria that the religious belief is "sincerely held". When it comes down to it, and whatever the supporters and apologists may say, this law was about one thing: allowing otherwise unacceptable discrimination to be justified by religion. That's it.

So, the test must exist to determine whether the discrimination (and it is discrimination by any definition) is actually based on religious convictions as opposed to religion being used simply to justify personal prejudices.

That being the case, it would be my contention that to satisfy the test, one must show that they adhere to the other tenets of that religion, such as refusing to serve adulterers (if such a thing could be ascertained) or indeed simply people who weren't Christians, that essentially being the first commandment - the 'no other gods' bit.

There are so many admonitions and instructions and teachings in the bible that one could choose from here and this is why the anti-homosexual obsession of some Christians (far, far from all, of course) would be laughable were it not so powerful a voice in US society (and elsewhere). For example, one could ask whether the florist would provide flowers for a wedding where the bride had not agreed to submit to her groom - as the head of the household. Or if they had had sex prior to their marriage.

But that is just on marriage and sexuality. If your belief is really so true and strong it is to be taken as justification for discrimination then one would expect such strongly-held beliefs to run right through their own lives. This florist certainly would need to be submissive to her husband, for one, but there bible is littered with - frankly rather strange - specifics of conduct.

Much of this is simply waved away as 'for the Jews only', which includes large swathes of our friend Leviticus. This despite the fact that that is kind of where the whole 'no homos' stance comes from. How serious, one must ask, can someone's faith be when they ignore parts of the same book (Lev) from which their professed justification for discriminating against homosexuals comes from.

The bible condemns homosexuality, don't you know? Well, yes, but why claim that that part of the Old Testament is still applicable but the bits about what you can and can't eat aren't?

@AC

Now, if you were a butcher and you were being 'forced' to stock Halal or Kosher meat then that is not on. Likewise, if you were a Kosher butcher and were being 'forced' to stock bacon.

And this is the thing. In the example of catering, no one is forcing a restaurant that doesn't offer catering to provide catering, nor are they forcing a catering company to provide catering for weddings.

If one of the services you offer, as a business, is to prepare food, setup bain-maries and spirit burners, provide staff in uniforms and have those staff lay out and possibly serve the food - and to do so at a wedding reception - then that is all you are being asked to do. There is no service or product or facility you are being asked to provide that you do not currently provide.

The only - ONLY - difference is the customer. In ALL ways that matter to the BUSINESS, the situation is identical - the same supplier orders, the same equipment, the same cleaning for the same uniforms, the same vans to bring it all and the same motions performed by the same staff to layout and serve the same food on the same plates with the same bad music playing in the background, and the same requirement to wait through the same bad speeches before you can serve desert and get the hell out of there.

At no point in any of that, has anyone been 'forced' to do anything they do not normally do in the course of their job and, more importantly, nor has anyone - at any point or in the slightest way - been forced to believe anything they do not believe or discard any belief they do hold.

But, at any rate, The problem is neatly avoided by the caters (or florist) saying that they do not do weddings.

Providing a service to one person and then denying the exact same service to another person on the sole basis of sexual orientation is discrimination. However you feel about it is another matter, of course, but it is still discrimination.

"We are a Christian establishment. We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything."

Except that they are discriminating. Saying you will provide your advertised services to one person but not to another because you disagree with them is discrimination. That's just a fact.

Whether it's legal or not or ethical or not is another question but it most certainly is discrimination.

And (as I said above), how is that in anyway connected to the "right to believe in anything"? If Ms O'Connor can explain how "provid[ng] pizza" for the wedding of a "gay couple" infringes their right to believe that gay people shouldn't get married - or exist.

"We are a Christian establishment"

What? No. YOU are Christian. Presumably you try to hire Christian staff and your management style has - at least so you would claim - a basis in your Christian morality. (Turning away 'sinners' is definitely the way I remember Jesus acting - yep.) But you run a BUSINESS and, whatever you own, personal, beliefs, a business is not "Christian", any more than it can be said to be "melancholy" or to prefer the taste of roast chicken over fried or wears a size 10 shoe, but not a peep-toe (of course).

I really am not sure why people seem to believe that the freedoms they enjoy as individuals are necessarily conferred upon businesses they run. To be honest, it's quite a strange assertion.

Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

Of course, what I have said above relates to any religious beliefs but I have mentioned Christianity most because that's what the proponents of the legislation mention, with Bobby Jindal saying, in one interview: "So I was disappointed that you could see Christians and their businesses face discrimination in Indiana".

No concern about Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Sikhs? Mandaeans? Bantu? Raëlians? Wiccans? Jains?

And what about Satanists - is Governor Jindal also concerned about them and their freedoms? Satanists surely need every bit as much protection as Christians. Indeed, being numerical much smaller, they arguably need MORE protection. No?

The point, again, is that freedom to believe something does not confer or imply the freedom to act upon those beliefs and, as the freedom to believe what you want has never been infringed or curtailed, there is no need to restore it.

What these people are saying is that they should have the right to be excepted from certain laws because they are religious and that is a different thing altogether.

Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

@AC

"Infringed upon their religious beliefs . . ."

Huh? This is the kind of claim that is always trotted out but it is never explained how exactly one's religious beliefs are being infringed.

A Christian (or anyone else) is free to hold whatever beliefs they want. But what they actually do is another matter altogether. It's perfectly legal to believe that all black people should be killed. But to actually go out and kill black people is, well, illegal.

The fact that killing people is illegal, however, does not infringe those 'beliefs', and neither does the requirement to serve customers regardless of their colour or race or orientation.

A Christian* can hold the belief that gay people are satan-worshipping abominations dedicated to ruining the great Christian traditions of the USA by 'recruiting' children to be gay. They are welcome to do so, but they can hold that belief while serving them pizza or selling them shoes.

Religious freedom is the freedom of belief - of worship. It is the freedom to believe whatever you want and not be discriminated because of it. It is manifestly not the freedom to act however you want.

Some people think that it is but those people are wrong. Indeed, the idea that a Christian florist could refuse to sell flowers to someone because they are a Muslim is discriminating on religious grounds - the very thing that people who support these types of laws allege is happening to them - that somehow the requirement to not discriminate is discriminatory.

It's wrong-headed in every way.

As a person, you can, of course, discriminate as much as you like. You can choose not to associate with gay people - or French people, or short people, or blond people, or people wearing red shoes, or not wearing red shoes, or people who listen to Enya (that's my rule, at least), or people who support whichever sports team you dislike, or who like mayonnaise on their fries instead of tomato sauce.

That's your right. You can view those people as outsiders and teach your children that they are deviants who exist solely to destroy your way of life while reading to them from your holy book, quoting the passages that explain that all people under 5ft 8in are malformed and born of the evil god Marmaduke or the one that lays out which colour singlets one must wear on Thursdays and how sleeping on your side is a mortal sin that will be punished mercilessly by the Great Celestial Pig, Clive. You can preach it to your friends and hold services in your garage where you extol the virtues of Birkenstocks and administer the holy rites of anointment with cheese-whip and presentation of grey 8x2 Lego tiles to the righteous while the high priest, Joe from next door, carves the names of sinners into lemon cake.

That is your religious freedom as an individual.

BUT, if you own a business that services the public, then you must serve people without discrimination. If you really and truly can't do that - if your religious beliefs expressly forbid you from selling Gerberas to gay people or people called "Kevin" then so be it - you have the right to close your flower shop and no one will ever require you to tie ribbons around crepe paper for lesbians again.

There are certain things in society that carry obligations. If you want to make home-made mayonnaise to eat while reading Alice in Wonderland and listening to Bananarama's greatest hits, played backwards - go nuts. I won't be coming over to your house any time soon and might recommend that the neighborhood children avoid your door on Halloween but you're free to do what makes you happy. If, however, you want to make some aioli for use as a dressing in your cafe, you have to adhere to certain standards to prevent people getting food poisoning from potential contamination with the raw eggs. If your religion, for whatever reason, insists that eggs be kept at room temperature for 3 hours to properly sancitfy the yolk, well, that's all well and good and you can do that in your own home if you want, but if you want to serve it at a cafe, the authorities are going to want a word with you.

Now, this whole anti-discrimination is not so wide-reaching as it is sometimes believed and much is dictated on a state-by state basis, given that the federal law is fairly specific and limited in scope. My point is not about what any individual state legislation may or may not prohibit. What I am saying is that one's freedom of religion is a freedom to believe what you want, not act however you want.

If you believe Norwegian people shouldn't be allowed to buy hotdogs because they're not Americans then that's fine but requiring you, as a hotdog vendor, to sell hotdogs to people of all races does not somehow breach your right to believe that.

It's interesting that you talk of religious "expression". What does that mean, exactly? What, beyond the right to believe what you want, does the right to religious expression cover, and why should it trump the rights of other people to non-discriminatory treatment.

Not to want to turn a tragic event into a facetious comment, but were the terrorist attacks of September 11 a group of Muslims "expressing" their religious convictions? If my religion teaches me that disobedient children should be beaten with a rod then how far does this freedom allow me to "express" that belief? Is battering my son somehow a protected right simply because it is a religious conviction?

The examples that are given by people like Bobby Jindal - specifically the idea of caterers or florist being 'forced' to 'participate' in a gay wedding is interesting in that there is a clear distinction in his view between a restaurant serving diners and a caterer providing catering for a function.

That is certainly a distinction, but I don't see how it is relevant. Restaurants and caterers are, generally, separate businesses. If you own a catering company then that is your job - catering. That job is providing product (the food) coupled with a service (the catering).

The point of non-discrimination is that whatever service or product you provide, you should provide it on a non-discriminatory basis. Someone who owns a catering business made a decision to do so with an understanding of what that entails. They weren't forced to run a catering business and, running one, they certainly aren't forced to, for example, provide certain foods (e.g. a Jewish catering company isn't forced to provide lobster or bacon). BUT, having chosen to do so, they should run that business in a non-discriminatory manner, exactly as if they had decided to open a restaurant instead.

I appreciate the distinction between the two businesses but simply do not accept that this provides sufficient reason to allow one to discriminate where the other cannot.

And, if it does, why stop at religion? What is really and truly so special about that as a justification for discrimination? What if you're a racist? Cannot the conviction that black people are sub-human and unclean and should not be allowed to marry white people be just as strongly held by a racist as the conviction that two men should not be allowed to marry can be held by a Christian?

Or a sexist? Couldn't my father have brought me up to truly believe that women are of less worth than men and that their place is at home; that they shouldn't have jobs and that their responsibilities are cleaning, cooking and raising children? If I hold that belief deeply and honestly - to the satisfaction of whatever test is applied - should I be allowed to refuse to sell a woman a car unless her husband is there to make the decision?

This is the crux of the argument - that a religious conviction not only provides justification to be discriminatory where it would otherwise be unacceptable, but is a stronger and more important form of conviction than any other.

Taking it on myself to speak for the non-religious amongst us - get over yourselves. There's nothing special about what you believe just because it was written in some books and intoned by robed priests or enthused at you by slick preachers in expensive suits.

Those who claim that these laws are necessary to protect their "religious expression" are the same people who take it as a personal insult when some store decides to use Halal meat, or replaces its 'Merry Christmas' signage with 'Happy Holidays' to cater to Islamic customers and staff.

They view everything as an attack on their religion, which they - of course - see as somehow special and to be protected above all other concerns. Because it's not "religious" freedom they care about - it's the protection of one particular set of beliefs. They view America as a 'Christian Nation' and claim that 'liberals' and 'moral relativists' and 'the gay brigade' are "forcing" their way of life upon them.

No one is "forcing" anyone to "participate" in a gay wedding and threating to fine them if they don't. At least no more than the government "forces" people to have a drivers license and fines them if they don't. Which is to say that if you want to drive, you have to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't drive. You don't get to drive without a license because your religious beliefs state that capturing your image on an identity card is tantamount to enlisting you in Satan's army, which will be commanded from the UN and ordered to take over the world during the tribulation.

If you don't want to follow the rules that apply to catering businesses then don't start a catering business. You may well have the right to do so, but that right - like so many in society - comes with responsibilities so the choice is yours: be a caterer and cater weddings or don't. Just stop whining that your are being "forced" to do something against whatever belief you hold. You can't have it both ways just because "religion".

Re: Don't they know anything?

@TheOtherHobbes

"It's just not real yet."

From a technology standpoint, maybe - though much of it is fundamentally flawed, of course. (Even ignoring the Jar-Jar-verse.)

Once things are down to "it's an engineering problem", the only barrier is economics.

Unfortunately, there's a lot in Star Trek that is far more fanciful than warp drive and inexplicably compatible sexual coupling and reproduction. The idea of some kind of perfect egalitarian society in a post-scarcity, post-conflict, post-need human society is way behind things like deflector dishes in the list of things likely to happen.

Which reminds me - time to take my meds.

@Loyal Commenter

More like: physically impossible method of travel also impractical from an engineering and logistics standpoint.

Not that trying to solve a mooted technical problem like this would be necessarily devoid of useful insight, just that one must frame such research carefully.

Just to be clear, though - illegal dumping of waste is not a good thing. It can be an environmental issue or pose health and safety risks. From a more prosaic standpoint, it's generally unsightly and costs the council money, wasting tax-payer rates on the required cleanups.

Likewise, issues of animal cruelty, like the recent 'live baiting' scandal in Queensland and claims of unethical behaviour between doctors and patients can be serious.

But are these things really so severe that those bodies investigating the issues - bodies that are not law-enforcement agencies or under any oaths or responsibilities to the public - should have access to this data without a warrant?

Of course not, but that is the way it is RIGHT NOW and the this new trove of data will be accessible under exactly the same regime and in exactly the same manner and with exactly as few restrictions and with exactly as little oversight.

Oh, but it's necessary to stop terrorists and pedophiles.

Re: Sack this man

Not really on-topic but the 'trousers made of bacon' reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fui3H8j6phY

Re: Ass-hat

Actually, this is part of the problem - people like this numpty just regurgitate crap they've heard without understanding it. Or, worse, they do understand it (not this guy though) and deliberately mislead people.

Get a sound bite - something extreme is good - and run with it. Repeat it every chance you can. If questioned, double-down.

There are hordes of politicians and 'public servants' who are opposed to something either ideologically or at the behest of their corporate donors (or both) but who don't have the subject knowledge to argue against it intelligently. Cue statements like these - often they are ridiculous but designed to sound extreme and paint whatever they are opposed to as nefarious and dangerous but sometimes they are well-crafted half-truths that are easy to spurt out and 'sound right' but take disproportionately long to dispel.

This kind of thing is a favourite of creationist apologists, where they are talking to lay-people to whom incorrect statements seem reasonable because they don't have the specialist knowledge to know any better.

Understanding 'net neutrality' and what it really means requires a technical understanding of the way the Internet works that most people just don't have and can't be taught anywhere near as quickly and as easily as misinformation can be spewed by opponents in evocative 1 minute sound bites.

Re: Supermicro

LSI?

Re: A negative

I will simply say that I agree that iLO4 is excellent and add that I have found iDRAC to be equally-good; both are polished, useful systems.

Re: Not worth going then @dan1980

@Florida1920

Quite right.

Re: Not worth going then...to an A-Sexual event.

Look, there is nothing wrong with having a perve. You are allowed to do it. Sure, the person you are looking at might not like it and might think you are a sleaze and avoid you, but that's the way it is.

Having a perve at the people around you, however, is different to employing people to stand around for the express purpose of being perved on, which is what the practice of hiring 'booth babes' amounts to. You (as the exhibitor) are using 'sex' to try and sell your product. Which, again, is allowed, generally, but it has it's place and RSA is simply saying that a conference about embedded system security, intrusion detection systems and mitigating the mobile malware threats that come with BYOD policies might not be the place.

Re: About friggin' time.

@skeleband

Yes, they are. But they are also insulting. I kind of get them at car shows because - so far as I know (I'm not much of a 'car person') - they are usually reserved for the super cars and high-powered sports cars with fences around them. You wouldn't see them, for instance, draped over the latest Subaru Forrester with mum and dad trying out the seats.

In that way, they are part of the 'you wish', going-for-a-perv-at-something-I-can't-have fantasy, rather than the 'let's see if we should wait until the new model Focus comes out'.

At a tech conference - it's all the latter market: we're there to see the new technology because we are interested in it capabilities and whether it is suitable for us. Mostly, at least.

At something like E3, I can, again, understand it more because E3 is about entertainment and, for many males - especially younger males - looking at attractive younger women in revealing outfits is entertaining.

I don't necessarily approve of it and, again, I just don't go to these things so it doesn't really affect me much but I can understand it in those contexts, where people are throwing around words and catch-phrases like "thrills" and "excitement" and "ride of your life" and so on.

I do not, however, understand in the slightest, why this is happening at a conference where people go to hear speakers discuss the best ways to implement "risk management frameworks" and "strategies to enable local law enforcement personnel to collaborate more closely with international police organizations".

For the person, above, who jumped up and down about the use of the word "thing", my use of the word "it" in the preceding text refers to "the practice and institution of having 'booth babes' at conferences and trade shows"; I am not suggesting a 'booth babe' is an 'it'. So we can all calm down, okay?

Re: Not worth going then

Without wanting to come down on one side or the other of this argument - I don't go to trade shows so this doesn't mean much to me - I am not sure picking on the language really makes the point.

Have you really never said something like: "the only thing worth seeing at the circus is the trapeze artists"? Or that: "the only thing worth going to the event for is the keynote speaker"?

English has lots of words and often several words for the same thing, but there is no real word for "things and people" together. If there is, I'm happy to be corrected.

As I read it, the poster was trying to imply that all the actual things there are not worth looking at so only the 'booth babes' are.

If he said: "The booth babes are the only people worth looking at" that would imply that the other people are not worth looking at - which is not what he means - but would fail to convey the point that the THINGS there are not worth looking at - which is what he means.

When it comes to things like this, people jump on common phrases and idioms as supposed proof of some overt or underlying sexism. That's just not helpful - there is enough real sexism against and objectification of women in this world without manufacturing it out of a phrase that is common English and otherwise unobjectionable.

Of course, I would suggest that if none of the actual products or exhibits are of interest that one just not go.

Re: In this week's lecture....

Gold-diggers dig gold is it?

Re: Of course it's all about sex...

Perhaps, but then I don't think it's really that accurate. At least not anymore and at least not everywhere. One only needs to look at the less-affluent to see that they are just as likely to produce additional humans as the more affluent. Anecdotally, some might suggest they are actually more likely to produce children - and more of them.

What may have been true in a smaller, simpler society does not necessarily have to be true in the huge and rather more complex society we live in today. Especially not where social welfare is available.

After all, the difference between a 'rich' male and a 'poor' one may have been more likely to make a noticeable difference to the likelihood of grandchildren in neolithic agricultural times than it is today.

The problem is not that the poorer people in our society are not able to have children, but that their children are more likely to be poorer as well, creating a cycle of poverty in the offspring, but not necessarily reducing the chance or number of those offspring.

What wealth does allow a male to do is to mate with more desirable females. Desirable in this society generally being synonymous with 'attractive'. Which, can mean that the offspring of a richer male may be more attractive, as they will have an attractive mother.

And of course, those children, being more likely to be attractive (and more likely to be rich as well), are more likely to be able to secure a more desirable match, thus concentrating both wealth and attractiveness.

So, being a wealthy male means you are more likely to have attractive children and being an attractive woman means you are more likely to have wealthy children, but does not mean you are more likely to actually have children or that you will have more of them or that they are more likely to reach maturity and reproduce, yielding grandchildren.

At least not in a 'modern' society or one where there is a relatively equal number of males and females.

Well, one cannot (let) loose what one no longer has.

Just saying that if one reads it as one would "loose the dogs", it could still be accurate, though it would be a strange and unsavoury image.