Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Swaps Toy Gun Emoji For Revolver -- Days After Apple Does the Opposite (arstechnica.co.uk)

The pistol emoji has become a heated topic of debate among people. Apple's decision to replace the gun with a toy pistol is getting a mixed response. Amid all this, Microsoft has announced it is replacing the toy gun emoji with a symbol for a real revolver. ArsTechnica reports: This emoji change is part of the Windows 10 Anniversary Update, which is rolling out now. The move has surprised some, as Microsoft and Apple had been seen as allies in an effort to dial down violence in emoji generally. In June it emerged that the two had successfully lobbied to have a sports rifle removed from the latest collection of emoji, as it was felt that two firearm symbols would be too many.Microsoft says it is only trying "to align with the global Unicode standard." The issue is that despite Apple's thought on the matter, when an iPhone (or iPad or a Mac) user sends a water pistol emoji, people with devices running non-Apple OS are only going to see a regular pistol. The article adds: Analysts had been worried that without standardisation between platforms, intent for violent emoji could be misunderstood. For instance, if someone sent an acquaintance a message using their iPhone offering to come around with some friends and some waterguns, that acquaintance might well misunderstand the thrust of the message if they were using an Android phone and saw a series of pistols.Emojipedia, an emoji reference website has a good suggestion: Apple: Don't change the pistol emoji. At least not today. Hide it. Unicode does not depreciate emojis, but there is no requirement to show all approved emojis on the keyboard. The pistol emoji could be removed from the iOS emoji keyboard without causing any cross platform compatibility issues.

197 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We must take away your rights because I don't like them!"

    The cry of the SJW!

    Your rights are subordinate to weakling's feelings!

    1. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on now, everyone knows that seeing a cartoonish depiction of a gun in a text message will turn a person into a violent psycho :)

    2. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed.

      Stupid Justice Whiners have nothing better to do.

    3. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dude, TFS clearly states that there is way too much violence in emojiland. #EmojiLivesMatter!

    4. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only thing that stops a bad guy with an emoji is a good guy with an emoji.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has literally nothing to do with rights, or whiney SJW types. It's just two companies making decisions.

      And just who the hell do you think is driving such decisions?

    6. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its a road to doublespeak. Control the words, control the thoughts.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Totemism! It's OK when we do it.

    8. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple's lawyers, you godamn partisan idiot.

      And what is motivating Apple's lawyers to care? You can throw up any number of proximate causes, but the root cause is people freaking out about guns being scary.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Speck'sBacon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 2nd Amendment is the law, and attempts to abrogate it are the opposite of the rule of law.

    10. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      Whose rights are being taken away here? You can do what you want with your computer, OS makers can write the programs you want and you are free to choose, etc.

    11. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its a road to doublespeak. Control the words, control the thoughts.

      For example, if you can convince everybody that the "SJW"s are up to no good, you can get them to think something is deserving of their outrage.

      I swear, sometimes it seems like the only result from getting people who have read 1984 is to learn that they want to embrace it themselves without realizing it.

    12. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by swillden · · Score: 2

      No, it's just liability as there is established legal precedent for damages from failing to report threats, and Apple is avoiding the backlash. Idiot.

      Cite one case. Just one.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Slashdot is just full of too many fucking idiots.

    14. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Well aren't you just the most special little techno-anarchist SJW snowflake?

    15. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This. ACs are well known for demanding companies self censor and refrain from taking a position they don't like. Any action they find offensive must be stamped out. Then they accuse the mythical SJWs of doing exactly the same thing, displaying an almost unbelievable lack of self awareness.

      Anytime someone mentions SJWs, they are probably trying to silence someone else.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Wootery · · Score: 1

      We're talking about two companies choosing how to display a unicode character. I see no need to assume an SJW conspiracy.

    17. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Consider liability - easy choice is avoid it.

    18. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by TylerJWhit · · Score: 2

      There needs to be more emoji control! If you possess an emoji, you better have a permit.

    19. Re: B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Emoji inclusiveness done right.

    20. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by TylerJWhit · · Score: 2

      A gun emoji in a is a threat that Apple has to report under law? This has to be the dumbest thing I've heard today.

    21. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by TylerJWhit · · Score: 1

      EBWOP 'in a text'.

    22. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by TylerJWhit · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, a kid doesn't need emoji's to make a threat, nor does it cause kids to make said threats. Furthermore, Apple doesn't snoop into peoples texts and emails to scan for that, nor are they required by law to do so. In fact if they did, they'd probably get sued for invasion of privacy.

    23. Re: B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 1

      So I bet you've got two dicks, one in each hand.

    24. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And the root cause of people being scared of guns is guns killing so many people. It's root causes all the way down.

    25. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why are all the derogatory labels invented by conservatives? SJW this, Liberal that, all the time. You can't address issues, so you label the speaker and go off on ad hominems. You aren't convincing anyone.

    26. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 1

      That was a parody of the parent acting in exactly the way he claimed others were, follow the link.

    27. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by zugmeister · · Score: 2

      And the root cause of people being scared of guns is guns killing so many people.

      "So if guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat" - I have no idea who wrote that but I think they have a point.

    28. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by TylerJWhit · · Score: 1

      Enough with the cussing please? Being belligerent is not helping your case. Like I said before, professionals aren't watching kids and whether or not they use gun emoji's. Thus they aren't obligated to report threats, and parents cannot sue Apple/Microsoft, or whomever for any damages whatsoever.

    29. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 1

      Just same examples here and here since like so many here you don't understand what professional adult obligations are. I'm tired of idiots grandstanding without knowing such basic things.

    30. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      This has literally nothing to do with rights, or whiney SJW types. It's just two companies making decisions.

      No, it's the SJW whiners within companies making decisions.

    31. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by aevan · · Score: 2

      Adults.

      I get far more asinine emoji shit from older people than younger ones. The kids just don't care while the adults find it 'cute'.

      This makes as much sense as putting in a censor to replace the WORD gun with ***. Because you know, all the major terror threats and such were emoji filled, and if we banned emoji those threats could never be made.

      Parents get upset, parents sue? Simple solution: toss the case out without merit, and nail the family with costs of both sides and the court. Seriously, if you want to whine about children being granted the ability to make threats DO NOT GIVE THEM A PHONE. If you don't want to prevent them having a phone, instead don't teach them to read so they can't write threats. That still leaves them able to make calls and speak words that are scary though. Want to stop teachers calling the cops on kids pointing a french fry at another student and saying 'bang'? Fix the idiots that overreact and hide in safe spaces.

      What's next, blocking the non-letter characters to prevent gun ASCII? This solves absolutely nothing but generates media about appearing to 'care' and be 'doing something'

    32. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      If guns kill people, then no one ever kills themselves; they are murdered by various inanimate objects: guns, ropes, knives, bridges, pills, etc. I don't see people talking about someone who hanged themselves as a "rope death" or someone who jumped of a bridge as a "bridge death". It's as if guns were a special case, for some political reason.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    33. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by aevan · · Score: 2

      Hm... should also remove the knife. And the fist. No hammers or golf clubs or such. Lots of potential weapons to threaten with, going by FBI homicide stats.

      While we're at it, remove that nuclear family one, that's harassment of split families and orphans. Might accidentally send it to a kid with two dads and it taken as homophobia. Or a mixed race kid and be racist 'purism' taunting. Remove the sun emoji too, that's a threat to torture albinos. Think the cookie emoji might contain nuts...that's a death threat and a half there to peanut allergy sufferers. Might want to remove the fruit for that citrus one some suffer. Dagnabit, we'll make sure nothing could be taken wrongly or interpreted as a threat or harassment, even if we have to remove all the emoji!

    34. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by aevan · · Score: 1
    35. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then "people killing so many people with guns". Or did you get the point and aren't actually the idiot you pretend to be?

    36. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then guns don't kill people. People are afraid of them because people kill people using guns. And I don't know where you look at news reports, but suicide by car is "car crash" and suicide by drugs is "drug overdose", so it's quite common for suicide to be listed by method.

    37. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Emoji guns don't kill people. Emoji bullets do.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    38. Re: B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Says the biggest sjw faggot on this site.

      And no, that's not to silence you. Keep talking. It's an excellent demonstration of what a left-wing fascist lunatic is.

    39. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      You just make a fundamental change in your argument.
      Initially, you said "And the root cause of people being scared of guns is guns killing so many people.". In that statement you are clearly intimating the "root cause" is "guns".
      Now you've said it's "people killing so many people with guns" so the cause is now "people".
      I'm glad you agree with my point now. Maybe next time I can teach you how ad hominem does not help you win an argument.

    40. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
    41. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope. That's simply not true. The root cause of the fear of guns is the damage they do. Whether it's being held by a person doesn't change the fear of the item.

      Though you look to be good at trolling and calling anyone who calls you on it an ad hominem thrower.

    42. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      He said one case... just one... And, here's the kicker, I started writing this post before clicking your links; I was going to jokingly call you an idiot for citing two cases when he asked for just one. But no!! It gets better!!!

      You give him resources detailing laws and guidelines explaining how one might be liable for damages resulting from failure to report a credible threat. But, in all of that, not one single case is cited.

      Not.

      A.

      Single.

      One.

      You idiot...

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    43. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Why aren't people afraid of spoons, then?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    44. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Quick! Everyone sue Dixon! Many a death threat has been scrawled on the back of a failed homework assignment with an errant Ticonderoga, they must be held accountable for their actions!

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    45. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The SJW's label wasn't invented by conservatives. It was invented by regressive slacktivists who believe that feel-good-activism is awesome, they used it, carried it around, presented it as it's face. And when the normies came along, they realized that those slacktivists were nothing but entitled upper-middle class or upper-class children(aka young adults to middle-age) who were whining about 1st world problems, or posting trendy hashtags to virtue signal about their 63 genders and screaming about pro-censorship and pro-authoritarian positions while saying "it hurts my feelings." So people who act as pro-censorship, pro-authoritarians are now called that, and they're throwing a hissyfit. And in most cases it's also a regressive out there that whines about "why is this derogatory label invented by conservatives" does everyone a favor by showing that they're ignorant of where it all came from and what happened.

      Don't like it? Tough. SJW's are the current face of the left. You want it to stop, then clean up the left side of the political discourse. Get rid of your pro-authoritarian, pro-censorship, pro-violence children like the right did in the 80's and 90's. Because as soon as it was cleaned up by the right in the 90's, the left took right over and decided to create the special snowflake class of perpetually offended who can't face the real world, and believes violence is the answer to problems. Just like those abortion bombers back in the 70's and 80's(or the BLM/anarchist/etc people of today).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    46. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      They don't have to accuse, SJW's actually do it.

      Like this and like this and like this and like this and like this and like this and like this and like this and like this and this and some more of this and more stuff like this.

      And I've just started, that's from the last week or so. So let's fix that: Any time someone mentions SJW, they're pointing out that the left is full of regressive children that want to ban anything that doesn't fit with their very narrow view of the world, and will do anything to ban, block, censor or attack(physically/emotionally/virtually or IRL) you in any form in order to make it happen. And the left has a serious regressive problem today, just like the right did back in the 70's and 80's when the extreme-right were firebombing abortion clinics or assaulting gays. Today it's environmentalists burning down property or letting animals from testing labs loose, or groups other groups(like BLM, 3rd wave feminists or the modern anarchist movements) doxing or swatting people in order to silence them and/or operating smear campaigns and labeling people as misogynists/sexists/etc in order to scare them away or silence them, or to make them look so bad no one will take their side.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    47. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Because the deaths involving spoons are rare, and the number of non-fatal uses of spoons are in the trillions, if not more.

    48. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between criticism and demanding to be furnished with a gun emoji.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      "the number of non-fatal uses of spoons are in the trillions, if not more".

      Data please.

      I do take your point though.

      And along the same lines, also with no data, the number of bullets fired in non-fatal usage of firearms per annum is many orders of magnitude higher than bullets fired that result in injury or death. This is from sporting firearm usage which is the predominant use for firearms the world over.

      Are you afraid of guns?

    50. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      The Apple standard end user license that you agree to when using their devices and software holds them not liable for offensive content.

      http://images.apple.com/legal/...

    51. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between criticism and demanding to be furnished with a gun emoji.

      Sure. And there's a difference between removing something because it hurts some special snowflakes feelings too and you're too afraid of a PR disaster to do anything then what the loudmouth whiners are screaming about.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    52. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by swillden · · Score: 1

      And the root cause of people being scared of guns is guns killing so many people.

      That is not the cause of people being scared of guns. If it were, it would cause everyone to be afraid of them, not just the people who don't know anything about them. It would also cause everyone to be afraid of cars.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    53. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You have consistently failed to demonstrate that they changed the emoji because "it hurts some special snowflakes feelings too and you're too afraid of a PR disaster to do anything then what the loudmouth whiners are screaming about".

      In fact, Microsoft just did the opposite. Considering that the objections to the rifle emoji came from Microsoft and Apple, this kinda blows your theory out of the water. Could it be that they have minds of their own?!? Are there actions not simply reactions to imaginary SJWs??? I'll give you time to collect the pieces of your exploded mind.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    54. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Because the deaths involving spoons are rare, and the number of non-fatal uses of spoons are in the trillions, if not more.

      Well, if we were to ban spoons, then heroin and other injectable-drug addicts wouldn't have anything to cook their drugs in, thus saving thousands of lives per year from death from overdose.

    55. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      Though you look to be good at trolling...

      I gave you your own words and an honest opinion. Are you really crying I'm "trolling" you with your own words or is it the idea of people with a differing opinion that disturbs you so?

      ...and calling anyone who calls you on it an ad hominem thrower.

      The word you used was "idiot". I even gave you the definition of "ad hominem" to be sure you understood what I said. Piss off.

    56. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "We must take away your rights because I don't like them!"

      The cry of the SJW!

      Your rights are subordinate to weakling's feelings!

      So explain how an emoji is taking away your rights.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Apple's lawyers, you godamn partisan idiot.

      And what is motivating Apple's lawyers to care? You can throw up any number of proximate causes, but the root cause is people freaking out about guns being scary.

      Actually, it might seem that in a country where I can pick up a firearm pretty easily and do just that as I like, your freaking out about a cartoon water pistol might be seen as pretty silly.

      This to me, is a case of people not picking out their battles very well. Because everything is a battle to them. I'll be marked as a troll to -1 in about 10 minutes just for daring to post that getting all upset over a tiny little cartoon character isn't really eroding your second amendment rights. But it really isn't. But my post will just become another affront and a irresistable battle that needs suppressed.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    58. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      This is from sporting firearm usage which is the predominant use for firearms the world over.

      "sporting" is a useless description that is used to mean all non-human-target shots. Paper target and hunting are lumped together. Seems to not be a good delineator.

      Are you afraid of guns?

      No. Why would you think that? That I can understand how some people are must mean I'm justifying my own feelings?

      People own, have and misuse spoons all the time. The deaths from them are negligible. Firearms, properly used, kill people. Firearms improperly used kill people. Killing with a firearm is so easy a 2-year old could do it. http://archive.jsonline.com/ne...

    59. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When guns are outlawed in a country, gun deaths (and total deaths) drop (see Australia). It's harder to move to another weapon, because guns are so good at killing (just a tool, but an effective one). But if you banned spoons, there'd be almost no lives saved. It's trivial to make your owne spoon, and they have more "safe" uses than unsafe uses.

      Guns are *never* safe. If you don't believe me, go to a gun range. Take out a Glock 17. Remove the magazine. Open the slide. Visually inspect that the chamber is empty. (optionally) install a gun-lock of some kind. Point the gun at the rangemaster. Point the gun at the other people around you. People who know and are familiar with guns. See how they react to your "safe" gun. You'll likely be kicked out in a few seconds. From people familiar and "not afraid" of guns. If people who aren't afraid of guns treat them as so dangerous, why do so many object when others treat them as dangerous?

    60. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are a fucking idiot. Is that better? And that's not an ad hominem. It's an insult. "You are wrong because you are uninformed" is an ad hominem.

      THat you don't know what an ad hominem is, yet lecture others on it makes you a fucking idiot (again, not an ad hominem). An ad hominem requires that the argument be depreciated due to the [personal insult], not just that personal insults are used.

      You should really learn the big words, before you start using them. It just makes you look like a fucking idiot. http://www.nizkor.org/features... has a better definition than the one you gave. It's not just an insult. That's an insult. An ad hominem is an attack on the logic, through the person. "Why should we listen to you, you can't even tie your own shoes" isn't an insult (or is a mild one), but is a clear ad hominem. "Fuck off you prick, you are just wasting my time" isn't an ad hominem. It in no way depreciates the argument made. It's a simple insult.

      I'm trolling because I know the definitions of the hard words you are misusing, or so you ad hominem goes. For someone that doesn't like them, you seem to use them quite commonly.

    61. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      "sporting" is a useless description that is used to mean all non-human-target shots. Paper target and hunting are lumped together. Seems to not be a good delineator.

      "Eating soup" is a useless description that is used to mean all liquid-based dishes. Split pea and chicken noodle are lumped together. Seems not to be a good delineator.

      You see, spoons are commonly involved in the killing of innocent animals for consumption by humans. If you're okay with that, what's your problem with hunting?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    62. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      When guns are outlawed in a country, gun deaths (and total deaths) drop (see Australia).

      Funny you should say "a country", then give exactly one example. You can't give another.

      Point the gun at the rangemaster. Point the gun at the other people around you. People who know and are familiar with guns. See how they react to your "safe" gun. You'll likely be kicked out in a few seconds.

      That's more of a respect and following the rules of the range issue than anything else. If you can't respect the simple command "keep your weapon pointed down range at all times" with an unloaded and incapable of firing weapon, nobody is going to want to see how you'll behave with a loaded one. The rule is never "keep your loaded weapon pointed down range at all times" and for good reason; anyone who'd break that rule will break it with an unloaded weapon first, while they can be safely removed from the situation.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    63. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You see, spoons are commonly involved in the killing of innocent animals for consumption by humans.

      No, they are not.

      If you're okay with that, what's your problem with hunting?

      Oh, I get it, you are just a lying sack of shit. I never said anything negative about hunting. Just that the person I'm responding to lumped hunting in with "non fatal" uses of guns. If guns are not fatal in hunting, why are so many hunters using them?

    64. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say "a country", then give exactly one example. You can't give another.

      Since you obviously can't pay any attention to the facts, why should I bother? You didn't address the facts, just play a Trump-ian distraction game. I must be wrong because Chewbacca lives on Endor.

      That's more of a respect and following the rules of the range issue than anything else.

      So I'm 100% right, but you'll argue unrelated minutiae about "respect". "Respect" the gun, because they are deadly boomsticks. But they aren't deadly, just treat them like they are.

      9/10 (it is the olymipcs, and those are some impressive mental gymnastics) to explain how the "experts" treat "safe" guns as dangerous, while they are 100% safe. Just treat them as dangerous, when they aren't. For no good reason.

    65. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You have consistently failed to demonstrate that they changed the emoji because "it hurts some special snowflakes feelings too and you're too afraid of a PR disaster to do anything then what the loudmouth whiners are screaming about".

      Haven't been paying attention to the news in the US? Maybe you should start. That's where you'll find your proof, maybe try google news? I see a couple of dozen stories there.

      In fact, Microsoft just did the opposite.

      Yep they sure did, and in the press outside of regressive echo chambers they're being lauded for it, an in turn seeing a larger groundswell of support for it. Meaning they've generated more good will then Apple.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    66. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's funny how you always answer requests for evidence with "just google it". It's obvious why - the sites supporting your view tend to discredit it, so you are reluctant to commit.

      Mashiki, you are so transparent.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    67. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Red herring. The term is perfectly adequate for this situation. The context is firearm related human death. We are not talking about the death of food animals or pests. As an aside, hunting is a legitimate sport and so is paper and steel target shooting.

      I did "think that". I clearly asked you if you were. You on the other hand assumed that I thought you were afraid when I didn't (you asked "why" I thought that).

      You're moving to a different point (the efficacy of spoons versus guns in killing people) and not addressing the point at hand. I'm not arguing that firearms are not better at causing acute trauma than spoons. We are talking about why people are afraid of guns and the comparison made with spoons. You pointed out that spoons cause less death. I pointed out that as a proportion of bullets fired down barrels, firearms also cause hardly any death.

      A much better comparison is with knives. Knives cause twice as many murder deaths in Australia each year (where I live) versus firearms, yet people are not afraid of knives. Going by the numbers they should be more fearful of knives.

    68. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      As above. The topic is clear. We are relating firearms to human fatalities, not the destruction of animals for food or pest purposes. And either way, hunting is a sport (culling pest animals is more of a job).

      Please stop conflating things.

    69. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      No they don't. The majority of studies, and all meta analysis concluded the firearm law changes did not affect Australia's firearm (and total) death rate. Firearms are readily available in Australia. The vast majority of the population can purchase semi-automatic handguns, bolt action, pump action, and lever action rifles, break open and lever action shotguns, etc.

      Look at New Zealand. They have the most similar culture and living conditions to Australia than any other country in the world. In 1997 (when Australia's firearm laws changed) they did not change theirs. Consequentially you can purchase semi-auto handguns and rifles and high capacity magazines. Yet over the last 20 years their homicide by firearm rate has remained lower than ours (and their total homicide rate also has remained lower than ours).

      Guns are never *assumed* to be safe. After visually checking that a firearm is safe by everyone present then it is in fact safe. As a habit we still don't point our firearms at anyone.

    70. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Have fun cleaning your gun then. Because unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't clean it.

      Or, as in Australia where firearms must be stored unloaded in a safe, unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't store it.

      You're 100% wrong. Firearms can be rendered safe. Not pointing unloaded (safe) firearms at people is a habitual thing and a courtesy. Without cartridges in them they are lumps of steel, wood, and plastic that cannot do anything.

    71. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Please excuse how my replies got lumped at the bottom. They reply to you in the order your comments appear.

    72. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by denzacar · · Score: 1

      "So if guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat" - I have no idea who wrote that but I think they have a point.

      Someone without understanding of false equivalence?

      And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above as "Offtopic".
      We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    73. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      No, they are not.

      You see, a saw that is used to cut up and dispose of a human body is considered to be involved in the killing. It was a tool used in the killing and disposal of the body. Someone who helps hide a murdered body is considered an accomplice to that murder, and the tools they use to do so are considered murder weapons under law.

      The spoon is used to dispose of the chunks of chicken in chicken noodle soup (or other meats in other soups - or for many other meat-eating uses) by way of digestion.

      Oh, I get it, you are just a lying sack of shit.

      I assure you I am neither lying, nor a sack of this, sir.

      I never said anything negative about hunting.

      It sure seemed as though that was your intend. Misunderstanding someone's poorly written text does not make one a liar; and apparently, looking at other replies here (and to past threads where you've poorly worded something and called me a liar for interpreting it the same way as everyone else), it would appear I'm not the only one who read it that way.

      Just that the person I'm responding to lumped hunting in with "non fatal" uses of guns.

      Well, they're less fatal than allowing animals to overpopulate, eat through their entire food supply, and starve to death. It is 100% true that many times fewer animals die of gunshot wounds each year than would die if we stopped limiting their population. Could we club them to death? Stab them or slit their throats? Shoot them with arrows? Spoon their eyes out, then use the handle of the spoon to scramble their brains (because spoons are also deadly)? Sure, we could; and there are any number of other ways could limit animal populations so they don't eat through their entire food supply and kill themselves and any other animals who share that food supply or use it for habitat. None of them are as humane as a bullet to the head.

      Of course, that doesn't really cover, say, fox hunting. But, then, that's typically only done the the extremely wealthy in the first place; and they'll just buy their way around a gun ban if one ever happens. They're not worth talking about because their rights aren't up for grabs here.

      If guns are not fatal in hunting, why are so many hunters using them?

      That's actually exactly why they're used. Would you rather we make animals suffer when they're chosen to die for the preservation of the rest of their species? Or should we just let the populations overgrow and die out entirely? I mean, it's what we're doing with humans and it really doesn't seem to be working, I think we need to start culling.

      I propose we start with those who don't understand what culling is and why it must be done. You know, so we, as a species, don't forget again and stop doing it.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    74. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Slashdot's threading is fucked, my friend. It has been for years.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    75. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by BronsCon · · Score: 1
      Since you obviously can't pay any attention to the facts, why should I bother?

      You're the one not paying attention. You can't see why I not only implied, but flat out stated (the fact) that you can't list another, so allow me to elaborate, in depth.

      You listed one country where a "ban" was "successful". There are other countries where firearms have been banned, nowhere else has it been successful. In fact, there's really no ban in Australia, nor has it been successful (it can't be by way of not existing). Here's a summary of Australia's gun laws:

      A person who wants to possess or use a firearm must have a firearm licence. Licence holders must be at least 18 years of age, have a "genuine reason" for holding a firearm licence and must not be a "prohibited person". All firearms in Australia must be registered by serial number to the owner, who holds a firearms licence, except that firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 may not need to be registered in some states. The firearm owner must have secure storage for the firearm. Firearms dealers must be over 21 years of age and hold a dealer's licence, and dealers' employees must be vetted by the police. "Prohibited persons" cannot be employed by dealers. Besides other requirements, dealers must ensure that the purchaser of a firearm holds a firearm licence, must maintain a register and must notify police of each transaction.

      That sure as shit doesn't sound like a ban to me, sir.

      You didn't address the facts, just play a Trump-ian distraction game.

      Well, are have they been addressed now?

      I must be wrong because Chewbacca lives on Endor.

      No, you must be wrong because you gave one example of what many people falsely believe to be a country with a gun ban and could not provide a valid example when prompted, because that example does not exist.

      So I'm 100% right, but you'll argue unrelated minutiae about "respect".

      Eh? Where are you right in all of this? You're certainly not factually correct and if your morals are based on false beliefs, you cannot be morally right, either.

      "Respect" the gun, because they are deadly boomsticks.

      Yes, respect the gun, but I was talking about respecting the other people at the range. Respect for other humans is a difficult concept for you, isn't it? I mean, just look at how you reply to people here, the complete lack of respect in how you word things, the insults, the insinuations, it's almost as though you have no respect for anyone, including yourself, to be able to portray yourself in that manner.

      But they aren't deadly, just treat them like they are.

      An unloaded gun is no more deadly than a spoon. You could bludgeon someone to death with it, but that's really about it. You treat them like they are, though, so you don't get in the habit of pointing them at people or things you don't intend to shoot and do so out of reflex with a loaded weapon. It's the very same reason I was taught that as a kid with a cap gun. Not because the cap gun was deadly (you couldn't even bludgeon someone with it, it would have cracked and fallen apart), but because the habit is dangerous, should I ever hold a real gun in my hand.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    76. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Lol, typo.

      Should read "I didn't 'think that'".

    77. Re: B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by TylerJWhit · · Score: 1

      That's the point. They had to be subpoenaed in order to be authorized to invade someone's privacy. They can't flippantly decide to view peoples emails or texts. They'd either get fired from their job, or get sued.

    78. Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! by TylerJWhit · · Score: 1

      Apple employees are not mental health professionals, nor do they work at schools.

  2. Arrggggg Emoji politics. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really the fact that we have Emojis is bad enough having news stories about them is just too much to take.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then of course we have design by committee emoji's, each trying to reflecting a political interpretation of the emoji, justified by possible idiot interpretations of a pictograph. These people must live in some pretty sheltered places, because they have apparently not yet conceived of idiots powerful enough to misinterpret just about any emoji in a fatally mistaken way. We know these idiots exist, we see them every day. Usually in traffic.

      I think we should simply remove weapons and weapon words from the english language. This should surely create a safer society.

    2. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do people really use emoji's instead of words and expect to be clearly understood?

      I would think that the intent of emoji's (like the name sort of implies) is to convey emotional content and not literal content.

      If you are typing "Come over this weekend, bring (pistol emoji) and we will have fun" then you are doing it wrong. You have left a key part of your instructions open to interpretation.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2

      The only thing dumber than changing a gun emoji into a water-gun emoji is getting all worked up over someone changing a gun emoji into a water-gun emoji!

    4. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Do people really use emoji's instead of words and expect to be clearly understood?

      Yes, many people do that. But we still need to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. There is no need for Emoji's containing assault weapons or IEDs. Emoji's should be declared "critical infrastructure" and placed under the jurisdiction of the DHS.

    5. Re: Arrggggg Emoji politics. by DaHat · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that if you are in the middle of a murder trial of a pig farmer who may have sent a threatening text... That they've got more than just that on the accused.

    6. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by mea2214 · · Score: 4, Funny

      First they came for the revolver emoji and I said nothing because I use the pile of poo emoji ...

    7. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      I for one can't wait to see how our language evolves with emojis. Smiley face, wink, smiling turd.

    8. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      The fact that the defendant is, in fact, a pig farmer, is overlooked in the capital murder trial.

      That was a really bad example. The worst serial killer in Canadian history was a pig farmer - and he was feeding the women he killed to his pigs.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re: Arrggggg Emoji politics. by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      You've got perhaps a misplaced level of trust in the justice system.

    10. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Just have blank squares and then the users can draw whatever they like in those squares. Custom pictograms instead of some so-called "standards" organization constantly trying to update to the ever changing fashions. The other benefit is that it's faster to draw a detailed picture than to find the emjoi you want while scrolling through the millions that will soon be available.

      Mhy other suggestions is about sending smells over the phone, but that's a topic for another thread.

    11. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Why? Its a pictogram language. Sure people over use them, but they are incredibly useful ways of sending information. They also give flavor and context to otherwise flat and emotionless text.

      --
      Good-bye
    12. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      He never used a gun though.

    13. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      He may have used a water pistol, it's not clear.

    14. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Are you saying we need a Bricktop Emoji?

      --
      Time to offend someone
    15. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Then I say we need this as an Emoji.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    16. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I for one can't wait to see how our language evolves with emojis. Smiley face, wink, smiling turd.

      When Craig Federighi of Apple was showing-off the ridiculous amount of non-textual SMS enhancements in iOS 10 (and macOS Sierra?) during the 2016 WWDC Keynote (at Time-Index 1:26:06), one of which allows for easy substitution of Emojii in a Text Msg, he half-jokingly quipped something like "Children of the Next generation aren't going to have any idea about the English Language."

      I'll bet he got called on the carpet for that afterward; but he's right.

    17. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by eth1 · · Score: 2

      I think we should simply remove weapons and weapon words from the english language. This should surely create a safer society.

      That's actually a great idea. Can't ban something that you can't refer to in legislation! :D

    18. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's punctuation. The issue was that sarcsm and such is undetectable sometimes. So you added a ;), back before emoticons existed. They were necessary and have been in use longer than the Internet (as known today) existed.

    19. Re:Arrggggg Emoji politics. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      If emoji is the only way you can give your text a bit of flavor and context, that's your failing, not that of the text. Not all text is flat and emotionless; in fact, most is quite layered and impactful, you just have to use a couple of brain cells while writing (and reading) to achieve the desired effect.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  3. Penis, vagina, buttocks and boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now at Microsoft must be coherent with that no censor policy and add also as quickly the penis, vagina, buttocks and boobs emojis.

    1. Re:Penis, vagina, buttocks and boobs by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Are those in the "global Unicode standard"?

    2. Re:Penis, vagina, buttocks and boobs by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      They definitely should be!

  4. This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    My best friend was killed by a gun emoji.

    1. Re:This makes me sad by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      he noncompliant with the cop emoji, had it coming

  5. slashdot massacre by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    It's been 8 days without a mass shooting, we have to do something about that!

    ðY" ðY"! ðY"ðY"ðY"!
    ðY"ðY"ðY" ðY"ðY" ðY"ðY" ðY"ðY"ðY"!
    ðY"ðY" ðY"ðY"ðY" ! ðY"ðY"ðY"

    ðY"ðY" ðY" ðY" ðY"ðY" ðY"ðY" ðY" ðY" ðY"!
    ðY"ðY"ðY"! ðY"ðY"ðY"ðY"ðY"ðY"ðY"ðY"!


    ðY"!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:slashdot massacre by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      And according to that same exact website (which is heavily anti-gun biased by design), this year there have been over 4x the number of defensive use incidents (where they only count "verified" defensive incidents, not the much looser criteria they use for "mass" shootings) as there have been "mass" shootings (defined as 4 or more people hurt) and 5x as many officer involved shootings.

      So I guess by your logic, we need to ban the police officer emoji in order to reduce violence???

      Also, your comparison between lists with 4+ people and Canada "massacres" is comparing completely different things. The Canada list is incomplete (says right on the page) and is also not a list of 4+ injuries like the first list.

      But no surprise to the lack of logic in someone who apparently dislikes both free speech and the right to defend yourself. I guess with this post you get an "A" in your "Human Diversity in Math" course.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  6. Re:Not a toy gun by sexconker · · Score: 1

    In terms of what the future will be like, the Jetsons is far more realistic than Star Trek.

  7. OH NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not even going to touch on the gun control argument that frankly gets retarded fast (from both sides)

    But i'm definitely not in support of banning assault emojis or even requiring background checks. I fully support concealed cary emoji's as well

    1. Re:OH NO by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Since no one else has stepped up.

      *Ahem!*

      THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

  8. Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Making the emoji a water gun will make people use it more in playfull manner. Other non iOS users will see it as a real gun and you can guess the rest (hint: last step is profit)

    1. Re:Opposite effect by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      They are emojis.... it doesn't matter what the picture is... they are all used in a playful manner...

      Who has a serious conversation in emojis? I would say it is impossible unless both people are already in the same phase of life and/or are good friends.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  9. Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you use windows 10 you probably want a gun close.

  10. Emojis part of unicode to begin with by bmxeroh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are emojis part of unicode to begin with? Is it literally just because it became popular with 12 year olds and 30 year olds who still think they're 12 so they needed to do something with them? Couldn't we have just made the right choice, declare emojis absolutely stupid, and take away the phones of people that try to use them? I loathe that my phone highlights words it has an emoji for. "Hey do you want to swap out this perfectly understandable English word for a tiny little picture of the thing your talking about?". "Actually, no I don't. I don't live in a pictographic culture so the written word is just fine. Thanks." I received a text invitation from my cousin (See 30yr old bracket above) to a party and I almost couldn't figure out what it meant. There were pictures of chicken drumsticks, ballons, fried shrimp, those stupid noise makers you blow into, a strawberry, a piece of cake or pie, a hotdog, and a couple of drink looking things. There were more emojis than text, so I just couldn't bring myself to actually respond to that mess.

    TL;DR I hate emojis and everyone that uses them.

    --
    Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
    1. Re:Emojis part of unicode to begin with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has been done to death, even on /. and even by old guys like yours truly who don't use them much themselves.
      There are essentially three intertwined reasons.
      1 - Unicode, seeking transcoding compatibility with dingbat fonts includes a lot of dingbats. Although there are many of these, there are somewhat standardised collections and inclusion of standard dingbats in Unicode is useful.
      2 - Unicode, seeking transcoding compatibility with (mainly) Japanese mobile phone character sets, includes many of their legacy characters. This is important because Unicode must support them if it is to be adopted and achieve its goal of improving international text interoperability.
      3 - Text has always missed some side channels. We ourselves of course know this, otherwise we wouldn't type :-) and suchlike. The thing is, coding them as three characters that have fuck all to do with its semantics is insane (why has also been done to death here), hence the need for emoji. They're symbolic, discrete, or at least discrete enough, meaningful, usually part of plain text, so they should be in Unicode.
      That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with everything emoji-related (nor with their over-reporting on /.) but not having emoji in Unicode at all is a non-starter.

    2. Re:Emojis part of unicode to begin with by sootman · · Score: 1
      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    3. Re: Emojis part of unicode to begin with by brasselv · · Score: 1

      lighten up, Francis.
      besides, people have been adding tiny drawings to their written text for centuries, until the adoption of the printing press, which made it largely impractical for various technical reasons.

      technology is catching up and people are using tiny drawings again - its not such a huge deal and certainly not something to spend your hate on. 8-8

      --
      "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
    4. Re:Emojis part of unicode to begin with by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      However, I remember Unicode as saying they didn't want any jurisdiction over the actual glyphs used. I don't know what the emoji's Unicode name is, but if two entities display them differently that should be just fine.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Emojis part of unicode to begin with by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's ironic that Unicode does so much to support Japanese emoji, but so little to support the actual written language.

      Unicode has largely failed in East Asia, because it just doesn't work. A Chinese airline will never use Unicode, because it can't encode their Japanese and Korean customer's names, and even some Chinese ones.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Emojis part of unicode to begin with by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Emoji. Reinventing Hanzi, badly.

  11. How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by speedplane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? I'm a pretty liberal guy, but this is liberalism going crazy. Removing characters from our language is not going to make the world more or less peaceful (and I'm sorry, but now emojis for better or worse, are part of our language). This is some crazy 1984 New Speak stuff.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? I'm a pretty liberal guy, but this is liberalism going crazy. Removing characters from our language is not going to make the world more or less peaceful (and I'm sorry, but now emojis for better or worse, are part of our language). This is some crazy 1984 New Speak stuff.

      I am seriously frustrated by this, same as you. When I read "dial down violence in emojii" I thought I was caught some sort of Kafkaesque tyranny of the perpetually offended. I mean seriously, the fact that people get worked up over this is about as laughable as people getting worked up over the old Looney Toons bits with Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote or with Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny (that one usually featured an actual firearm, <GASP>).

      An emojii is literally a cartoon depiction. The world has much bigger problems. For example, real violence.

    2. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by speedplane · · Score: 2

      Making threats easier to make increases the number of threats

      Some points:
      A - The purported purpose is to reduce violence, not reduce threats.
      B - How does a gun emoji make it "easier" or encourage people to make threats when they can just type "gun", or "I'm gonna shoot you"?
      C - Even assuming there is a link (which I don't think there is), how can that possibly be more important than censorship?

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    3. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid, threats in common usage lead to violence. Idiots like you will use it like a regular emoji but it changes messages into major liabilities requiring reporting and intervention, especially when used by kids who are the main users of emoji. Censorship isn't the issue here, you can write gun and shooting range, etc. all you want, this is about preventing issues arising from careless misuse of encapsulated messages with legal implications.

    4. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Obviously gun emojis don't cause violence. But there are lots of people willing to make violent threats on the Internet. We don't need another semi-cutesy way for douchebags to say "maybe I'm threatening to kill you but I dare you to prove it".

    5. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by speedplane · · Score: 1

      this is about preventing issues arising from careless misuse of encapsulated messages with legal implications.

      So we have to limit language in order to prevent people from using it "carelessly"? This is censorship in it's clearest form.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    6. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 1

      No, as a commercial entity with significant marketing research division you make an intelligent call on the expected impact of introducing new features into existing products, especially highly profitable and successful ones. Apple is a private entity, not the fucking state you fucking idiot.

    7. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      You are a fucking idiot, this is a new feature so of course there is no history. There is however HUGE case history in teaching and all other legally obligated professional roles dealing with children requiring reporting and often confinement of kids deemed dangerous to themselves or others. It's one of those things adults have to do, so you wouldn't understand. It is also about liability for Apple in cases where threats ARE made.

    8. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by lgw · · Score: 2

      No one can shoot you through the internet. Free speech, on the other hand, if a fundamental right that is quite important on the internet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      But threats are not free speech.

    10. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Credible threats are not free speech. We already have laws for that, and it's orthogonal to pistol emojis. I get it, you hate guns and want to censor everything you don't like. Fortunately, on both counts, we haven't quite given up all our rights yet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      How about you be honest for 5 minutes? That post was on legal basis of threat, not your fucked up ideological fantasy.

    12. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Wrong. I like guns a lot and censorship not at all. Freely choosing not to add new ways to threaten people is not censorship. If Apple wants to add 1000 gun emojis, they should feel free to do that. I support their decision not to though, because Internet threats are a problem and they're helping to avoid making it worse.

      When people act responsibly, like Apple is doing, it shows how governments shouldn't be empowered to censor because it's a power they simply don't need.

      I don't think we should have police arrest people who use emojis so that courts and juries can decide later whether using the emoji is meant as a credible threat. Why create this new potential problem when you can just decide not to?

    13. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by lgw · · Score: 1

      You have an amazingly thin-skinned idea of "new ways to threaten people" if you think a freaking emoji rises to the level of threat where censorship makes sense. And if it somehow did, how would a water pistol, or any number of other emojis, not work just as well - if we're being that thin skinned? Is it somehow different from just linking a picture of a gun?

      Why create this new potential problem when you can just decide not to?

      I just fail to any any problem here. I don't see any marginal harm, or ability to threaten, over what the platform already provides.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Usage of the emoji can and will increase incidence of threats as children lack the maturity to understand the implications of their communications. Providing a ready-made gun emoji readily accessible and distributed without notice to minors puts Apple in a bad position when those same minors are investigated and their parents seek repayment for court costs or damages from Apple.

    15. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Approved by unicode does not mean IMPLEMENTED - that and the related negotiations are what this story and those of the last month are about.

    16. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You can't imagine ways to threaten people with gun emojis? Other people can. Still others can decide there's a threat when no threat was intended. Emojis are unclear that way.

      And no, I don't think people who issue threats of violence should be censored. I think they should be arrested and charged. But not by accident because some government people overreacted to some emojis -- that's why we're better off without new ambiguously threatening symbols.

    17. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Child-proof the world, eh? I suppose you feel similarly about violent video games. Apple can do whatever, it's their walled garden, but I'm going to criticize them for reducing freedom no matter how much profit it brings them.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Not quite, again your fucked up fantasy isn't reality. The decision by Apple is about reducing company liability, Microsoft is doing the opposite in hopes of gaining from idiots like you.

    19. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm completely failing to see what using a different glyph for a Unicode code point has to do with reducing freedom. The Second Amendment doesn't cover the right to use more dangerous-looking emoji, and the First doesn't include a right to have your writings reproduced exactly as you like them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      are you pushing to ban violent words and words for weapons too?

      You SJW types are not part of the normal human race, a life of leisure in front of a keyboard and screen has detached you from the realm of normal humans.

    21. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by lgw · · Score: 1

      You can't imagine ways to threaten people with gun emojis?

      Quite the reverse - if you already have eleventy ways to threaten someone, maybe let's not get so worked up over way eleventy-one.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You have not a shred of proof that "threats in common usage" lead to violence on the internet. Logic fails you, you do not have the common sense of a normal human. Nor was Apple's decision in any way related to " careless misuse of encapsulated messages with legal implications", you made that up.

    23. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Look into corporate decision making you god damn idiot. Legal is the dominant party for large organizations, and the justification here is obvious to people who aren't fucking idiots.

    24. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      That's about the exact opposite of reality, and I think you need to step outside and move the fuck on you litltle bitch.

    25. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I'm not worked up. I'm just ok with the decision not to implement gun emojis. Seems like a good choice given the way people sometimes communicate on the Internet and given the way the authorities sometimes overreact.

    26. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      An emojii is literally a cartoon depiction. The world has much bigger problems. For example, real violence.

      Left-wing cultural Marxism is increasingly conflating verbal insults (or "abuse") with physical violence (or "actual abuse"), and pushing for laws to reflect it. Hurting people's feelz is just as bad as hurting people's bodies. It's time everyone with an iota of sense came out strongly - and loudly - against it.

    27. Re:How the hell are gun emojis tied to violence? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Wrong, it is just an SJW type action with no real world benefit or reason. Other corporations are fine with the handgun.

      Handguns are useful tools, there is no reason to alter an emoji of a useful tool

  12. Re:How about common sense? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourselves, when I get a text from my G's and I bring a water pistol to a gun fight, I'm going to briefly be pretty damn mad.

  13. I side with Microsoft by randomErr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Emoji's are meant to be a quick and simple way to express what is going on in our lives. Guns are real part of our lives. They can be used for cruelty or entertainment. If we keep censoring every little thing because someone might be offended we'll devolve in and Orwellian society.

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    1. Re:I side with Microsoft by harrkev · · Score: 1

      we'll devolve in and Orwellian society.

      Funny. You speak like this has not already happened.

      We have seen cases of people in private businesses being forced out not because of how well the run the company, but because of their private political view.

      We have seen schools censor the "wrong kind" of political speech. This extends not only to students, but also to professors.

      Thoughtcrime is a real crime these days. You have to fit in with the majority or you are ostracized.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:I side with Microsoft by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Your implication is that de-evolution into an Orwellian world isn't the goal. I believe you'll find that is not the case.

    3. Re:I side with Microsoft by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I've been arguing this for over two decades. The problem with modern political correctness is that it judges based on whether someone was offended. That's an impossible standard because anything you do or say, there is probably at least one person out there who will be offended by it.

      The only standard that works is whether the person making the statement or doing an act intended it to offend. Unfortunately, this is hard to prove since you can't see what's going on in a person's head, and (if we ban acts of hate) it's in the person's self-interest to deny his true motivation. So the intellectually lazy take the logically flawed approach of basing the standard on whether or not anyone was offended.

      All that does is create a standard where everyone is guilty all the time. And the people in power (government, the press, etc.) get to pick and choose which persons they want to punish for violating this standard. And it's not free from corruption via self-interest either. People who weren't really offended can claim they were just to silence someone they disagree with.

    4. Re:I side with Microsoft by SuseLover · · Score: 1

      Emoji's are meant to be a quick and simple way to express what is going on in our lives. Guns are real part of our lives. They can be used for cruelty or entertainment. If we keep censoring every little thing because someone might be offended we'll devolve in and Orwellian society.

      Guns are also used to sustain life (self defence, hunting - feed one self & family), sports (exercise and improve hand-eye coordination, and provide safe non-violent competition), and war (something that's been part of earth history since the beginning of time and not likely to ever go away (even animals fight over territory, food, and other resources - a form of war, some even have built in weapons such as bees, jellyfish, stingrays, etc.

      The fact that some humans kill each other with them is secondary to firearms existence.

  14. Gun Emoji's don't kill people by Eosi · · Score: 1

    Water Pistol emoji's with poison do...... damn you Apple and your poisonous ways.....

  15. Re:Important news, lads, important news by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

    By the way, is it late to deprecate the pistol emoji and introduce the sports riffle instead? You know, if we are to have just one weapon emoji, at least let it be the sports one.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  16. Standards and Definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unicode defines the glyph (U+1F52B in the "Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs" block) as "pistol" with the keywords "gun, handgun, pistol, revolver, tool, weapon." This is unambiguously not a symbol for a toy. Apple is in the wrong here for not adhering to standards, but being wrong and not adhering to standards has never stopped them before, so this shouldn't really be a surprise.

  17. sapir whorf by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    I'm sorry, removing the revolver emoji interferes with my right to worship as I see fit.

    The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life, and poisons the earth with a plague of men, as once it was.
    But the gun shoots death, and purifies the earth of the filth of brutals.
    Go forth and kill!

    May the blessings of Zardoz be upon you.


    As noted by other japes above, we also need a penis emoji. And a big flying stone head one. U+1F5FF doesn't cut it.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:sapir whorf by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      May I introduce you to the Murdercube?

      http://kweapons.wikia.com/wiki/Glorious_Murder_Cube

      War is the way of Man. Man is the means of War. You allow us War. Our worship is our readiness.

      It is proper to adhere to our nature, Aggression is natural, We are meant to be aggressive.

      Through war we are purified, Through slaughter we are enlightened, I cast thee, Nex Alea, May fortune find strength in me, So that my weaknesses be absolved.

      Saluto Nex Alea.

  18. How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Until we get the .50 machine gun emoji?

  19. Re:Start with the dictionaries by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 1

    If I write a long treatise about shooting the fools of the world as a great cleansing to restore intelligence, then that carries much more weight and significance than a smiley face and a pistol, but teenagers or other incapacitated idiots using it in casual conversation increase the incidence of violent responses.

  20. Why are emojis so important? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I still can't figure out why they are so important. I have never used one myself. I don't see how they add any value to a conversation. Why are people so upset over what is - or is not - added to the collection?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Why are emojis so important? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      I still can't figure out why they are so important. I have never used one myself. I don't see how they add any value to a conversation.

      They can be useful when people who don't speak a common language too well still communicate. I had to explain aubergine to someone who knew it as eggplant, so I put the emoticon in the text. (And received "eeewwww, Barney's penis?" back, but that's beside the point)

    2. Re:Why are emojis so important? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      They are sort of a hassle to use as well.

      Sometimes I will get an emoji "suggestion" after I type a word... what use is that? So that I can say the same word twice? By the time I type the word, I don't need the shortcut of the emoji any more.

      Also, to sort through the list of available emojis is just dumb. I can type what I want to say much faster.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:Why are emojis so important? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I still can't figure out why they are so important. I have never used one myself. I don't see how they add any value to a conversation.

      They can be useful when people who don't speak a common language too well still communicate.

      I could see that being useful, but how did you get that person's phone number if you don't speak their language? What were you hoping to talk about on the phone?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    4. Re:Why are emojis so important? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I could see that being useful, but how did you get that person's phone number if you don't speak their language? What were you hoping to talk about on the phone?

      Phone number? Most Instant Messaging doesn't need a phone number...
      You don't have any friends around the globe that you chat with? I thought that was standard for quite a few years now.

  21. Re:How about common sense? by arth1 · · Score: 1

    So does saying "let's go to the mall and have some fun - bring your gun" or "let's go shoot people" or simply "I'm going to kill you".

    How do you suppose we solve that "problem"?

    Word substitution, of course! Doh!
    Which is why we get gems like "buttbuttination" and "slippery Asian".

    We can certainly do s/gun/waterpistol/g too - what could possibly go wrong?

  22. It's time for the NRA to create some emojis by DrXym · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Maybe an NRA logo, and a happy guy holding his AR-15, and a woman with her concealed carry Ruger LC-9, and a kid with a deer in his sights and a purse snatcher laying dead in a pool of blood. Let's define a shitload of gun themed emojis and submit them to Unicode. If Apple / Microsoft / Google can do it, then why not anyone else. Let's not stop at the NRA either. I'm sure Black Lives Matter, Coca Cola, the Church of Scientology, and NAMBLA all have some great ideas for emojis.

    Perhaps at some point Unicode might realise the fucking lunacy allowing emojis into their system in the first place.

    1. Re:It's time for the NRA to create some emojis by lgw · · Score: 1

      Any anyway, where's Klingon?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:It's time for the NRA to create some emojis by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      I am frankly surprised the world has gone on so long without a goat.csx emoji.

    3. Re:It's time for the NRA to create some emojis by DrXym · · Score: 1
      I'm just pointing out there are an infinite number of pictures, many that prominent groups, companies etc. might legitimately want to be emojis but it's just nuts to try and maintain and catalogue them. Even if you just describe what the picture looks like, it's still an infinite number. And as we can see here, they can't even decide on what a generic gun is meant to look like. One implementor panders to political correctness and renders it as a water pistol while another a gun. I can imagine the fun in court when someone texts "you're going to get your ass kicked [picture of a water pistol]" and the recipient sees a gun.

      Besides which emojis are so ephemeral that they'll be here and gone in a short span of time. Yet every piece of software, font rasterizer and phone OS will have to recognize and convert this bullshit from this day on.

  23. Hieroglyphics by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Why don't we just give up on writing and go back to hieroglyphics.

    1. Re:Hieroglyphics by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. I am sure we will get there as soon as we have direct brain-to-brain communications. Words are just so damned inefficient.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  24. When Are We Getting the AK-47 Emoji by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    For when you are feeling really anti-social!

    In a standards-based world shouldn't we have an icon for the most numerous gun-type on the planet?

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  25. Re:Emojipedia has a bad idea the author agrees wit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a form of censoring communication between users via deception. That falls under the shadowbanning category and not just straight up censorship so I stand behind my statement with a one finger salute to any and all SJWs who feel it is a "good" idea.

  26. This is what ruins emoji by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    You find a nice Emoji you want to send only to come to realize person receiving is likely to see something completely different than what you intended assuming it will even render properly on the target device at all.

    They change between operating systems and even within versions of the same operating system. What looked awesome or conveyed an idea on earlier versions of Android looks like shit in later versions of Android. What looked awesome on Android looks like shit or barely even legible on iPhone or WP receiving it.

    Emoji smileys all look like bloated gummy turds as is. Between PC BS and constant reskinning to go with "design language" of the day I don't see any hope or future in Emoji. Given the current trajectory there will be some embedded reference that takes over from Unicode and with it an end to death by committee.

    1. Re:This is what ruins emoji by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      I got a sad looking one from a lady friend. She sent me a screenshot of a surprised one. Completely bonkers honestly. What's the point in having some standard if it changes so frequently between phones and operating systems?

    2. Re:This is what ruins emoji by istartedi · · Score: 1

      So emoji, which arguably ought to be pixel-perfect, are being subject to local interpretation. HTML, which was originally conceived of as being subject to local interpretation, was pressed into pixel perfection by the web design community.

      The solution? Web over emoji, and emoji over HTML. Get cracking, coders.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  27. Tim Cook says by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    No guns allowed in your cell blo er I mean walled garden.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  28. Hear that? by jargonburn · · Score: 1

    That is the sound of Apple taking away your guns! If Apple deprecates that emoji, lawful users of iOS will no longer be able to defend themselves against Android users that are still permitted the use of guns!
    *snicker*

  29. Don't use emoji if meaning is important by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    All the emoji have this problem. My wife and I were comparing the emoticons as they appear in different messaging apps on our phones. There are subtle differences in emoji art that made us interpret the messages differently. Is that emoji confused or frustrated? There's another grin with teeth showing that could mean "Super happy and proud" but a slight artistic change makes it look shiftier, meaning "whoops..ehhh...ummm... I did it anyway. Oh well!"

    In the immortal words of the comic book guy: "There is no emoticon to express what I am feeling!"

    1. Re:Don't use emoji if meaning is important by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Garr'dock!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  30. Still no emoji/unicode on Slashdot by jdavidb · · Score: 2

    And yet I still can't post Emoji here because Slashdot doesn't support Unicode, even after SoylentNews led the way showing how to do so for the same software over a year ago.

    If I post a pistol emoji, it looks like this: ðY"

    Emoji may not be something most of us like, but they make a great test for seeing if a site supports unicode or not.

  31. Or just respect peoples' intelligence... by Lendrick · · Score: 1

    ...and let them choose their own damn emojis.

  32. The game is control by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Bread and Circuses work pretty well, but you have also have to keep the service angry with each other or they turn on you. This is well known strategy dating back as far as we know. Plato and Aristotle hinted at it a bit, but "The Prince" laid it out in plain view. The politics of graphics is simply a narrative to keep the peons busy.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  33. Dueling slogans by maiden_taiwan · · Score: 2

    Apple: Aim Different.

    Microsoft: Who Do You Want to Shoot Today?

  34. Re:Spoken language and emoji/icons by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Can you point to examples of them actually being used to communicate useful ideas, other than just being ways to punctuate other test in strange ways? What about medium ideas, like "I'll meet you at the lawyer's office at 3:30"? Or complex ideas, like "the relative speed of the object combined with gravitational constant and the radius of the earth indicates it will miss the batter's box resulting in a 0.002 reduction his batting average, thus forfeiting the chance for inclusion All Stars game."

    What is the communication capability of emoji in comparison with Lojban for example?

    Well, I know what "eggplant+peach+thumbsup" means but no one's ever had difficulty communicating that concept even before we invented language.

  35. Re:Start with the dictionaries by Speck'sBacon · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming (always dangerous to do) you were being facetious, but this idea isn't new. The problem is violence predates language. The idea will never be foreign because all manners of organisms use violence to compete and survive, even should they not have a language per se.

  36. Re:Start with the dictionaries by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Nice try, but you're ignoring the reality of this entire situation. Your post is irrelevant, because language and culture have nothing to do with this decision. It isn't a state action, it is one by a voluntary private firm concerned about its future liability in civil and criminal courts.

  37. Re:2nd amendment by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Apple is a private company so none of that applies. You are a bad troll.

  38. Re:Start with the dictionaries by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    We're gonna need a bigger .. safe space.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  39. Re:How about common sense? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Removing the emoji reduces the non-thinking use of the emoji as a threat, which is legally defined in various ways and includes electronic messages.

  40. Re:Start with the dictionaries by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    How about you grow the fuck up? Spend some time in the real world.

  41. wow, that's just... awful. disregard. by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Polonium isn't soluble in water, you'll need an acid for that. Might as well go with a strong one.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  42. They're just being honest ... by pmikell · · Score: 1

    ... about what you're aiming at your foot when you install Windoze 10.

  43. Where's my safe Space? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    "violent emoji" = oxymoron.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  44. emoji THIS, Apple! by baristabrian · · Score: 1

    I hope all you insufferable libtards feel the love; I come to Slashdot not for echo chamber reassurance, but to be challenged in a way that Breitbart can't. Yes, I think some of you are ridiculously SJW-like, but the majority of you LEFT-leaning (as opposed to RIGHT-leaning) intellectuals *are* (in fact) the sort of people I enjoy discourse with. Debate and argumentation is at its best when people are actually FREE to debate and argue. Like being able to burn an Amerikan flag. Or submerge a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or produce a typical Michael Moore flick. And, this bullshit about a goddamned cartoon? What I'd like to see is an emoji of that pedophile ... somewhat well known ... what's his name? MUHAMMAD!

    --
    -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
  45. Re:Start with the dictionaries by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    How precious.
    How about you stop trolling like a whiny loser. You're what's wrong with slashdot anymore. I see nearly all your comments are hateful angry ad-hominems at users who don't have the grand wisdom you believe yourself to possess, and you lash out at everyone. Oh, and "Foe" me all you want, your emotional quotient is less than a toddler's. It's almost entertaining; with your lousy signal to noise ratio, you certainly dull any point you attempt to make.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.