It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it would be much harder for them to injure each other without weapons.
I do not believe in the "guns do not promote injury, therefore they can be safely allowed" argumentation. Gun-ownership should (as should ownership of anything) be a question of freedom, not a question of damage minimization. (Because the regulators will always win the latter. More regulation will always give less injuries. And if it doesn't, it was because the regulations weren't oppressive and invasive enough.)
Someone who applies for a low-level job at NSA probably actually believes in what they do there. Then it comes naturally that they accept to be surveilled. They know it's for their own protection, and the state's.
The Windows 7 interface is worse and infinitely more annoying to use
It is essentially the same interface windows has had since 1995. If you get confused going from xp -> 7, then you must get confused going from Fords to Toyotas.
He didn't say "confusing", he said "annoying". Those are not synonyms.
Good for you. I have used 7 for a year or so and I still have daily episodes of "But how can you design a UI so STUPIDLY?!" XP wasn't perfect, but it didn't intrude on my user experience nearly as much, because you could turn off all of the annoyances, and it didn't insist on taking up screen real estate with useless ribbons and buttons that can't be removed, and most importantly, it isn't so shiny and low-contrast as 7. I am slightly colorblind, and I can't easily discern in Areo which button on the taskbar is selected and which is just shiny.
Thank god for people who make XP Luna themes for 7.
Now I am thinking what if an ad-blocker would download the ads - so that the websites can sell all eyeballs to their advertisers - but then silently threw them away instead of showing them to the user, who is not interested anyway?
I am continually surprised that it is still legal to block ads, and that there is no visible movement to make blocking illegal. Not even any pervasive "The websites must be able to make money on what they do!", "Blocking ads is like stealing from the websites!" or "You wouldn't watch a movie/TV-show without watching the commercials" campaigns.
Google and their customers must not have as good lobbyists as Hollywood.
It seems that along with running an open WIFI, running a Tor exit node could be an additional defense if you are caught breaking the law.
Worse; if there is no other evidence it should mean automatic dismissal. The government should always have to prove that the suspect actually did the crime before exacting punishment. Just saying that they can't identify the perpetrator but this guy was in the vicinity and looks suspicious, let's convict him, should not be enough.
And commentators should be required to back up their opinions with links, instead of vague notions that others should "read up". So what are these full facts that changed your mind?
So if there is copyright infringement going on the US readily twists other countries arms so they shut down the sites and extradite the owners, but if there is child pornography going on there is wringiing of hand and "so sorry, nothing we can do, must have cooperation of the locals, incidentally we have this censorship thingy so that we can hinder our own citizens from seeing what we don't want them to"?
It's almost as if fighting CP wasn't the real priority here...
As I understand it, women cannot *really* consensually agree to sell their bodies for sex (those who say they do are deluded), and therefore they must be forbidden to for their own good.
Yes? Notice how you do not see him arguing for a law that ABC should be forced to televise him? Libertarianism is about not forcing people to do things. Critizing how things are done, however, is perfectly cromulent with being a libertarian.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not his postings that embarrass his manager. It is not fixing the problems that does that.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it would be much harder for them to injure each other without weapons.
I do not believe in the "guns do not promote injury, therefore they can be safely allowed" argumentation. Gun-ownership should (as should ownership of anything) be a question of freedom, not a question of damage minimization. (Because the regulators will always win the latter. More regulation will always give less injuries. And if it doesn't, it was because the regulations weren't oppressive and invasive enough.)
The difference is that few people have a reason to buy a ton of both bleach and ammonia, so it would raise suspicions.
Uhu. So how much bleach and ammonia do you need to make a bomb?
Using 3rd party themes require you to install modified system files first: http://www.askvg.com/how-to-install-use-custom-3rd-party-themes-in-windows-xp-vista-and-7/. And a quick search seems to indicate that this is necessary in 8 as well.
I think that's more like "they didn't go far out of their way to stop you from..." rather than "made it so that...".
Someone who applies for a low-level job at NSA probably actually believes in what they do there. Then it comes naturally that they accept to be surveilled. They know it's for their own protection, and the state's.
The Windows 7 interface is worse and infinitely more annoying to use
It is essentially the same interface windows has had since 1995. If you get confused going from xp -> 7, then you must get confused going from Fords to Toyotas.
He didn't say "confusing", he said "annoying". Those are not synonyms.
Good for you. I have used 7 for a year or so and I still have daily episodes of "But how can you design a UI so STUPIDLY?!" XP wasn't perfect, but it didn't intrude on my user experience nearly as much, because you could turn off all of the annoyances, and it didn't insist on taking up screen real estate with useless ribbons and buttons that can't be removed, and most importantly, it isn't so shiny and low-contrast as 7. I am slightly colorblind, and I can't easily discern in Areo which button on the taskbar is selected and which is just shiny.
Thank god for people who make XP Luna themes for 7.
Now I am thinking what if an ad-blocker would download the ads - so that the websites can sell all eyeballs to their advertisers - but then silently threw them away instead of showing them to the user, who is not interested anyway?
I am continually surprised that it is still legal to block ads, and that there is no visible movement to make blocking illegal. Not even any pervasive "The websites must be able to make money on what they do!", "Blocking ads is like stealing from the websites!" or "You wouldn't watch a movie/TV-show without watching the commercials" campaigns.
Google and their customers must not have as good lobbyists as Hollywood.
Fans could not be sure that the movie that they were going to see was the "official" Superman
The... The horror!
So, it's dissociated press but with a vocabulary of game rules as the seed? How groundbreaking.
You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results!
Punch someone in the face for scoring in the opposite goal? You must live in quite a rougher neighbourhood than me.
Meanwhile, at the Google Translate division...
It seems that along with running an open WIFI, running a Tor exit node could be an additional defense if you are caught breaking the law.
Worse; if there is no other evidence it should mean automatic dismissal. The government should always have to prove that the suspect actually did the crime before exacting punishment. Just saying that they can't identify the perpetrator but this guy was in the vicinity and looks suspicious, let's convict him, should not be enough.
Are they going to give away the OS for free to phone makers?
Well, obviously, if it's open source.
And commentators should be required to back up their opinions with links, instead of vague notions that others should "read up". So what are these full facts that changed your mind?
I agree. It is a gross over-simplification to make this type of technical decisions solely based on ideology.
What do you think "ideology" means? Your statement is like saying "one should not make decisions based on one's values".
So if there is copyright infringement going on the US readily twists other countries arms so they shut down the sites and extradite the owners, but if there is child pornography going on there is wringiing of hand and "so sorry, nothing we can do, must have cooperation of the locals, incidentally we have this censorship thingy so that we can hinder our own citizens from seeing what we don't want them to"?
It's almost as if fighting CP wasn't the real priority here...
This could be a problem for us, the consumers, if the content creators have to ... do less research, and/or provide less depth
If we are talking about mainstream media, I doubt that is possible. So we are safe.
Except if it is for porn. Then it's OK.
As I understand it, women cannot *really* consensually agree to sell their bodies for sex (those who say they do are deluded), and therefore they must be forbidden to for their own good.
Yes? Notice how you do not see him arguing for a law that ABC should be forced to televise him? Libertarianism is about not forcing people to do things. Critizing how things are done, however, is perfectly cromulent with being a libertarian.
So what do you do now?
Then the road you're travelling on will notify the police that someone is committing drivecrime on it.