The recent act might, or might not, remove habeus from citizens or not. I've heard people say that it removes it from anyone who's classified a certain way by the administrtion, and that there's nothing in there stopping citizens from being classified that way. I've heard others argue that that's insane and the courts would never interpet it that way.
Well...I want to know how the fuck the courts are supposed to rule on it. In fact, I'd like to know how they were supposed to rule on the fact you were a citizen now.
We should NEVER, under ANY circumstances, make it legal to hold ANYONE, or any class of people, without access to the courts, because the second that happens we can merely assert that person X is in that category, and hold them, even if they clearly aren't, and they can't dispute it. Full stop.
It doesn't matter if they can only hold non-citizens without access to a court if citizens can't get to court to demonstrate they are, in fact, citizens. Anyone who doesn't understand that simple logic is a complete fucking moron, period.
Yup, Clinton gave him plutonium in return for nuclear power and the restriction he couldn't build bombs. This plutonium was sealed up awaiting the construction of the nuclear power plant.
Bush decides he's not building the plant, and, rather inexpliciably, doesn't take back the plutonium. Or, um, do anything when NK drives trucks up the sealed place and take the plutonium, or anything for the next three years while they build a bomb.
Let's make an analogy out of this:
A car thief guy gets paroled from prison with the promise of a job and quite a lot of restrictions on his behavior, for example he can't hang out with his old criminal friends. His parole officer doesn't bother hooking him up with the job-finding place, doesn't watch him, doesn't make him check in, and doesn't bat an eye when he gets a job back at the old chop shop he was arrested at.
Yeah, blame the court that paroled it. I'm sure it's their fault, and not, say, the parole officer, who had an obligation to watch the guy. Or, hell, in this case Bush had an option he didn't have...just withdraw parole.
Because people have pointed out this weakness for years.
I love how people sit and scream and point out how 99% of airline security is theatre, and everyone completely fucking ignores them, and then one person describes or provides a way to demonstrate that to yourself, we instally have idiots going 'They should have told someone in charge instead of telling everyone'.
Um, while I'm with you about jury nullification, the law clearly addresses people with counterfeiting plates and a press, not people who have stuff that can be randomly used for it, like inkjet printers or a press without any plates.
While there are quite a lot of laws out of control, the counterfeiting laws are not. And they aren't victimless. Watering the money supply has caused civilizations to collapse, and, more directly, counterfeiting is fraud.
Now, you can argue that printing counterfeit money is fine, and that merely passing it should be illegal, but that, frankly, is idiotic. There is no reason to print money except with the intent to pass it off as real.
It's thinks like counting as 'family' for hospital visits, and medical decisions, and adopting children, and dividing property in case of a split, and all sorts of shit like that.
Personally, I think human beings have the right to add (and, if they wish, remove) anyone they want to their family. They shouldn't even have to come up with a reason or it be any sort of 'named' relationship. If you and some random guy are stranded on a desert island for five years, and you get off, and trust each other implicitly, I don't see why you can't call each other 'family', and have that legally true. Or if you honestly wish to remove a parent from your life, I don't see why you can't and have them unable to make medical decisions for you. (Assuming you're an adult, that is. And, no, I'm not talking about emancipation.)
Instead we have 'marriage', which carries all sort of baggage with it and people who are not planning on a sexual relationship don't even consider (Except that historical oddity, 'Boston Marriages'.), and which morons are fighting to keep people of the same gender from doing even when they are in a sexual relationship, and 'adoption', which only makes sense for a parent/child relationship.
There's no way to get a 'blood brother' or anything and have them recogized under the law as actually being part of your family.
The nice thing about gold and silver is that, while the price may go up and down based on new findings...we've been looking for them for several thousand years, so we've found most of the easy-to-find deposits.
They should care it wasn't pulled out of the earth.
At gunpoint.
From a mine where a war was waged to retain control of it.
And polished by child slave labor in India.
You shouldn't marry fucking retards who think a 'real diamond' is better. 'Real diamonds' and the DeBeer's cartel have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths over what, in reality, are just rocks.
Carefully explain that you can pay X, and have a completely flawless rock, or you can pay X*5 and have a slightly flawed rock with the blood mostly washed off of it.
Can we check for the mark and if we find it, not buy the thing?
It amazes me that people used to complain about fucking Nikes and not about DeBeers. Think what you want about sweatshots, at least Nike wasn't waging a fucking war and killing people, and it's not a gigantic cartel that's been manipulating the market for 100 years.
An informed boycott would ruin DeBeers, because people wouldn't come back, no matter what they did. But, no, let's go after Nike, the wife-beater, instead of DeBeers, the serial killer.
This whole discussion started because you said:
"I'm shocked that/. would select this report of YouTube censorship instead of another article from a more reputable news source"
No I didn't.
You've just proved you didn't even bother to read the article, yet slammed it because of the source.
No I didn't. I read the article. It had issues with factual accuracy, and hence I ignored it and its source.
In follow on articles, NYTimes confirms what the original article was saying: The video was censored by people that didn't like what was being said, which was my point earlier saying: "This is *exactly* what people are complaining about. Free Speech is ALL speech, not just those you agree with."
And if the article here had been about random people flagging things on YouTube, I would have agreed.
However, please direct your attention to the title of this page, and to the title of the linked story, which is 'YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration'.
And there were no links to 'followon articles', at least not from actual news sources. There was a quote from the NYTs, but I don't take random quotes that could be from anywhere in any context, like the editorial page, or even just made up.
Rereading the article, it's even more crappy than I remember. They quote their own discussion forums. That's not news. It's not a good news source. It's about three paragraphs of actual story, and ten pagagraphs of random quotes and unsourced accusations.
I know, in your universe, a news source is exactly as good as it is pro-Republican, but in my universe, I would have much prefered a link to, say, the NY Times story, and it is perfectly valid to complain about that. WND are free to post whatever they want, but Slashdot is supposed to be posting links to news, not random gibberish.
When a telemarketer calls, you have a choice to make.
You can take the easy way out, and just hang up on them. And you probably don't give to charity either.
Or, if you have some free time, you can donate to charity by completely and utterly waste their time so they don't get around to bother other people, and you can make the call a living hell, driving up wages and making the entire industry unprofitable. (It's too hard to try to do both of those at once.)
Charitable people of the world, unite. Stay off the Do Not Call List. That's like putting a fake burglary alarm sticker in your window so you won't get robbed. It's much better to stop these people than to redirect them to other people. Put as many vulnerable people as possible on the DNC, and have as many people willing to fight them stay off the list to protect the people they're preying on who didn't make it.
You can even do things to volunteer yourself. Years ago, I made up a fake address in response to a mortgage spam. I still get calls from morons who purchase those leads. I jerk them around for weeks.
(Mortgage spam, in case anyone thinks I'm being too harsh on poor innocent mortgage companies who possibly bought the leaders from a spammer without knowing...well, mortgage spam is one of the few kinds of spam that has always been illegal in every state, due to preditory leading laws that control advertising of mortgages. They are required by law to keep track of every single ad. Banks know damn well the laws about advertising mortgages, and getting leads from someone without finding out what and how they ran ads is not believable, or, in fact, legal.)
So, basically, you're saying the Oreo throwing didn't happen. But, um, they, or other people who probably have something to do with them have done other really bad things, so that makes it okay for the Republican governor to lie.
I urge people to read the Daily Kos link provided therein. Steele says he saw one Oreo roll to his feet, Schurick says they were 'thick in the air like locusts'. But, hey, read the stories as they appear here. It's interesting as the incident got worse and worse over two weeks.
In short, it looks like some idiot passed out Oreos outside. And...well...that's actually the whole story. Apparently it wasn't enough for the Republicans, so they made up people viciously hurling cookies at the stage.
Now, here's the sixty-four thousand dollar questions: Which is worse behavior: Some unnamed and misguided possibly-Democratic activist calling a black Republican an 'Oreo' with visual aid, or Republican governor lying about the incident to make it seem a lot worse than it was. I don't know about you, but in every crowd there's an idiot or two, but I expect elected officials not to lie. (Granted, he wasn't elected at the time.)
But this is pretty much general Republican behavior. Find the looniest and most offensive person on the left they can, exaggerate their behavior, and ascribe it to the entire party as a general position. (Why they have to exaggerate the behavior I don't know. Maybe people have figure out that crazy paint-throwing-on-fur people aren't really representive of the party, so they have to pick more sane people.)
Meanwhile, Republicans distance themselves as much as possible from what are basically mouthpiece of their party, so when they say offensive things like 'We should invade their countries and convert them to Christianity', well, obviously that's not the official position of the Republican party.
But, hey, I hereby officially apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party for the offensive Oreo reference made by some random person you've assumed is a Democrat. (Hey, if some random person's behavior is attributable to the Democratic party, mine is too, and thus I can apologize for them.)
Now, you apologize for my asshole neighbor, who has made quite a few offensive comments about Hispanic citizens lately, going so far as to suggest we should arrest Hispanic citizens who were born here and lived here all their life and send them 'back' to Mexico. He's a Republican, so, you know, you're responsible for his opinion, apparently.
Until you apologize for him, shut the fuck up about what some random 'Democrats' do.
I'll tell you, I just don't want to make this obvious for the MPAA.;)
They're alt.binaries.nl and binsearch.info. I have the later in Firefox as a bookmarky thing, where I can just type 'usenet whatever' in the URL line and search on it.
As for downloading, I use NZB-O-Matic Plus, although I'm not entirely happy with its habit of not downloading the first file in the list.
There are at least two entirely seperate good search websites that provide.nzb files for free that let you search across most of Usenet. And there are clients that don't bother with the whole 'downloading headers' and are just designed to take said.nzbs and download them.
I'm amazed at anyone who thinks it's easier to find things as a.torrent than on Usenet. It's much much faster for me to search Usenet than the three or four torrent sites, and the download is a lot faster too.
That's not to say bittorrent doesn't have its good points. For example, rss feeds of weekly or daily stuff.
Except that if you need special software to use the key, it won't work in a DVD format anyway, and hence you can compress the movie with, say, XviD and make it 1 gig or so.
Do we honestly think this insanity is going to be cheaper than a 1 gig flash drive? Or, more to the point, cheaper than a 1 gig flash card would be when this finally came to the market?
If I were them, I'd sell a special USB decoder, that did the decoding inside it when 'unlocked', and make it pull movies off encrypted SD cards. Or a USB decoder that the data from the DVD went into and back out.
Erm, not that I'd do any of this at all, but if I were, I would use hardware decryption, instead of this inane scheme where the key obviously has to be pulled inside the computer and the decoding done there. At least with hardware decoding you make people use special tools, instead of just decompiling your software.
What I want is a term to distinguish the three inch diameter circular saws on the end of a handle , which are usually battery powered, from the six inch diameter circular saws that have a handle above them, that usually plug in. I call the smaller ones a 'little circular saw', but I bet there's a better name.
And, yah, I call the unshielded-blade jigsaw that you operated sorta like a tiny chainsaw a 'sawzall' too, although I suspect that's a brand name.
I am wrong in what sense, exactly? What is the exact thing I am wrong about?
I pointed out that, due the obvious factual inaccuracies in the article linked, that the news source linked was not a very good one, because it was apparently operating solely to stir people up with no regard to the facts at all. That's all I asserted.
I have no idea if YouTube is censoring anything. If it is, a factual article claiming that, such as the one you provided, might have provided an interesting discussion. Although your article is amazing short on the ability to find out what anyone's talking about, perfering instead to randomly print claims of 'victims', at least it's not apparently lying.
OTOH, at least one part of the article you linked to is complete gibberish, namely, the claim by a 'Professor Rutenbeck' that Usenet communities started dying because people started censoring things, which doesn't make any sense, because Usenet doesn't work that way. Newsgroups either start off moderated, or unmoderated, and they can't change, and very few of them are moderated in the first place. And as the moderation is done by one person, it's hard to see why that person would suddenly start bowing to pressure.
Discussion Usenet died because of spammers and web forums, not because of 'over-sensitivity'. I know, I've watched the decline and fall of Usenet, and I have never once heard the suggestion it fell because people cared too much about what others thought, although I have heard the exact opposite suggested, that the inherit ability to disguise yourself and even post as other people presented Usenet a disadvantage over web boards. On web boards, you have an 'identity', even if it's not linked with your RL identity, on Usenet, it's just whatever you typed in your Usenet client.
That's not to say Usenet won't treat people harsely if someone comes in with a stupid idea, sometimes even too harshly, and that hurts some communities...but that's not being too sensitive. It is, in fact, the opposite.
You know, it's always funny when the left is accused of 'cultural relativism' and not knowing 'right from wrong'.
Apparently, you don't know the difference between 'true and false' or 'facts and opinions'. Even the most 'cultural relativism' grasps those things.
Here's a hint: The reason why the video got a 'You must be over 18' page is a fact. Someone clicked on the 'Report the video' link, and it was marked until YouTube could get to it. Any other reasons for the video being blocked are, wait for it, incorrect.
There are plenty of opinions involved in the story, but that is not one of them.
By misreporting that fact, the article is objectively wrong. That, in and of itself, does not make it not news, all news sources are sometimes incorrect. But the fact they got something wrong that it would be trivial to check and, frankly, anyone who knows how YouTube works could explain, makes them a very very bad source for 'news', because it appears they printed a wild rumor just to get their viewers riled up.
By going with other sources that actually check their facts instead of just leaping to conclusions, we might actually have news instead of opinion and wild nonfactual claims.
Of course, slashdot isn't that good at finding actual news, and often prints links to crappy sources, so it's not a surprise or anything. And we always have fools who think the fact they want the article to be correct is a good reason to argue that it is correct, and even if it's not, it's correct in some metaphorical sense or other examples of the same thing are correct or anything to avoid having to say 'Yeah, this isn't true, and it shouldn't be here'.
It just normally doesn't happen with regard to politics.
Yeah, it's obviously some sort of insidious groupthink going on here.
Or, and I know this is a crazy idea, but as the actual level of people who honestly believe in libertarian ideas is about 1% of the population, maybe it's just slashdot reflecting reality?
The conservative vs. liberals, yes, that's tilted in favor of liberal here, as it is on most of the internet, or at least in the discussion areas of the internet. (Barring, of course, forums specifically set up for conservative viewpoints.) The libertarian vs. everyone else bias, however, is almost perfectly represented.
And, FYI, it's called 'liberal' not because of any recent doubletalk, but because that's what it was called during the Renaissance and the enlightenment. The current sterotype of 'big spenders' is because they merged into the progressive movement during the New Deal, and, arguably, got rid of them in the 1960, whereupon they got fixated on what charges had been made, 'welfare' and 'social security', managed to link those to their civil liberties stuff, and stopped actually trying to find new solutions to problems like actual progressives.
Actual liberal philosophy is a lot different than what's been passed off as liberal for the past 50 years. (As is actual progressive philosophy.)
Of course, the same thing is going with 'conservatives'. Both parties have absolutely nonsensical platforms, because each of them is composed of at least three different philosophies they've sucked in at various times, some of them getting modernized and some of them not.), and on top of it, both of them don't even follow their platform.
And, of course, on top of that, we have Bush running amuck, and he's not even doing what the Republicans normally do, much less what they claim to do or what they should do to be 'conservative'.
That's why I can't read people like that anymore. I just automatically assume they're lying.
Sure, it started out simple. I'd check things they reported like 'Things getting better in Iraq', and go check the current situtation.
Then I started checking things like the actual names and position of people. 'Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, said...' and I'd have to go and check that he was still the prime minister, despite me having no doubt before reading the article.
And this point, if I were to read their site, I'd actually check whether or not it is possible to create 'videos', a series of moving images that appear to the human eye as movement.
Gve me another month, and I'll start questioning their assumption that time and space exist.
Slashdot Mirror
He can say they're incompetent anyway, that's an opinion and thus cannot be libel.
As for not rendering services paid for, if he paid by credit card he's got a pretty good record that he did pay, and thus I say go for it, name names.
I'm gave at least one other person gets it.
The recent act might, or might not, remove habeus from citizens or not. I've heard people say that it removes it from anyone who's classified a certain way by the administrtion, and that there's nothing in there stopping citizens from being classified that way. I've heard others argue that that's insane and the courts would never interpet it that way.
Well...I want to know how the fuck the courts are supposed to rule on it. In fact, I'd like to know how they were supposed to rule on the fact you were a citizen now.
We should NEVER, under ANY circumstances, make it legal to hold ANYONE, or any class of people, without access to the courts, because the second that happens we can merely assert that person X is in that category, and hold them, even if they clearly aren't, and they can't dispute it. Full stop.
It doesn't matter if they can only hold non-citizens without access to a court if citizens can't get to court to demonstrate they are, in fact, citizens. Anyone who doesn't understand that simple logic is a complete fucking moron, period.
Yup, Clinton gave him plutonium in return for nuclear power and the restriction he couldn't build bombs. This plutonium was sealed up awaiting the construction of the nuclear power plant.
Bush decides he's not building the plant, and, rather inexpliciably, doesn't take back the plutonium. Or, um, do anything when NK drives trucks up the sealed place and take the plutonium, or anything for the next three years while they build a bomb.
Let's make an analogy out of this:
A car thief guy gets paroled from prison with the promise of a job and quite a lot of restrictions on his behavior, for example he can't hang out with his old criminal friends. His parole officer doesn't bother hooking him up with the job-finding place, doesn't watch him, doesn't make him check in, and doesn't bat an eye when he gets a job back at the old chop shop he was arrested at.
Yeah, blame the court that paroled it. I'm sure it's their fault, and not, say, the parole officer, who had an obligation to watch the guy. Or, hell, in this case Bush had an option he didn't have...just withdraw parole.
But I guess he was having too much fun in Iraq.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Why?
Because people have pointed out this weakness for years.
I love how people sit and scream and point out how 99% of airline security is theatre, and everyone completely fucking ignores them, and then one person describes or provides a way to demonstrate that to yourself, we instally have idiots going 'They should have told someone in charge instead of telling everyone'.
Um, while I'm with you about jury nullification, the law clearly addresses people with counterfeiting plates and a press, not people who have stuff that can be randomly used for it, like inkjet printers or a press without any plates.
While there are quite a lot of laws out of control, the counterfeiting laws are not. And they aren't victimless. Watering the money supply has caused civilizations to collapse, and, more directly, counterfeiting is fraud.
Now, you can argue that printing counterfeit money is fine, and that merely passing it should be illegal, but that, frankly, is idiotic. There is no reason to print money except with the intent to pass it off as real.
It's not just benefits.
It's thinks like counting as 'family' for hospital visits, and medical decisions, and adopting children, and dividing property in case of a split, and all sorts of shit like that.
Personally, I think human beings have the right to add (and, if they wish, remove) anyone they want to their family. They shouldn't even have to come up with a reason or it be any sort of 'named' relationship. If you and some random guy are stranded on a desert island for five years, and you get off, and trust each other implicitly, I don't see why you can't call each other 'family', and have that legally true. Or if you honestly wish to remove a parent from your life, I don't see why you can't and have them unable to make medical decisions for you. (Assuming you're an adult, that is. And, no, I'm not talking about emancipation.)
Instead we have 'marriage', which carries all sort of baggage with it and people who are not planning on a sexual relationship don't even consider (Except that historical oddity, 'Boston Marriages'.), and which morons are fighting to keep people of the same gender from doing even when they are in a sexual relationship, and 'adoption', which only makes sense for a parent/child relationship.
There's no way to get a 'blood brother' or anything and have them recogized under the law as actually being part of your family.
No, it's too dangerous to have in people's houses. It shatters and gets all over the place, and the shards are very very sharp.
Diamonds go up in value however much DeBeers wants them to go up.
All diamonds are blood diamonds.
We only call them 'blood diamonds' if they're mined outside DeBeers' control.
The nice thing about gold and silver is that, while the price may go up and down based on new findings...we've been looking for them for several thousand years, so we've found most of the easy-to-find deposits.
They should care it wasn't pulled out of the earth.
At gunpoint.
From a mine where a war was waged to retain control of it.
And polished by child slave labor in India.
You shouldn't marry fucking retards who think a 'real diamond' is better. 'Real diamonds' and the DeBeer's cartel have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths over what, in reality, are just rocks.
Carefully explain that you can pay X, and have a completely flawless rock, or you can pay X*5 and have a slightly flawed rock with the blood mostly washed off of it.
No shit.
Can we check for the mark and if we find it, not buy the thing?
It amazes me that people used to complain about fucking Nikes and not about DeBeers. Think what you want about sweatshots, at least Nike wasn't waging a fucking war and killing people, and it's not a gigantic cartel that's been manipulating the market for 100 years.
An informed boycott would ruin DeBeers, because people wouldn't come back, no matter what they did. But, no, let's go after Nike, the wife-beater, instead of DeBeers, the serial killer.
This whole discussion started because you said: /. would select this report of YouTube censorship instead of another article from a more reputable news source"
"I'm shocked that
No I didn't.
You've just proved you didn't even bother to read the article, yet slammed it because of the source.
No I didn't. I read the article. It had issues with factual accuracy, and hence I ignored it and its source.
In follow on articles, NYTimes confirms what the original article was saying: The video was censored by people that didn't like what was being said, which was my point earlier saying: "This is *exactly* what people are complaining about. Free Speech is ALL speech, not just those you agree with."
And if the article here had been about random people flagging things on YouTube, I would have agreed. However, please direct your attention to the title of this page, and to the title of the linked story, which is 'YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration'.
And there were no links to 'followon articles', at least not from actual news sources. There was a quote from the NYTs, but I don't take random quotes that could be from anywhere in any context, like the editorial page, or even just made up.
Rereading the article, it's even more crappy than I remember. They quote their own discussion forums. That's not news. It's not a good news source. It's about three paragraphs of actual story, and ten pagagraphs of random quotes and unsourced accusations.
I know, in your universe, a news source is exactly as good as it is pro-Republican, but in my universe, I would have much prefered a link to, say, the NY Times story, and it is perfectly valid to complain about that. WND are free to post whatever they want, but Slashdot is supposed to be posting links to news, not random gibberish.
No shit.
When a telemarketer calls, you have a choice to make.
You can take the easy way out, and just hang up on them. And you probably don't give to charity either.
Or, if you have some free time, you can donate to charity by completely and utterly waste their time so they don't get around to bother other people, and you can make the call a living hell, driving up wages and making the entire industry unprofitable. (It's too hard to try to do both of those at once.)
Charitable people of the world, unite. Stay off the Do Not Call List. That's like putting a fake burglary alarm sticker in your window so you won't get robbed. It's much better to stop these people than to redirect them to other people. Put as many vulnerable people as possible on the DNC, and have as many people willing to fight them stay off the list to protect the people they're preying on who didn't make it.
You can even do things to volunteer yourself. Years ago, I made up a fake address in response to a mortgage spam. I still get calls from morons who purchase those leads. I jerk them around for weeks.
(Mortgage spam, in case anyone thinks I'm being too harsh on poor innocent mortgage companies who possibly bought the leaders from a spammer without knowing...well, mortgage spam is one of the few kinds of spam that has always been illegal in every state, due to preditory leading laws that control advertising of mortgages. They are required by law to keep track of every single ad. Banks know damn well the laws about advertising mortgages, and getting leads from someone without finding out what and how they ran ads is not believable, or, in fact, legal.)
I do almost the same thing with any message from politicians.
A sign, a TV ad, a mailer, a phone call, doesn't matter. I just imagine them eating live kittens.
So, basically, you're saying the Oreo throwing didn't happen. But, um, they, or other people who probably have something to do with them have done other really bad things, so that makes it okay for the Republican governor to lie.
I urge people to read the Daily Kos link provided therein. Steele says he saw one Oreo roll to his feet, Schurick says they were 'thick in the air like locusts'. But, hey, read the stories as they appear here. It's interesting as the incident got worse and worse over two weeks.
In short, it looks like some idiot passed out Oreos outside. And...well...that's actually the whole story. Apparently it wasn't enough for the Republicans, so they made up people viciously hurling cookies at the stage.
Now, here's the sixty-four thousand dollar questions: Which is worse behavior: Some unnamed and misguided possibly-Democratic activist calling a black Republican an 'Oreo' with visual aid, or Republican governor lying about the incident to make it seem a lot worse than it was. I don't know about you, but in every crowd there's an idiot or two, but I expect elected officials not to lie. (Granted, he wasn't elected at the time.)
But this is pretty much general Republican behavior. Find the looniest and most offensive person on the left they can, exaggerate their behavior, and ascribe it to the entire party as a general position. (Why they have to exaggerate the behavior I don't know. Maybe people have figure out that crazy paint-throwing-on-fur people aren't really representive of the party, so they have to pick more sane people.)
Meanwhile, Republicans distance themselves as much as possible from what are basically mouthpiece of their party, so when they say offensive things like 'We should invade their countries and convert them to Christianity', well, obviously that's not the official position of the Republican party.
But, hey, I hereby officially apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party for the offensive Oreo reference made by some random person you've assumed is a Democrat. (Hey, if some random person's behavior is attributable to the Democratic party, mine is too, and thus I can apologize for them.)
Now, you apologize for my asshole neighbor, who has made quite a few offensive comments about Hispanic citizens lately, going so far as to suggest we should arrest Hispanic citizens who were born here and lived here all their life and send them 'back' to Mexico. He's a Republican, so, you know, you're responsible for his opinion, apparently.
Until you apologize for him, shut the fuck up about what some random 'Democrats' do.
You are aware the oreo thing is a lie, right?
I'll tell you, I just don't want to make this obvious for the MPAA. ;)
They're alt.binaries.nl and binsearch.info. I have the later in Firefox as a bookmarky thing, where I can just type 'usenet whatever' in the URL line and search on it.
As for downloading, I use NZB-O-Matic Plus, although I'm not entirely happy with its habit of not downloading the first file in the list.
There are at least two entirely seperate good search websites that provide .nzb files for free that let you search across most of Usenet. And there are clients that don't bother with the whole 'downloading headers' and are just designed to take said .nzbs and download them.
I'm amazed at anyone who thinks it's easier to find things as a .torrent than on Usenet. It's much much faster for me to search Usenet than the three or four torrent sites, and the download is a lot faster too.
That's not to say bittorrent doesn't have its good points. For example, rss feeds of weekly or daily stuff.
Except that if you need special software to use the key, it won't work in a DVD format anyway, and hence you can compress the movie with, say, XviD and make it 1 gig or so.
Do we honestly think this insanity is going to be cheaper than a 1 gig flash drive? Or, more to the point, cheaper than a 1 gig flash card would be when this finally came to the market?
If I were them, I'd sell a special USB decoder, that did the decoding inside it when 'unlocked', and make it pull movies off encrypted SD cards. Or a USB decoder that the data from the DVD went into and back out.
Erm, not that I'd do any of this at all, but if I were, I would use hardware decryption, instead of this inane scheme where the key obviously has to be pulled inside the computer and the decoding done there. At least with hardware decoding you make people use special tools, instead of just decompiling your software.
What I want is a term to distinguish the three inch diameter circular saws on the end of a handle , which are usually battery powered, from the six inch diameter circular saws that have a handle above them, that usually plug in. I call the smaller ones a 'little circular saw', but I bet there's a better name.
And, yah, I call the unshielded-blade jigsaw that you operated sorta like a tiny chainsaw a 'sawzall' too, although I suspect that's a brand name.
I am wrong in what sense, exactly? What is the exact thing I am wrong about?
I pointed out that, due the obvious factual inaccuracies in the article linked, that the news source linked was not a very good one, because it was apparently operating solely to stir people up with no regard to the facts at all. That's all I asserted.
I have no idea if YouTube is censoring anything. If it is, a factual article claiming that, such as the one you provided, might have provided an interesting discussion. Although your article is amazing short on the ability to find out what anyone's talking about, perfering instead to randomly print claims of 'victims', at least it's not apparently lying.
OTOH, at least one part of the article you linked to is complete gibberish, namely, the claim by a 'Professor Rutenbeck' that Usenet communities started dying because people started censoring things, which doesn't make any sense, because Usenet doesn't work that way. Newsgroups either start off moderated, or unmoderated, and they can't change, and very few of them are moderated in the first place. And as the moderation is done by one person, it's hard to see why that person would suddenly start bowing to pressure.
Discussion Usenet died because of spammers and web forums, not because of 'over-sensitivity'. I know, I've watched the decline and fall of Usenet, and I have never once heard the suggestion it fell because people cared too much about what others thought, although I have heard the exact opposite suggested, that the inherit ability to disguise yourself and even post as other people presented Usenet a disadvantage over web boards. On web boards, you have an 'identity', even if it's not linked with your RL identity, on Usenet, it's just whatever you typed in your Usenet client.
That's not to say Usenet won't treat people harsely if someone comes in with a stupid idea, sometimes even too harshly, and that hurts some communities...but that's not being too sensitive. It is, in fact, the opposite.
You know, it's always funny when the left is accused of 'cultural relativism' and not knowing 'right from wrong'.
Apparently, you don't know the difference between 'true and false' or 'facts and opinions'. Even the most 'cultural relativism' grasps those things.
Here's a hint: The reason why the video got a 'You must be over 18' page is a fact. Someone clicked on the 'Report the video' link, and it was marked until YouTube could get to it. Any other reasons for the video being blocked are, wait for it, incorrect.
There are plenty of opinions involved in the story, but that is not one of them.
By misreporting that fact, the article is objectively wrong. That, in and of itself, does not make it not news, all news sources are sometimes incorrect. But the fact they got something wrong that it would be trivial to check and, frankly, anyone who knows how YouTube works could explain, makes them a very very bad source for 'news', because it appears they printed a wild rumor just to get their viewers riled up.
By going with other sources that actually check their facts instead of just leaping to conclusions, we might actually have news instead of opinion and wild nonfactual claims.
Of course, slashdot isn't that good at finding actual news, and often prints links to crappy sources, so it's not a surprise or anything. And we always have fools who think the fact they want the article to be correct is a good reason to argue that it is correct, and even if it's not, it's correct in some metaphorical sense or other examples of the same thing are correct or anything to avoid having to say 'Yeah, this isn't true, and it shouldn't be here'.
It just normally doesn't happen with regard to politics.
Yeah, it's obviously some sort of insidious groupthink going on here.
Or, and I know this is a crazy idea, but as the actual level of people who honestly believe in libertarian ideas is about 1% of the population, maybe it's just slashdot reflecting reality?
The conservative vs. liberals, yes, that's tilted in favor of liberal here, as it is on most of the internet, or at least in the discussion areas of the internet. (Barring, of course, forums specifically set up for conservative viewpoints.) The libertarian vs. everyone else bias, however, is almost perfectly represented.
And, FYI, it's called 'liberal' not because of any recent doubletalk, but because that's what it was called during the Renaissance and the enlightenment. The current sterotype of 'big spenders' is because they merged into the progressive movement during the New Deal, and, arguably, got rid of them in the 1960, whereupon they got fixated on what charges had been made, 'welfare' and 'social security', managed to link those to their civil liberties stuff, and stopped actually trying to find new solutions to problems like actual progressives.
Actual liberal philosophy is a lot different than what's been passed off as liberal for the past 50 years. (As is actual progressive philosophy.)
Of course, the same thing is going with 'conservatives'. Both parties have absolutely nonsensical platforms, because each of them is composed of at least three different philosophies they've sucked in at various times, some of them getting modernized and some of them not.), and on top of it, both of them don't even follow their platform.
And, of course, on top of that, we have Bush running amuck, and he's not even doing what the Republicans normally do, much less what they claim to do or what they should do to be 'conservative'.
That's why I can't read people like that anymore. I just automatically assume they're lying.
Sure, it started out simple. I'd check things they reported like 'Things getting better in Iraq', and go check the current situtation.
Then I started checking things like the actual names and position of people. 'Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, said...' and I'd have to go and check that he was still the prime minister, despite me having no doubt before reading the article.
And this point, if I were to read their site, I'd actually check whether or not it is possible to create 'videos', a series of moving images that appear to the human eye as movement.
Gve me another month, and I'll start questioning their assumption that time and space exist.