Yes, you keep shoveling horse manure at your kids and they will grow up with a taste for horse manure. Why are you all so quick to discount your kids? Do you honestly consider them to be "not good enough" to enjoy tasteful books? How about not trying to lower the level of entertainment to what you perceive as their standards, but elevate it to what is likely well within their reach. As a young child I had a major hardon for "contemplative and intellectual" books, and I'm only 23 now, and not an outlier for my generation. Due to your own pre-screening of their entertainment, your children will grow up to be exactly as superficial and attention-deficient as you expect them to be.
FWIW, Godwinning the thread and, I expect, blowing some karma is worth it to me... I have no particular investment in the Reiser case and haven't even really formulated a personal stance one way or the other throughout the case (besides saying we must assume innocent until proven guilty... and I considered him pretty much proven guilty once most of the circumstantial evidence started to be reported)... so the opinions I expressed are NOT really about Hans or even Nina... they're about holier-than-thou pieces of garbage like T.H. who think they know how everybody should live and act. FYI buddy, murder != unjustified killing. Murder == illegal killing. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it wasn't perfectly justified. A clear-cut case of self defense isn't the only good reason for murder in the real world.
If you're going to act like a retard and take it to the absolute extreme (to paraphrase, "would you kill your kids for acting up"), why don't I play devil's advocate and do the same... if a father is repeatedly sexually abusing his kids, and beats them and his wife to the point where they think it's their fault and are completely unable to defend themselve or seek external help, I guess you'd be just as morally repulsed if he were to be murdered and somebody said "yeah well he deserved it". The thing is, OP is right... sometimes the world is just better off without some people. Murder in general is bad, which is why it's illegal... the hope is that people will find ways to solve their problems and the problems that other people create for them without having to resort to murder. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing that a given person is dead. In the example above, if that father were to die in a car accident, you might still say the same thing... at least he's finally gone. I, like the OP, don't condone murder, and I have no idea whether Nina deserved it (I'd say that the vast majority of people do not... I have a pretty high regard for human life, no matter how depraved). However, the point isn't that murder is good, it's that sometimes somebody being dead is good.
One last example: several people tried to assassinate Hitler. That would have been murder.
So in closing, suck a fucking dick you moralist piece of shit. Things are never, ever black and white.
This bitch deserves to fry for what she did... but if this is the only charge being brought against her I hope to God that she walks. This could set a precedent infinitely more hostile to progress and dangerous to liberty than a nutjob who drives a girl to kill herself ever did. There's got to be a law about intentionally fucking with a young child's mind, especially in a case as extreme as this... why do they have to prosecute her on the basis of using a fake name?
Note to the assholes who are inevitably going to bring this up: I'm not trying to equate a young girl's life to my freedom to create a bogus myspace account, I'm saying that a dissident or reporter or whoever may find their own life and liberty in peril should this shit go down.
I've been trying to access TFA since about 8:50 and it's been down the whole time... yet there are already 113 comments on this story, 13 of which are rated 4 or better. I love Slashdot, I really do:-)
*reflects on the hypocrisy of this post*
I recently graduated from a 'major' university in America with a BS degree in Computer Science. I unfortunately must admit that I am not very skilled with programming.
Sam, is that you? I've been wondering what you were up to after (finally!) graduating...
Whoops, sorry about that, I intended to post that comment as a reply to the main article, I happened to be reading your comment when I clicked reply... a few too many drinks tonight methinks:-(
Is the parent really a troll? Well, let's try something new... let's evaluate his claims, one at a time, logically and without any bias against his overall position on the issue.
The government is obviously corrupt Well this must be false, it's been proven time and again that our government is beyond corruption.
The government is obviously corrupt and working hand in hand with organizations out to destroy the internet. It's quite obvious to even the most cynical of observers that there isabsolutelynocollusionbetween the government and anyorganization that might be seen as antagonistic to the foundationalprinciplesoftheinternet.
The government is obviously corrupt and working hard to make it easier for these same organizations to engage in a domestic terrorism campaign via lawsuits. Well here the OP just get silly, I mean come on, a campaign of terrorism via lawsuits? That would imply scaring people into following an organization's agenda by scare tactics, such as unlimited, unprovoked, irrational, abusive lawsuits and illegal legislation. That's just ludicrous.
You guys are right, OP is a troll.
So I guess my university's CS Dept. IT guy won't mind me using this in the Mac lab... after all, physical access == full rights to do whatever you want.
Right now there are two parties in parliament that I can trust. That would be the left party and the green party.
On this matter, there is only one party that I trust
Must be nice to trust one of your parties... man, that's gotta be sweet.*whistful sigh*
Why shouldn't the states decide what they want to do?
Ask black people.
Well, if ever there were a perfect example of "insight on slashdot", this is it... pithy, witty, and completely factually wrong.
Slavery was the status quo when the Constitution was ratified. Slavery wasn't abolished in the Constitution at that time because it couldn't possibly have been done nationwide when support was so divided. If this country had been formed under the iron hand of perfectly centralised state control that it appears the OP desires (see how much you can infer from three words?), then slavery would have been strengthened and sympathizers would have been jailed... slavery was simply too important to the economies of most states, despite a vocal, passionate minority that felt it was ethically wrong. Slavery was eventually abolished nationwide because individual states had the freedom and authority to govern themselves, a few experimented with abolishing slavery and found it worked for them, and eventually more people were brought around to that point of view. Hell, even Massachusetts recognized slavery until 1783. Go ahead, ask black people. If the person you ask has a clue, he or she will tell you that, thanks to states rights, a radical minority opinion was allowed to become widespread enough that the country eventually erupted into war over it... thank God the right side won.
Since I'll bet the OP also happens to be a gun control advocate, I'd like to close with this: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can't be defended through legislation at the national level, no matter how hard we may try. That's why the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights tell us to arm ourselves so we can defend by force those points of view we feel are worth dying for. The second amendment wasn't written to defend against King George or wild animals or whatever the fuck glib response you hear from the left, it was meant so our own government wouldn't dare take the liberties with our money and freedom that it has been recently. Sad so many of us are begging the government to finish the job and take them all away.
WHAT CONSTITUTION RIGHT IS INFRINGED ON BY HAVING TO SHOW ID? This one, fucktard:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all I guess we all oughta just assume guilty until proven innocent to avoid ever defending someone who turned out to be guilty?
in some ways, that's a good thing. An ineffectual government is better than one with "quaint" notions of law and justice. The founding fathers toiled long and hard trying to come up with our current system of government, with checks and balances and a distribution of power among many, many elected representatives, requiring super-majorities to make major changes, all with the intent of preventing our government from doing much. The ineffectiveness of our government is, in all reality, the only true protection we have... the bill of rights could be amended away tomorrow if any person with sufficient ambition could take control of our government legally and have his bidding done. Any time some government official suggests a new law to help "streamline" things, grab your gun, head on down to your representative's office, and politely explain to him why you think it's a bad idea.
It's about common and uncommon threats... same reason people are more afraid of flying than driving a car, even though the chances of dying in a car crash are orders of magnitude higher than in a plane crash. It's not every day that scientists dig up ancient bacteria... on the other hand, most of us have played chemist a few times as a kid.
Yeah and then he added "If there's was a Bioshock 3 but really it's just going to be too late for Bioshock 2 and I just said it would be at the same time as 3 so you'd know it was after 2 but we're not necessarrily making 3" That's how I read it lol. Thanks, that really cleared it up for me. ?
Having read through all the top-moderated suggestions so far, I find myself horrified to realize that I actually do believe that each and every one of these will be targeted in the next few years. It will be interesting to see just how many of these fears turn out to be justified if we look back at this topic some time down the road. Unfortunately, for those who think that the results of this or any election might have any effect on the direction our country is headed, I have news for you... nothing short of a major overhaul of the entire Federal government is going to change any of this.
To some degree, you are correct; American scientists, the target audience of the original publication, would prefer the Kelvin unit, which was indeed used in the original publication. However, I don't think the Discovery channel's target audience is primarily scientists but rather the American public, which prefers Farenheit - hence the use of that unit on the Discovery channel's website (the location of TFA).
Accordingly, the RepRap machine is distributed, at no cost, under the GNU (General Public Licence). You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe a new (and hopefully environmentally friendly) administration will do it correctly
Like with a Constitutional amendment? Congress (and the agencies it creates, like the EPA) has no right to make these laws without one.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
The ghost of the english language has told me to avenge his death... so what was your address again?
Yes, you keep shoveling horse manure at your kids and they will grow up with a taste for horse manure. Why are you all so quick to discount your kids? Do you honestly consider them to be "not good enough" to enjoy tasteful books? How about not trying to lower the level of entertainment to what you perceive as their standards, but elevate it to what is likely well within their reach. As a young child I had a major hardon for "contemplative and intellectual" books, and I'm only 23 now, and not an outlier for my generation. Due to your own pre-screening of their entertainment, your children will grow up to be exactly as superficial and attention-deficient as you expect them to be.
FWIW, Godwinning the thread and, I expect, blowing some karma is worth it to me... I have no particular investment in the Reiser case and haven't even really formulated a personal stance one way or the other throughout the case (besides saying we must assume innocent until proven guilty... and I considered him pretty much proven guilty once most of the circumstantial evidence started to be reported)... so the opinions I expressed are NOT really about Hans or even Nina... they're about holier-than-thou pieces of garbage like T.H. who think they know how everybody should live and act. FYI buddy, murder != unjustified killing. Murder == illegal killing. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it wasn't perfectly justified. A clear-cut case of self defense isn't the only good reason for murder in the real world.
If you're going to act like a retard and take it to the absolute extreme (to paraphrase, "would you kill your kids for acting up"), why don't I play devil's advocate and do the same... if a father is repeatedly sexually abusing his kids, and beats them and his wife to the point where they think it's their fault and are completely unable to defend themselve or seek external help, I guess you'd be just as morally repulsed if he were to be murdered and somebody said "yeah well he deserved it". The thing is, OP is right... sometimes the world is just better off without some people. Murder in general is bad, which is why it's illegal... the hope is that people will find ways to solve their problems and the problems that other people create for them without having to resort to murder. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing that a given person is dead. In the example above, if that father were to die in a car accident, you might still say the same thing... at least he's finally gone. I, like the OP, don't condone murder, and I have no idea whether Nina deserved it (I'd say that the vast majority of people do not... I have a pretty high regard for human life, no matter how depraved). However, the point isn't that murder is good, it's that sometimes somebody being dead is good.
One last example: several people tried to assassinate Hitler. That would have been murder.
So in closing, suck a fucking dick you moralist piece of shit. Things are never, ever black and white.
This bitch deserves to fry for what she did... but if this is the only charge being brought against her I hope to God that she walks. This could set a precedent infinitely more hostile to progress and dangerous to liberty than a nutjob who drives a girl to kill herself ever did. There's got to be a law about intentionally fucking with a young child's mind, especially in a case as extreme as this... why do they have to prosecute her on the basis of using a fake name? Note to the assholes who are inevitably going to bring this up: I'm not trying to equate a young girl's life to my freedom to create a bogus myspace account, I'm saying that a dissident or reporter or whoever may find their own life and liberty in peril should this shit go down.
I've been trying to access TFA since about 8:50 and it's been down the whole time... yet there are already 113 comments on this story, 13 of which are rated 4 or better. I love Slashdot, I really do :-)
*reflects on the hypocrisy of this post*
here comes the -1, I don't get it / -1, I don't like you
No, I'd say -1 Offtopic is sufficient, no need to invent new reasons to mod you down :-)
I recently graduated from a 'major' university in America with a BS degree in Computer Science. I unfortunately must admit that I am not very skilled with programming.
Sam, is that you? I've been wondering what you were up to after (finally!) graduating...
Do you post that for karma everywhere you see sarchasm on slashdot, or am I just a special case?
Whoops, missed a link for some reason:
*unlimited, unprovoked, irrational, abusive lawsuits and illegal legislation
Whoops, sorry about that, I intended to post that comment as a reply to the main article, I happened to be reading your comment when I clicked reply... a few too many drinks tonight methinks :-(
The government is obviously corrupt Well this must be false, it's been proven time and again that our government is beyond corruption.
The government is obviously corrupt and working hand in hand with organizations out to destroy the internet. It's quite obvious to even the most cynical of observers that there is absolutely no collusion between the government and any organization that might be seen as antagonistic to the foundational principles of the internet. The government is obviously corrupt and working hard to make it easier for these same organizations to engage in a domestic terrorism campaign via lawsuits. Well here the OP just get silly, I mean come on, a campaign of terrorism via lawsuits? That would imply scaring people into following an organization's agenda by scare tactics, such as unlimited, unprovoked, irrational, abusive lawsuits and illegal legislation. That's just ludicrous.
You guys are right, OP is a troll.
So I guess my university's CS Dept. IT guy won't mind me using this in the Mac lab... after all, physical access == full rights to do whatever you want.
Must be nice to trust one of your parties... man, that's gotta be sweet.*whistful sigh*
Slavery was the status quo when the Constitution was ratified. Slavery wasn't abolished in the Constitution at that time because it couldn't possibly have been done nationwide when support was so divided. If this country had been formed under the iron hand of perfectly centralised state control that it appears the OP desires (see how much you can infer from three words?), then slavery would have been strengthened and sympathizers would have been jailed... slavery was simply too important to the economies of most states, despite a vocal, passionate minority that felt it was ethically wrong. Slavery was eventually abolished nationwide because individual states had the freedom and authority to govern themselves, a few experimented with abolishing slavery and found it worked for them, and eventually more people were brought around to that point of view. Hell, even Massachusetts recognized slavery until 1783. Go ahead, ask black people. If the person you ask has a clue, he or she will tell you that, thanks to states rights, a radical minority opinion was allowed to become widespread enough that the country eventually erupted into war over it... thank God the right side won.
Since I'll bet the OP also happens to be a gun control advocate, I'd like to close with this: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can't be defended through legislation at the national level, no matter how hard we may try. That's why the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights tell us to arm ourselves so we can defend by force those points of view we feel are worth dying for. The second amendment wasn't written to defend against King George or wild animals or whatever the fuck glib response you hear from the left, it was meant so our own government wouldn't dare take the liberties with our money and freedom that it has been recently. Sad so many of us are begging the government to finish the job and take them all away.
It's about common and uncommon threats... same reason people are more afraid of flying than driving a car, even though the chances of dying in a car crash are orders of magnitude higher than in a plane crash. It's not every day that scientists dig up ancient bacteria... on the other hand, most of us have played chemist a few times as a kid.
Kinda reminds me of this comic.
Having read through all the top-moderated suggestions so far, I find myself horrified to realize that I actually do believe that each and every one of these will be targeted in the next few years. It will be interesting to see just how many of these fears turn out to be justified if we look back at this topic some time down the road. Unfortunately, for those who think that the results of this or any election might have any effect on the direction our country is headed, I have news for you... nothing short of a major overhaul of the entire Federal government is going to change any of this.
To some degree, you are correct; American scientists, the target audience of the original publication, would prefer the Kelvin unit, which was indeed used in the original publication. However, I don't think the Discovery channel's target audience is primarily scientists but rather the American public, which prefers Farenheit - hence the use of that unit on the Discovery channel's website (the location of TFA).