You may be new here, but you're working out just fine. Both of those issues are covered in the linked articles which you did not read.
Thanks:D - at first I used to read the articles, until I realised that the point is to collectively converge on every detail of the article, without having read it, until someone says 'stop, 100% match'...
Noone's saying it's not theft. At least two people *are* saying that the physical violence / threat of lethal attack should be considered as more important. Consider, which of the following situations would you rather be in:
* "Oh no! someone's stolen my virtual pony, woe is me..."
* "Oh no! I've been violently stabbed to death because I tried to stop someone stealing my virtual pony, woe is me..." ?
I couldn't agree more. The only people who should be allowed to be politicans are those who don't want to be - those who have demonstrated clear moral strength and organisational chutzpah.
The people should coerce them into serving the public interest to the detriment of their own.
I'm busy, but I'm sure you can find a bridge nearby and take care of it yourself.
See? This is the kind of community spirit that idle encourages. Slashdotters who can't be bothered to kill a fellow Slashdotter as an act of charity. Truly, idle is pants.
Well, history has shown us that occasional revolutions and civil wars are also necessities to social balance.
I think it's fairly safe to say that many governments have been sniffing the wind and know what's coming - hence all the bullshit about terrorism/security/surveillance etc and stealing every last available freedom before the fight begins.
I'd say it's more important that you believe in the candidate's decision-making process rather than their current set of stated beliefs.
So, IMO, it's not necessary that you agree with them.
If they're some sort of political genius who you're trusting to provide the sort of country you want to live in, what are the chances that you and they agree? Are you (or most of us) political geniuses? I suspect not.
The 17-year-old is accused of stealing 4,000 euros (£2,840) worth of virtual! (ffs) furniture, bought with real money.
Ok, given that real money has changed hands, the thief should be prosecuted in real life.
It occurs to me that there's been another crime though. When people are paying thousands for virtual furniture, their weaknesses are being exploited and whoever runs the virtual world should be prosecuted. Where do I sign to get this action started?
By your reckoning they should have been squashed...
Huh? - are you intentionally replying to my post? - I'm having difficulty linking what-you-claim-I-reckon to anything I thought or typed.
Just to be clear; what I'm saying is that people in foreign countries deserve as much consideration as their counterparts in *your* country. People are people. It's our leaders that constantly seek to fuel this idea of incompatibility and conflict, as a means of justifying their existence/meddling in world affairs.
The best way to divert people's attention from how much they hate you and boost your ratings, is to hold a war.
i'm pretty sure the iraqi insurgents are armed with more than just sticks and stones
According to dictionary.com, 'insurgent' is defined as:
"a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel."
Do *you* think it's the right choice of word to describe someone who's defending their country against an invading army? hint: your army. Do you use another word when you're not posting onto a forum which is read by non-americans ? or have you honestly been brainwashed to believe that iraqies have no legitimate right to defend their own country against the american aggressor?
when they have to blow the brains out of yet another person who looks and believes a lot like their mother, father, brother, sister, neighbor, pastor etc, they are much more likely to at least refuse to follow orders and, hopefully, switch sides.
People from other countries like to avoid being murdered by the American military too; perhaps at some point in the future, the American soldier might extend his circle of care to included mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and neighbours from other countries too?
+1 insightful, although I'm left with an unexplained sense of deja vu.
I had a similar thought earlier today whilst listening to something called 'Any Answers', which is a follow-up show where the public are invited to call-in any provide feedback to the opinions expressed by a panel of experts during an earlier show 'Any Questions': http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml - it's possible to listen to the show for up to a week if anyone's interested.
As you may guess, they were talking about the goddam 'credit crunch' and asking how, after the vast quantities of cash have been given to the same assholes that caused the problem, the UK government might prevent a further occurrence of the problem. Of course, I thought, the problem is, as you so rightly note, human psychology and in this case runaway greed; one man's desire to dominate another, in this sense financially.
Anyhow, +1 insightful, despite being left with an unexplained sense of deja vu:D
On the other hand, how many of you feel terrorized by the fact that your every moment is on tape
You say that but just wait until you are assaulted by the police in full view of their moveable cameras capable of number plate identification after the police have asked for the cameras to be trained on their position. When you request the camera footage, you'll realise that actually noone in the UK is filmed at all:S
What's bizarre is that our government has such intrusive tendencies as to have a camera covering every stretch of the country yet also has such 'religious tolerance' that those who wish to wear a burqa, which is effectively a personal tent, allowing them to avoid any kind of indentification, are free to do so. That's what I call an inconsistent set of beliefs. IMO, any group serious in their intent to monitor the population would not allow the monitored to so easily avoid their gaze.
Could this be the governemt being manipulated by security theatre experts?
SecurityAdvisors> Omg, we're running out of ponies! Government> Aaaarghhh, Panic! SecurityAdvisors> Never fear, our surveillance systems will save us. *cough* a bargain at £12 Billion"
Then again, maybe I'm missing something that you're not expressing clearly enough for me.
Yah. I reckon. I appear to be failing to communicate that:
* The 'victim' of religious belief need rescuing because their 'belief' has only been achieved by the loss of their ability to reason (because there's no basis whatsoever to 'believe' what they claim to believe, they have arrived at the 'belief' arbitrarily; this cannot say good things about their state of mind.)
* I'm not claiming that people should be denied their beliefs, just that they don't seem to realise that they are being systematically abused by a certain, well-entrenched, section of society; this could be compared to unknowing slavery; but of far more epidemic proportions than any slavery I'm aware of from history.
Likewise, perhaps I misunderstand you. Would you be good enough to explain why/how I'm mistaken by claiming that 'for someone to have arbitrary beliefs which are to remain unquestioned, means giving-up/failing to exercise their ability to reason' ? - In my opinion, they should mourn this loss of reason but seem to fail to notice its passing:S
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly surprising; an elite human is barely comparable to the most out-of-shape bird..
He means he's in a 'who can download the most warez, pr0n and alias episodes using bittorrent' contest...
There needs to be a new Godwin-like law to discourage the discussion of the definition of theft within the context of IP.. :S
Thanks :D - at first I used to read the articles, until I realised that the point is to collectively converge on every detail of the article, without having read it, until someone says 'stop, 100% match'...
Noone's saying it's not theft. At least two people *are* saying that the physical violence / threat of lethal attack should be considered as more important. Consider, which of the following situations would you rather be in:
* "Oh no! someone's stolen my virtual pony, woe is me..."
* "Oh no! I've been violently stabbed to death because I tried to stop someone stealing my virtual pony, woe is me..."
?
They kicked/beat/threatened him with a kife and the most important crime was IP-theft. wtf. Did I mention 'wtf' ?
GPS> "Motorcycle coming around bend in 3, 2, 1. Bonus points available !!"
I couldn't agree more. The only people who should be allowed to be politicans are those who don't want to be - those who have demonstrated clear moral strength and organisational chutzpah.
The people should coerce them into serving the public interest to the detriment of their own.
See? This is the kind of community spirit that idle encourages. Slashdotters who can't be bothered to kill a fellow Slashdotter as an act of charity. Truly, idle is pants.
I think it's fairly safe to say that many governments have been sniffing the wind and know what's coming - hence all the bullshit about terrorism/security/surveillance etc and stealing every last available freedom before the fight begins.
Fortunately for the US, politeness isn't mandatory - they seem to find it quite easy to pressure a country to do whatever they like: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/19/us_pushes_sweden/ - *cough* assholes
And all we need to do is accept a totalitarian state into our lives? Sign me up!
Those are things you buy in shops. Noone invents them. Just like food doesn't grow on trees etc, you buy it in shops.. Everyone knows that dude.
Yeah, right. lol.
Btw, why is it racist to imply that they do? Shouldn't it be musical-style-ist?
*whoosh*?
I'd say it's more important that you believe in the candidate's decision-making process rather than their current set of stated beliefs.
So, IMO, it's not necessary that you agree with them.
If they're some sort of political genius who you're trusting to provide the sort of country you want to live in, what are the chances that you and they agree? Are you (or most of us) political geniuses? I suspect not.
Hello?! They have to choose a politician..
Shh, don't tell anyone - I rtfa..
One level down from tfa: In November 2007, a teenager in Amsterdam was arrested for stealing Habbo Hotel furniture valued at approximately $5,500:
Ok, given that real money has changed hands, the thief should be prosecuted in real life.
It occurs to me that there's been another crime though. When people are paying thousands for virtual furniture, their weaknesses are being exploited and whoever runs the virtual world should be prosecuted. Where do I sign to get this action started?
Huh? - are you intentionally replying to my post? - I'm having difficulty linking what-you-claim-I-reckon to anything I thought or typed.
Just to be clear; what I'm saying is that people in foreign countries deserve as much consideration as their counterparts in *your* country. People are people. It's our leaders that constantly seek to fuel this idea of incompatibility and conflict, as a means of justifying their existence/meddling in world affairs.
The best way to divert people's attention from how much they hate you and boost your ratings, is to hold a war.
According to dictionary.com, 'insurgent' is defined as:
"a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel."
Do *you* think it's the right choice of word to describe someone who's defending their country against an invading army? hint: your army. Do you use another word when you're not posting onto a forum which is read by non-americans ? or have you honestly been brainwashed to believe that iraqies have no legitimate right to defend their own country against the american aggressor?
People from other countries like to avoid being murdered by the American military too; perhaps at some point in the future, the American soldier might extend his circle of care to included mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and neighbours from other countries too?
Ideal for home defense :)
+1 insightful, although I'm left with an unexplained sense of deja vu.
I had a similar thought earlier today whilst listening to something called 'Any Answers', which is a follow-up show where the public are invited to call-in any provide feedback to the opinions expressed by a panel of experts during an earlier show 'Any Questions': http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml - it's possible to listen to the show for up to a week if anyone's interested.
As you may guess, they were talking about the goddam 'credit crunch' and asking how, after the vast quantities of cash have been given to the same assholes that caused the problem, the UK government might prevent a further occurrence of the problem. Of course, I thought, the problem is, as you so rightly note, human psychology and in this case runaway greed; one man's desire to dominate another, in this sense financially.
Anyhow, +1 insightful, despite being left with an unexplained sense of deja vu :D
Its about the psychology of power seeking and how
You say that but just wait until you are assaulted by the police in full view of their moveable cameras capable of number plate identification after the police have asked for the cameras to be trained on their position. When you request the camera footage, you'll realise that actually noone in the UK is filmed at all :S
What's bizarre is that our government has such intrusive tendencies as to have a camera covering every stretch of the country yet also has such 'religious tolerance' that those who wish to wear a burqa, which is effectively a personal tent, allowing them to avoid any kind of indentification, are free to do so. That's what I call an inconsistent set of beliefs. IMO, any group serious in their intent to monitor the population would not allow the monitored to so easily avoid their gaze.
Could this be the governemt being manipulated by security theatre experts?
SecurityAdvisors> Omg, we're running out of ponies!
Government> Aaaarghhh, Panic!
SecurityAdvisors> Never fear, our surveillance systems will save us. *cough* a bargain at £12 Billion"
Yah. I reckon. I appear to be failing to communicate that:
* The 'victim' of religious belief need rescuing because their 'belief' has only been achieved by the loss of their ability to reason (because there's no basis whatsoever to 'believe' what they claim to believe, they have arrived at the 'belief' arbitrarily; this cannot say good things about their state of mind.)
* I'm not claiming that people should be denied their beliefs, just that they don't seem to realise that they are being systematically abused by a certain, well-entrenched, section of society; this could be compared to unknowing slavery; but of far more epidemic proportions than any slavery I'm aware of from history.
Likewise, perhaps I misunderstand you. Would you be good enough to explain why/how I'm mistaken by claiming that 'for someone to have arbitrary beliefs which are to remain unquestioned, means giving-up/failing to exercise their ability to reason' ? - In my opinion, they should mourn this loss of reason but seem to fail to notice its passing :S