You had me up until "support Ron Paul"... That dude is just as corrupt and agenda-motivated as anyone who ever has or will sit in that office. Also, as he has no chance of ever actually being elected given the state of the two-party system, he is going to garner the liberal votes which would otherwise go to the lesser of the two-party evils, the Democrats.
Yes, they are both evil(both parties) but I'd rather have my government spending and taxing domestic health care and pharmaceuticals than spending trillions to kill brown people and steal oil to benefit their corporate backers, or regress us into 1950s social policies like banning abortion and making homosexuality illegal.
That isn't going to prove one way or another if there was a sexual assault. All that will do is ensure that the various governments unhappy with the victim(yes, Assange is the victim here) have their way with him under the guise of legal proceedings.
Why? Who really cares how much you pay in taxes or how much you made? I certainly don't. Maybe a vengeful ex-wife would, but then it is your own fault for hiding it in the first place.
The only thing that should be eligible for classification is material that WILL BEYOND ANY DOUBT get someone killed or significantly weaken the security of the country if it is made public. This information was not either of those things, and is only being treated as such because it was embarrassing to the administration in charge of most of the hideous things on the leaked information.
Yes, because we have only ceased obeying national law in the last 4 years, so it must be Obama's fault. No way it could possibly be a holdover from the Bush administration, which denied basic civil rights left and right to people it suspected on almost no grounds of being 'terrorists'. They were fucking boy scouts compared to this evil Obama and his 'socialist' cheap-health-care-for-everyone plots. What a dick.
That story has been entirely consistent from the time it happened.
Sure...if by "from the time it happened" you mean "since months after the alleged rape".
She only came forward when he was put in the spotlight by the WikiLeaks fiasco, and not before. This, to me, screams bullshit. Rape is bad, we're all in agreement there, but this is not rape. It is a pissed-off opportunist woman trying to use rape charges to punish someone she is unhappy with. I would honestly be surprised if someone in the US government didn't put her up to this to discredit/defame/reel-in Assange.
"We follow international convention and law only when it suits us, and not a minute longer."
Sometimes I fucking hate this country. If the 'leader' was actually permitted to lead, I would think things could get better. Instead, he's just a puppet for his corporate backers and entrenched interests in the subordinate levels of his administration.
How about this, since you clearly didn't understand the valid and eloquent way Zero_Kelvin explained it.
"A large portion of the world is run by the super-rich, and these super-rich get to decide the future of genetic manipulation(as well as many Slashdot-relevant topics). As this is a discussion of genetic manipulation, the discussion of the super-rich who make these related decisions for the rest of us is very relevant. You should not be so naive as to think that it is merely political spam instead of informed, salient discussion based solely on the topic of rich people."
I particularly like how one of the bullet points explaining why they are lowest-ranked is "Lowest ranked company". It's like recursive bullshit.
The only reason I could see why most of these companies are rated badly is that they didn't want to spend the time and resources filling out surveys and auditing their supply chain for Greenpeace and their hippy brethren.
Hello! Apple was threatening to SUE Motorola over swipe to unlock and others right when Microsoft threaned to sue them over FAT and ActiveSync. Motorolla fired back with actual litigation against the agressors. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Corrections:
Apple did not just threaten to sue Motorola over Swipe-to-Unlock, it actually did sue them and won. Swipe to unlock is a common idea, present long before any sort of smartphone or touch-screen device ever had it, and is entirely a software patent.
Motorola sued Apple and won over the method the 3G radio chips use to time the signals to and from the tower. A hardware and software patent that is exclusively relevant to 3G mobile devices.
Apple has been the clear aggressor all along, and their patent claims are largely trollish and petty rather than valid technical patents. Please stop spreading disinformation.
It hasn't escalated to Mutually Assured Destruction tactics yet. Most of the people Apple is suing just say "No, it's not infringing, here's why, leave us alone." MAD would imply that they were aggressively striking back instead of defending and dismissing the attacks by a floundering former-leader in their market.
What's that? Over 60% market share for Android? How interesting! We'd better sue to make sure our choice-preventing closed-everything handset with major design issues on both software and hardware, propped up by our exorbitant marketing and blind cult-like following doesn't fail as it rightfully should have the minute it stopped working better than the previous model.
Steve was a ruthless, effective businessman who knew the company's power and would sue when he thought it made valid business sense. The new guy is all posturing. He will sue when he thinks he can make an extra buck, but has no clue what he's doing and frequently breaks down into tears when given a stern look.
The same can be said about real, actual people, though. I have lived my life largely as a good person, but there is nothing stopping me from going out tomorrow, shooting a bunch of people, and robbing a bank(other than my rather large detest of jail).
Corporations are given the same provisions as people in the eyes of the government, and generally you can use psychology to determine future actions of a company just as easily as you can that of a person.
TL;DR: Companies ARE seen as people, and it IS possible to determine their future actions from their past actions(or those of their leadership).
[clippy.jpg] I see you're writing a fanboy Apple shill post, would you like help with that?
It's not that Apple is evil and Google is not (though that is largely quite true). I think the point to take away from this is "We've had enough of your patent trolling, we're going to give you a taste of your own medicine". How many Motorola, Google, Samsung, LG, Android-bearing phones has Apple tried to quash with stupid patent suits? Oh yeah, that's right, pretty much all of them.
People may be just as troubled by Google's foray into petty patent suits here, but the fact remains that Apple has been doing it so fucking much for so fucking long that it's about time Google hit back. Much like my siblings when I was a kid, I will only tolerate so much antagonizing before I smack them back. Turn about is fair play, eh Apple?
Sarah Palin was at least humorously bad at politics. She provided unending entertainment during the previous campaign, and ensured (much like Ryan) that nobody would vote for the GOP's candidate.
I don't know how much of Wisonsin's policies Ryan could claim for himself
He's pretty much been the bane of a normal, sane person's existence here in Wisconsin. You can give him credit for pretty well anything that dicks over people making less than a million dollars per year, gay people, public employees, farmers, teachers....yeah, he's just basically against anything that doesn't drive public money into the pockets of his backers. Gee, he's kind of like a younger, slimier version of Scott Walker. Go figure...
So from the point of view of every one else outside the US, Obama is a somewhat right-of-center candidate, and Romney is basically Hitler. So yeah, we root for Obama.
Don't lie to yourself, there is no money for them to squeeze out of space exploration so they are diverting it to industries that can provide the biggest kickbacks. Like oil and health care industries or war manufacturing. It has nothing to do with which party or administration, and if you think who you vote for matters in this issue, you haven't been paying attention.
I know! They should also completely be responsible for the content of any pages that use images of them, or by them, and for all Yelp reviews of their business, and for any threats they may receive in the mail, as that is also a public-facing service....
Don't be stupid. They can't control what some asshole is going to post on their page. It's not their job to police their comments, even if they're hateful. They probably want to, just to preserve their image, but it doesn't need to be a legal matter(aside from maybe sicking authorities on the poster).
Does slashdot do that? I have posted some pretty objectionable stuff in my days here, and I have never once seen that.
Regardless, it is not the same thing to have an automatic filter. I can eloquently phrase and word in prose a threat to dismember you violently, using a rather dull cutting instrument, and a filter wouldn't remotely pick up on it. Expecting everyone with a facebook page to sit there and sift through their viewers' comments for things which random people may or may not find offensive is a ridiculous proposition.
I think it's more like a drinking establishment getting shut down due to what some delinquent teenager spray paints on the front of their building. At least the bar would have an option to stop and prevent entry to troublemakers before hand. With Facebook particularly, there is no way to prevent someone from 'liking' and posting on a business wall until they have done something that lets you determine they are troublemakers, which is after-the-fact.
If Facebook were to add a 'poster quality' feature by which business sites can add some sort of 'troll rating' to a person and use that to predetermine if they can just like and comment willy-nilly, then it could be more fair. That's totally just going to be abused and gamed somehow, though.
But I digress, it is the responsibility of the prosecuting agency to manage what is and isn't objectionable content, not that of the people who are the victims of said content.
Slashdot Mirror
You had me up until "support Ron Paul"... That dude is just as corrupt and agenda-motivated as anyone who ever has or will sit in that office. Also, as he has no chance of ever actually being elected given the state of the two-party system, he is going to garner the liberal votes which would otherwise go to the lesser of the two-party evils, the Democrats.
Yes, they are both evil(both parties) but I'd rather have my government spending and taxing domestic health care and pharmaceuticals than spending trillions to kill brown people and steal oil to benefit their corporate backers, or regress us into 1950s social policies like banning abortion and making homosexuality illegal.
That isn't going to prove one way or another if there was a sexual assault. All that will do is ensure that the various governments unhappy with the victim(yes, Assange is the victim here) have their way with him under the guise of legal proceedings.
Why? Who really cares how much you pay in taxes or how much you made? I certainly don't. Maybe a vengeful ex-wife would, but then it is your own fault for hiding it in the first place.
The only thing that should be eligible for classification is material that WILL BEYOND ANY DOUBT get someone killed or significantly weaken the security of the country if it is made public. This information was not either of those things, and is only being treated as such because it was embarrassing to the administration in charge of most of the hideous things on the leaked information.
This might be the worst post I have ever seen. I wish there was a 'best of slashdot' forum or something where we could highlight this dude's idiocy.
Yes, because we have only ceased obeying national law in the last 4 years, so it must be Obama's fault. No way it could possibly be a holdover from the Bush administration, which denied basic civil rights left and right to people it suspected on almost no grounds of being 'terrorists'. They were fucking boy scouts compared to this evil Obama and his 'socialist' cheap-health-care-for-everyone plots. What a dick.
That story has been entirely consistent from the time it happened.
Sure...if by "from the time it happened" you mean "since months after the alleged rape".
She only came forward when he was put in the spotlight by the WikiLeaks fiasco, and not before. This, to me, screams bullshit. Rape is bad, we're all in agreement there, but this is not rape. It is a pissed-off opportunist woman trying to use rape charges to punish someone she is unhappy with. I would honestly be surprised if someone in the US government didn't put her up to this to discredit/defame/reel-in Assange.
Ermagherd, ermerica!
"We follow international convention and law only when it suits us, and not a minute longer."
Sometimes I fucking hate this country. If the 'leader' was actually permitted to lead, I would think things could get better. Instead, he's just a puppet for his corporate backers and entrenched interests in the subordinate levels of his administration.
How about this, since you clearly didn't understand the valid and eloquent way Zero_Kelvin explained it.
"A large portion of the world is run by the super-rich, and these super-rich get to decide the future of genetic manipulation(as well as many Slashdot-relevant topics). As this is a discussion of genetic manipulation, the discussion of the super-rich who make these related decisions for the rest of us is very relevant. You should not be so naive as to think that it is merely political spam instead of informed, salient discussion based solely on the topic of rich people."
I particularly like how one of the bullet points explaining why they are lowest-ranked is "Lowest ranked company". It's like recursive bullshit.
The only reason I could see why most of these companies are rated badly is that they didn't want to spend the time and resources filling out surveys and auditing their supply chain for Greenpeace and their hippy brethren.
How's about a can of shut the fuck up.
I'll try some. Is that like conflict mineral water?
Hello! Apple was threatening to SUE Motorola over swipe to unlock and others right when Microsoft threaned to sue them over FAT and ActiveSync. Motorolla fired back with actual litigation against the agressors. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Corrections:
Apple did not just threaten to sue Motorola over Swipe-to-Unlock, it actually did sue them and won. Swipe to unlock is a common idea, present long before any sort of smartphone or touch-screen device ever had it, and is entirely a software patent.
Motorola sued Apple and won over the method the 3G radio chips use to time the signals to and from the tower. A hardware and software patent that is exclusively relevant to 3G mobile devices.
Apple has been the clear aggressor all along, and their patent claims are largely trollish and petty rather than valid technical patents. Please stop spreading disinformation.
Defending a patent from a frequent attacker is not attacking someone outright.
If I walk up and punch someone, it's an attack. If that person has been provoking me for an hour, and I deck him, it's self-defense.
It hasn't escalated to Mutually Assured Destruction tactics yet. Most of the people Apple is suing just say "No, it's not infringing, here's why, leave us alone." MAD would imply that they were aggressively striking back instead of defending and dismissing the attacks by a floundering former-leader in their market.
What's that? Over 60% market share for Android? How interesting! We'd better sue to make sure our choice-preventing closed-everything handset with major design issues on both software and hardware, propped up by our exorbitant marketing and blind cult-like following doesn't fail as it rightfully should have the minute it stopped working better than the previous model.
Steve was a ruthless, effective businessman who knew the company's power and would sue when he thought it made valid business sense. The new guy is all posturing. He will sue when he thinks he can make an extra buck, but has no clue what he's doing and frequently breaks down into tears when given a stern look.
The same can be said about real, actual people, though. I have lived my life largely as a good person, but there is nothing stopping me from going out tomorrow, shooting a bunch of people, and robbing a bank(other than my rather large detest of jail).
Corporations are given the same provisions as people in the eyes of the government, and generally you can use psychology to determine future actions of a company just as easily as you can that of a person.
TL;DR: Companies ARE seen as people, and it IS possible to determine their future actions from their past actions(or those of their leadership).
[clippy.jpg]
I see you're writing a fanboy Apple shill post, would you like help with that?
It's not that Apple is evil and Google is not (though that is largely quite true). I think the point to take away from this is "We've had enough of your patent trolling, we're going to give you a taste of your own medicine". How many Motorola, Google, Samsung, LG, Android-bearing phones has Apple tried to quash with stupid patent suits? Oh yeah, that's right, pretty much all of them.
People may be just as troubled by Google's foray into petty patent suits here, but the fact remains that Apple has been doing it so fucking much for so fucking long that it's about time Google hit back. Much like my siblings when I was a kid, I will only tolerate so much antagonizing before I smack them back. Turn about is fair play, eh Apple?
Sarah Palin was at least humorously bad at politics. She provided unending entertainment during the previous campaign, and ensured (much like Ryan) that nobody would vote for the GOP's candidate.
I don't know how much of Wisonsin's policies Ryan could claim for himself
He's pretty much been the bane of a normal, sane person's existence here in Wisconsin. You can give him credit for pretty well anything that dicks over people making less than a million dollars per year, gay people, public employees, farmers, teachers....yeah, he's just basically against anything that doesn't drive public money into the pockets of his backers. Gee, he's kind of like a younger, slimier version of Scott Walker. Go figure...
So from the point of view of every one else outside the US, Obama is a somewhat right-of-center candidate, and Romney is basically Hitler. So yeah, we root for Obama.
+1 OMFG can't stop laughing. So true, though.
One more scumbag added to the roster so he can 'moderately' pocket even larger buttloads of cash.
Don't lie to yourself, there is no money for them to squeeze out of space exploration so they are diverting it to industries that can provide the biggest kickbacks. Like oil and health care industries or war manufacturing. It has nothing to do with which party or administration, and if you think who you vote for matters in this issue, you haven't been paying attention.
spend government resources supporting Chick-Fil-A, e.g. by catering their department lunches exclusively from Chick-Fil-A
I think they would have to stop serving mushy nasty semi-edible food-like product in ass-backward southern redneck towns to make it to Washington.
I know! They should also completely be responsible for the content of any pages that use images of them, or by them, and for all Yelp reviews of their business, and for any threats they may receive in the mail, as that is also a public-facing service....
Don't be stupid. They can't control what some asshole is going to post on their page. It's not their job to police their comments, even if they're hateful. They probably want to, just to preserve their image, but it doesn't need to be a legal matter(aside from maybe sicking authorities on the poster).
Hey, Jack, we're from the US. Nothing surprises us when it comes to governments belittling and oppressing their own citizens.
Does slashdot do that? I have posted some pretty objectionable stuff in my days here, and I have never once seen that.
Regardless, it is not the same thing to have an automatic filter. I can eloquently phrase and word in prose a threat to dismember you violently, using a rather dull cutting instrument, and a filter wouldn't remotely pick up on it. Expecting everyone with a facebook page to sit there and sift through their viewers' comments for things which random people may or may not find offensive is a ridiculous proposition.
I think it's more like a drinking establishment getting shut down due to what some delinquent teenager spray paints on the front of their building. At least the bar would have an option to stop and prevent entry to troublemakers before hand. With Facebook particularly, there is no way to prevent someone from 'liking' and posting on a business wall until they have done something that lets you determine they are troublemakers, which is after-the-fact.
If Facebook were to add a 'poster quality' feature by which business sites can add some sort of 'troll rating' to a person and use that to predetermine if they can just like and comment willy-nilly, then it could be more fair. That's totally just going to be abused and gamed somehow, though.
But I digress, it is the responsibility of the prosecuting agency to manage what is and isn't objectionable content, not that of the people who are the victims of said content.