I'm guessing (based upon general libertarian principles, not knowledge of the Libertarian party's stance) that they would be opposed to a blanket ban on robocalls on the grounds you state. I would also guess that they would very much support the do-not-call list applying to all unsolicited calls (correct me if I'm wrong, but right now political calling is exempt), as people should have the right to be free of harassment if they choose.
So I would guess that technically you're right that they think such calls should be legal, but in practice their ideal rules would make them illegal anyway, just via different means.
How about Rockstar's bullshit [geek.com] recently at a reviewer who didn't like Red Dead Redemption? I wonder how many people Rockstar paid off to get the "critical acclaim" for their boring western sandbox... er litterbox gameplay.
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
Why would you settle for hundreds of thousands when you can have millions? If they're trying to settle then it sounds like they expect to lose. If they want to keep it quiet they'd need to pay out more to keep me quiet.
Well, ordinarily, I'd say it's because someone is willing to take only 20% (or whatever) rather than have a chance to walk away with nothing... but these are people who frequent casinos, so yeah, that would probably be lost on them.
At what point did I ever suggest one should do otherwise? Indeed, I have done as you said, and voted with my dollars. However, I also don't see that as a reason not to complain as well.
You know, the fact that there are other options is not a valid reason to simply shut up and accept Apple's capriciousness. Merely taking other options is worthless as a force for change unless you also make it known why you took the alternative.
Just because you're a nerd, doesn't mean you're able to build things with Legos very well. I loved my Legos as a kid, but I never was able to ascend beyond the level of "Hey look I built another square-shaped thing". Granted, I only had rectangular pieces, but I still was not (and am not) good with building stuff out of the lovable plastic blocks.
Hell, when Lucas tried to change the original trilogy I could still go back to the original version of the originals. I don't have to buy the prequels.
Although you'd never know it from the idiots claiming that Star Wars has been "ruined" for them...
How can you understand programming if you don't understand how it works under the hood?
That's like suggesting that a good song cannot be written without understanding music theory (which is quite untrue). Knowing the fundamentals is useful, but not at all required.
...unless you know how the internal structures of the programs work you will never be able to write good code, at best your code will be painfully slow, at worst it will be outright dangerous.
Simply untrue. Unless you're doing something completely fucked up, your code can be just fine without understanding the underpinnings. Understanding how to use a tool is what's important, not understanding how it works. You can teach someone how to properly use the various tools a language gives them without ever giving them a hint as to how they work at a low level.
They have the right to control their software distribution channel only insofar as it's actually affecting their channel. The device (and distribution channel) can't tell if an app was compiled with x or y toolchain, so Apple putting a restriction upon it has nothing to do with their territory, it's an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction upon what developers can do with their private property.
Put another way, Apple has no right to regulate the road developers take to arrive at a point, only the point that they arrive at. They are doing the former, not the latter.
Oh, please. According to Apple, it's not allowed to get apps anywhere except from their distribution channel, so you're bringing up a technicality that makes no difference whatsoever. None of the things Apple does with the app store would bug people half as much if iPhone OS had the ability to install apps from other sources, as Android does... and modifying iPhone OS to do so is forbidden.
Nope. The fact that something is legal does not make it right. Apple absolutely has the right to dictate what does and does not go on on their platform (as much as I dislike it). Their right ends at the device, however. When they dictate what goes on on my machines, they are very far out of line. The fact that developers agree to this has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.
Furthermore, I don't own an iPhone (and never will), and I don't develop for the iPhone (and never will), precisely because of the unreasonable restrictions Apple puts upon this platform. Not only do you have a poor grasp upon what Apple's rights are, your argument amounts to making false assumptions about what I own, and drawing conclusions about my character based on those false assumptions. Hardly a strong position you have, there.
Re:You signed away this "right" by picking Apple.
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you don't like it, don't buy it, don't develop for it. Simple.
I haven't bought it (and never will), and don't develop for it (and never will). However, that doesn't mean I shouldn't also express feedback as to why I didn't/don't do those things. You believe in a false dichotomy.
Not everything, but no hardware manufacturer has the right to dictate what tools you may and may not use to develop on their platform. As long as the software winds up as code their device can understand, that's all that matters. Apple is way out of line on this issue.
Web developers don't give a fuck about the users, unfortunately: see their insistence that default to "standards mode", rather than defaulting to the more compatible mode, and allowing developers to make only a small deviation to cause IE to work with their standardized code. Microsoft's original plan would've resulted in a much smoother upgrade experience for users, but hey, it would've made life slightly more difficult for web developers... so fuck the users!
No, this isn't all web developers, but it was a significant enough number to get Microsoft to break IE8 for their sake, and because of their disregard for the user of their sites I lost all respect for them.
By saying that belief in supernatural powers caused those things, you are saying that the perpetrators were only bad because of their religion. If there was another reason, then "belief in supernatural powers" didn't cause it, multiple things caused it.
Cute, but wrong. What it takes for a good person to do evil is the belief that they are acting for a good cause. Religion can supply that, but it doesn't have to be the source.
Your examples have nothing to do with religion specifically. If religion were not there, there would be another tool. One has only to look at modern-day politics to see that people will readily throw away rationality in service to an ideology, and that it does not require claims of God to invoke this unfortunate tendency.
belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has
The fact that you attribute these things to "belief in supernatural powers" is, ironically, proof that you are consulting your prejudices, rather than looking at the evidence. It's not at all hard to see that these things were caused simply by people being bad people, and religion was an excuse, as Culture20 said. It's amazing that after countless examples of good and bad people, both with and without religious beliefs, there are some who are still willing to throw on the blinders and insist that the bad religious people were only bad because of their religion.
I could give dozens of reasons why perpetuating the belief in god is more harmful to society than child labor.
You might give bullshit reasons, but not valid ones. While I could have respected your argument (and you) if you had said you could give reasons why it's harmful (even though I'd most likely disagree), anyone who really thinks belief in a supernatural power is more harmful than sending children to work for low wages (and frequently in less-than-adequate conditions) is completely delusional.
Well, given the example of WW2 (which implies we're talking about German soldiers who were complicit in the Holocaust), I certainly would hope that in a similar situation, I would have the courage to risk an immediate bullet. More to the point, when you are commanded to do something that heinous, I don't consider it too unreasonable to say that someone should be willing to fight it at all costs.
No, they'll chicken out if they don't show him this week. The point of putting him in a costume was specifically to mock the extremists' violent threats. "Look, we said this is Muhammad, but it isn't recognizable as Muhammad, so on what basis could you reasonably be angry? In summary, STFU." I would be very surprised to learn that the bear costume was a form of censorship, as one of the major themes of the episode was depicting various things which were said to be Muhammad, and someone asking if that was OK to show.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing (based upon general libertarian principles, not knowledge of the Libertarian party's stance) that they would be opposed to a blanket ban on robocalls on the grounds you state. I would also guess that they would very much support the do-not-call list applying to all unsolicited calls (correct me if I'm wrong, but right now political calling is exempt), as people should have the right to be free of harassment if they choose.
So I would guess that technically you're right that they think such calls should be legal, but in practice their ideal rules would make them illegal anyway, just via different means.
How about Rockstar's bullshit [geek.com] recently at a reviewer who didn't like Red Dead Redemption? I wonder how many people Rockstar paid off to get the "critical acclaim" for their boring western sandbox... er litterbox gameplay.
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
A parrot! A parrot!
Why would you settle for hundreds of thousands when you can have millions? If they're trying to settle then it sounds like they expect to lose. If they want to keep it quiet they'd need to pay out more to keep me quiet.
Well, ordinarily, I'd say it's because someone is willing to take only 20% (or whatever) rather than have a chance to walk away with nothing... but these are people who frequent casinos, so yeah, that would probably be lost on them.
At what point did I ever suggest one should do otherwise? Indeed, I have done as you said, and voted with my dollars. However, I also don't see that as a reason not to complain as well.
You know, the fact that there are other options is not a valid reason to simply shut up and accept Apple's capriciousness. Merely taking other options is worthless as a force for change unless you also make it known why you took the alternative.
Just because you're a nerd, doesn't mean you're able to build things with Legos very well. I loved my Legos as a kid, but I never was able to ascend beyond the level of "Hey look I built another square-shaped thing". Granted, I only had rectangular pieces, but I still was not (and am not) good with building stuff out of the lovable plastic blocks.
Hell, when Lucas tried to change the original trilogy I could still go back to the original version of the originals. I don't have to buy the prequels.
Although you'd never know it from the idiots claiming that Star Wars has been "ruined" for them...
Clearly this proves that the spy was not the Chinese restaurant owners, but the man claiming it was odd that they had black duck eggs!!
How can you understand programming if you don't understand how it works under the hood?
That's like suggesting that a good song cannot be written without understanding music theory (which is quite untrue). Knowing the fundamentals is useful, but not at all required.
...unless you know how the internal structures of the programs work you will never be able to write good code, at best your code will be painfully slow, at worst it will be outright dangerous.
Simply untrue. Unless you're doing something completely fucked up, your code can be just fine without understanding the underpinnings. Understanding how to use a tool is what's important, not understanding how it works. You can teach someone how to properly use the various tools a language gives them without ever giving them a hint as to how they work at a low level.
They have the right to control their software distribution channel only insofar as it's actually affecting their channel. The device (and distribution channel) can't tell if an app was compiled with x or y toolchain, so Apple putting a restriction upon it has nothing to do with their territory, it's an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction upon what developers can do with their private property.
Put another way, Apple has no right to regulate the road developers take to arrive at a point, only the point that they arrive at. They are doing the former, not the latter.
I claim a right to do what I wish with my hardware (in this specific case, machines being used for development). That's all.
Oh, please. According to Apple, it's not allowed to get apps anywhere except from their distribution channel, so you're bringing up a technicality that makes no difference whatsoever. None of the things Apple does with the app store would bug people half as much if iPhone OS had the ability to install apps from other sources, as Android does... and modifying iPhone OS to do so is forbidden.
Nope. The fact that something is legal does not make it right. Apple absolutely has the right to dictate what does and does not go on on their platform (as much as I dislike it). Their right ends at the device, however. When they dictate what goes on on my machines, they are very far out of line. The fact that developers agree to this has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.
Furthermore, I don't own an iPhone (and never will), and I don't develop for the iPhone (and never will), precisely because of the unreasonable restrictions Apple puts upon this platform. Not only do you have a poor grasp upon what Apple's rights are, your argument amounts to making false assumptions about what I own, and drawing conclusions about my character based on those false assumptions. Hardly a strong position you have, there.
If you don't like it, don't buy it, don't develop for it. Simple.
I haven't bought it (and never will), and don't develop for it (and never will). However, that doesn't mean I shouldn't also express feedback as to why I didn't/don't do those things. You believe in a false dichotomy.
And you are certainly not entitled to everything.
Not everything, but no hardware manufacturer has the right to dictate what tools you may and may not use to develop on their platform. As long as the software winds up as code their device can understand, that's all that matters. Apple is way out of line on this issue.
Web developers don't give a fuck about the users, unfortunately: see their insistence that default to "standards mode", rather than defaulting to the more compatible mode, and allowing developers to make only a small deviation to cause IE to work with their standardized code. Microsoft's original plan would've resulted in a much smoother upgrade experience for users, but hey, it would've made life slightly more difficult for web developers... so fuck the users!
No, this isn't all web developers, but it was a significant enough number to get Microsoft to break IE8 for their sake, and because of their disregard for the user of their sites I lost all respect for them.
By saying that belief in supernatural powers caused those things, you are saying that the perpetrators were only bad because of their religion. If there was another reason, then "belief in supernatural powers" didn't cause it, multiple things caused it.
Cute, but wrong. What it takes for a good person to do evil is the belief that they are acting for a good cause. Religion can supply that, but it doesn't have to be the source.
Your examples have nothing to do with religion specifically. If religion were not there, there would be another tool. One has only to look at modern-day politics to see that people will readily throw away rationality in service to an ideology, and that it does not require claims of God to invoke this unfortunate tendency.
belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has
The fact that you attribute these things to "belief in supernatural powers" is, ironically, proof that you are consulting your prejudices, rather than looking at the evidence. It's not at all hard to see that these things were caused simply by people being bad people, and religion was an excuse, as Culture20 said. It's amazing that after countless examples of good and bad people, both with and without religious beliefs, there are some who are still willing to throw on the blinders and insist that the bad religious people were only bad because of their religion.
I could give dozens of reasons why perpetuating the belief in god is more harmful to society than child labor.
You might give bullshit reasons, but not valid ones. While I could have respected your argument (and you) if you had said you could give reasons why it's harmful (even though I'd most likely disagree), anyone who really thinks belief in a supernatural power is more harmful than sending children to work for low wages (and frequently in less-than-adequate conditions) is completely delusional.
Well, given the example of WW2 (which implies we're talking about German soldiers who were complicit in the Holocaust), I certainly would hope that in a similar situation, I would have the courage to risk an immediate bullet. More to the point, when you are commanded to do something that heinous, I don't consider it too unreasonable to say that someone should be willing to fight it at all costs.
So he is. Posting to undo moderation, sorry about that.
No, they'll chicken out if they don't show him this week. The point of putting him in a costume was specifically to mock the extremists' violent threats. "Look, we said this is Muhammad, but it isn't recognizable as Muhammad, so on what basis could you reasonably be angry? In summary, STFU." I would be very surprised to learn that the bear costume was a form of censorship, as one of the major themes of the episode was depicting various things which were said to be Muhammad, and someone asking if that was OK to show.