terrorism
-noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
No need to apologize. Comparing MAFIAA tactics to terrorism isn't too much of a stretch, strictly speaking. Mind you, this is a comparison only.
Now, perhaps you're right, and "terrorism" isn't the right word, but I'm sure you can see some of the similarities. I'm going to step down from my soapbox now and agree that there are some key differences, but I think it's also important that you step down from yours and discuss with me the similarities.
Sound reasonable?
>Can we stop using the word "terrorism," and its derivatives, to describe any unsavory act?
Pushing forward their own (twisted) ideals and intimidating a large population by aggressively targeting a few, and often times the most vulnerable, sounds a lot like terrorist practices to me. Your point stands that the phrase "terrorism" is overused, but in this case it may be a valid comparison.
Double standards, yes, but you have to understand that they are an inherent part of human existence. You make a poignant statement, but I don't see how anyone can claim complete objectivity. Yes, your are right about the fact that these contradictions do exist, I cannot believe your contempt towards the simple acts of honoring the dead. Everybody has the right to be honored in death, every survivor has the right to comfort. The murdered, starved, bombed, and everyone else who died deserve this. If your view of fairness is that every death is the same, so be it. But to feel contempt toward those who feel that those dead should be honored is wrong.
Maybe your logic and observations are true, but your contempt for those who would only wish to grieve is inexcusable. So what if they wish to honor those who died more than the next person? So what if they even were to erect statues of them that they didn't deserve? I see no crime in that. And even if the honor we give to their memory is unequal to that we give to others, that does not make it wrong to grieve. Fair, maybe not. But I too give my condolences to all those involved, and unashamedly at that.
Re:New Update since i submited this yesterday
on
TimeWarner DNS Hijacking
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Next you'll argue that reverse engineering a virus is a violation of the DMCA.
Bit exaggerated use of a slippery slope metaphor. IANAL but to my understanding, their actions were closer to breaking into somebody's house to steal back your remote control. Not to justify their actions- just clarifying.
Ill be the first to say it. Who the fuck cares. The problem is being delt with.
I'll be the first to ask: If you don't give a hoot about this issue, what are you doing in this topic, let alone in the/. community?
I suggest that parents look after their own children for a change, instead of shirking their responsibilities and turning the world into a nanny and police state.
Ok, that's reasonable enough I think
And keep them out of our world of grown-ups until they're old enough.
Whoa, slow down. Now you're saying its not the government's job to keep the kids in cages, it's the parents? The problem lies in the broken assumption that minors (lets go with the 14-18 age group) can't operate in society without someone slapping their wrist with a ruler. The issue is not so much who is regulating our children, but how it is done. It is incredibly arrogant to say that our current child-raising techniques are perfect, so why not fix those instead of antagonizing our younger population? Sometimes the ruler (strictly metaphorically speaking) is necessary, but prison time for consensual sex between a 17 and 15 year old?
I completely agree with your observation that they could use these or similar criteria to block any number of sites, but the claim that this is a clean cut case of censorship and will ultimately lead to more sites being shut down is a bit premature. That said, the/. community should be keeping a close eye on similar cases in the future.
And the important question on Jack Thompson's mind?
"How can I tie this to video games?"
I'm not too sure myself, but I'm willing to bet our sadomasochist friend has a couple of key pointers.
One thing I wonder is where Apple will stop. Similar to explicit lyrics in music, what happens when Apple starts allowing users to download some not-quite-g-rated-movies. I'm not against this change- I for one would actually welcome more content, regardless of whether I even decide to download or not. But I also forsee Apple having some issues/lawsuits/negative publicity. Apple has made some poor choices as far as content goes (anyone remember those Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition vids?), and with Apple growing as quickly as it is, there are going to be issues.
Hate to be the naysayer of the group, but this seems pretty speculative to me. The connection between the gorilla strain of lice and the human head lice is an interesting observation, but that doesn't necessarily mean all that was claimed. I'm not dismissing the theory, but there is not enough evidence to sell me on this one. Does the premise sound good? Yes, but that is hardly enough to justify the evolutionary links between lice and the various branches of primates.
Previous posts have mentioned that a political spin on a game can make it a propaganda of sorts, and hence, damages the integrity of gaming. But, moral and ethical choices have appeared in games (KOTOR was used as an example) and those too are propaganda. Just because a game says something doesn't make it evil. Someone said earlier that when the game "asks a question" it retains its integrity, but when it tries to "force an answer," it destroys what it set out to do. If games take a more "applicable to life" stance content-wise with the intent of making people think and confront issues, as opposed to making people take their side, then there is a great potential for success. Its a fine line, yes, but games, like all other forms of media, can be used to open peoples eyes. If gamemakers set out with this purpose, they have my approval.
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory Monty Python reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
terrorism -noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. No need to apologize. Comparing MAFIAA tactics to terrorism isn't too much of a stretch, strictly speaking. Mind you, this is a comparison only. Now, perhaps you're right, and "terrorism" isn't the right word, but I'm sure you can see some of the similarities. I'm going to step down from my soapbox now and agree that there are some key differences, but I think it's also important that you step down from yours and discuss with me the similarities. Sound reasonable?
>Can we stop using the word "terrorism," and its derivatives, to describe any unsavory act?
Pushing forward their own (twisted) ideals and intimidating a large population by aggressively targeting a few, and often times the most vulnerable, sounds a lot like terrorist practices to me. Your point stands that the phrase "terrorism" is overused, but in this case it may be a valid comparison.
>>Not to be too rude, but fuck you, don't speak for me.
>>I apologizing for apologizing for you, and fuck you too, pal.
Make love, not (flame)war!!!
(ducks)
"Personally, I think that both J&J and the ARC are using it for purposes not in keeping with the geneva conventions."
I don't think it's completely fair to compare them to the Bush Administration.
Double standards, yes, but you have to understand that they are an inherent part of human existence. You make a poignant statement, but I don't see how anyone can claim complete objectivity. Yes, your are right about the fact that these contradictions do exist, I cannot believe your contempt towards the simple acts of honoring the dead. Everybody has the right to be honored in death, every survivor has the right to comfort. The murdered, starved, bombed, and everyone else who died deserve this. If your view of fairness is that every death is the same, so be it. But to feel contempt toward those who feel that those dead should be honored is wrong.
Maybe your logic and observations are true, but your contempt for those who would only wish to grieve is inexcusable. So what if they wish to honor those who died more than the next person? So what if they even were to erect statues of them that they didn't deserve? I see no crime in that. And even if the honor we give to their memory is unequal to that we give to others, that does not make it wrong to grieve. Fair, maybe not. But I too give my condolences to all those involved, and unashamedly at that.
Bit exaggerated use of a slippery slope metaphor. IANAL but to my understanding, their actions were closer to breaking into somebody's house to steal back your remote control. Not to justify their actions- just clarifying.
Ill be the first to say it. Who the fuck cares. The problem is being delt with.I'll be the first to ask: If you don't give a hoot about this issue, what are you doing in this topic, let alone in the /. community?
Ok, that's reasonable enough I think
And keep them out of our world of grown-ups until they're old enough.Whoa, slow down. Now you're saying its not the government's job to keep the kids in cages, it's the parents? The problem lies in the broken assumption that minors (lets go with the 14-18 age group) can't operate in society without someone slapping their wrist with a ruler. The issue is not so much who is regulating our children, but how it is done. It is incredibly arrogant to say that our current child-raising techniques are perfect, so why not fix those instead of antagonizing our younger population? Sometimes the ruler (strictly metaphorically speaking) is necessary, but prison time for consensual sex between a 17 and 15 year old?
$0.02
I completely agree with your observation that they could use these or similar criteria to block any number of sites, but the claim that this is a clean cut case of censorship and will ultimately lead to more sites being shut down is a bit premature. That said, the /. community should be keeping a close eye on similar cases in the future.
That number wouldn't happen to be...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Every time you make a bad joke, a kitten dies. In other news, dogs everywhere make to the streets in celebration...
The chance of a bacteria surviving out there is 1:2 to the power of 276,709. Then again, the bacteria does have 30 seconds...
Parent was brought to you by the People for Eating of Tasty Animals (PETA)
Mostly Harmless
And the important question on Jack Thompson's mind? "How can I tie this to video games?" I'm not too sure myself, but I'm willing to bet our sadomasochist friend has a couple of key pointers.
One thing I wonder is where Apple will stop. Similar to explicit lyrics in music, what happens when Apple starts allowing users to download some not-quite-g-rated-movies. I'm not against this change- I for one would actually welcome more content, regardless of whether I even decide to download or not. But I also forsee Apple having some issues/lawsuits/negative publicity. Apple has made some poor choices as far as content goes (anyone remember those Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition vids?), and with Apple growing as quickly as it is, there are going to be issues.
How fitting that this is posted on the date 4-2
Computer users can click a mouse up to a thousand times on a full day... I guess they never played Poke the Bunny
Hate to be the naysayer of the group, but this seems pretty speculative to me. The connection between the gorilla strain of lice and the human head lice is an interesting observation, but that doesn't necessarily mean all that was claimed. I'm not dismissing the theory, but there is not enough evidence to sell me on this one. Does the premise sound good? Yes, but that is hardly enough to justify the evolutionary links between lice and the various branches of primates.
Previous posts have mentioned that a political spin on a game can make it a propaganda of sorts, and hence, damages the integrity of gaming. But, moral and ethical choices have appeared in games (KOTOR was used as an example) and those too are propaganda. Just because a game says something doesn't make it evil. Someone said earlier that when the game "asks a question" it retains its integrity, but when it tries to "force an answer," it destroys what it set out to do. If games take a more "applicable to life" stance content-wise with the intent of making people think and confront issues, as opposed to making people take their side, then there is a great potential for success. Its a fine line, yes, but games, like all other forms of media, can be used to open peoples eyes. If gamemakers set out with this purpose, they have my approval.