> What exactly would the reason to block a campaign website from the rest of the world be, xenophobia?
Maybe. And maybe there IS a good reason. There is -- it may not be the true reason, but it makes sense.
Obviously, Bush is disliked by the majority of the world, there's no denying that. With that many enemies, surely TONS of them would have an incentive to [D]DoS the site. Well, if you stop them from accessing it, you make it harder for them to attack it, making the site more viewable within the target audience -- American residents.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the number of American foreign nationals who are voting and would be swayed by looking at his website are very few. Few enough that "disenfranchising" them is a minor-to-nil risk.
Meanwhile, the risk of NOONE seeing it is pretty good, if the whole world is allowed to access it.... a million times a second.
There are enough Americans willing to attempt a DoS on it as-is.
> Prior Bono, Gone with the Wind would have expired in [...] 2011
I was trying to figure out what "Prior Bono" meant by comparing it to the legal term "pro bono." Took me a minute to realize you meant Sonny Bono('s Copyright Law).
> Consider, at least, that the jury that DID hear all of the facts unanimously found for the plaintiff.
I plainly disagree with that statement. All of the time, there is evidence that is left out/stricken from the record. That means that the jury RARELY has all the evidence. Big-money lawyers can get all kinds of good evidence thrown out. Of course, the ability to do that is based on sound reasoning though.
> McDonalds could probably afford better lawyers than she, so please don't blame the award on the gullibility of juries
That's an extremely good point that I hadn't considered when tiring of McD's coffee threads the last 30 times I've seen them. Amazing that new[*] ideas can be found on old issues.
> Do you know what 3rd degree burns are? They are serious burns and do not normally result from hot fluids designed for consumption.
Have you ever drank coffee immediately after poured? It's certainly too hot for consumption as well, unless your coffee maker is broken. I'll admit that coffee shouldn't be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, but that lady has to take responsibility for her own idiocy as well. SHE PUT A HOT CUP OF COFFEE BETWEEN HER LEGS! If she doesn't realize that that's just asking for pain, she's too stupid to be driving on the same roads as us. For the price of two of those cups, she could buy a cup holder (assuming she amazingly had the only contemporary car produced without one).
It could have been a COLD drink, if she poured it on herself, got startled, and crashed as a result, would the company be liable for not having spillproof cups?
I've seen this dumb story trotted out every time someone wants to make an off-the-cuff remark about either corporate evilness or stupid users. Want to know where the fault really lies (lays?)? With both of them. The company was very irresponsible, she was a fucking moron. Both deserve a konk on the head.
> I always wondered what they used all those copies of microsoft Bob for...
They sold them dirt cheap to AOL, who relabeled them & shipped them out. Seriously, it would either become a coaster/trash, or it would go to a potential AOLer -- would they know the difference?
"Gee this Internet thing's great: I don't get why people complain about the porn!"
> the rating of "flamebait" seems a bit harsh considering I was being frank and honest in my post.
You got that not for voicing your opinion, but because you suggest that to be "pure" you must become offended by everything. Someone can have "purity" and still be tolerant of others. As stated in South Park, you don't have to like something or agree with it to be tolerant of it.
Saying you can't watch TV without being offended is laughable. Just don't watch any fluff TV. If you get offended watching the Discovery channel, that means there is something wrong with you, not something wrong with TV.
You also seem to take it as a given that "over-sexualization" is a bad thing. I've never been into porn, nor have I "stashed" any. I've never owned a porn movie (although I've seen a few), I have a good bit of self-control
> I guess it's disappointing to see such knee jerk, animalistic reactions
Your statements are knee-jerk as well: you just don't see it because you assume everyone should hold the same ideals, and they don't. You are reacting "in the name of God." (not literally, but you know what I mean).
> By the way, life is much more fulfilling and meaningful when lived with grace and virtue:
I practiced grace & virtue until I was about 21 and it was all shite. It's not gotten any better nor much worse since then. YOUR life may be better being virtuous. Wonderful for you. If I ever become a Christian again, I'll pray that your life only gets even better because of your decisions, but stop pretending that something that works for you will work for everyone: that's dishonest and counterproductive.
What kind of an asshole do you have to be to go to a public place where people are watching TV and then turn it off because it distracts you? DON'T GO TO BW3'S YOU INCONSIDERATE BASTARD! Don't want TV on around you? Don't go to a place that has one, but don't fucking turn it off yourself. Christ, people get all high & mighty because they think not watching TV makes them on par with God himself and then they complain when other people do. YOU DON'T HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NEVER ENCOUNTER TV IN A PUBLIC PLACE.
> I was sickened to realize that psychology is essentially amoral
Why were you sickened? Are you taking psychology to help you become a minister or something? Any truly scientific field that I can think of requires amorality. When you bring morals into play, you limit yourself to things that are considered "good." I'm sure many good things have come out of bad actions.
However, I don't completely agree that psychology is amoral. It's just that the morality part of it coincides with commonly-held morals so you don't see it. Wouldn't a psychologist consider cannibalism a socially deviant behavior? Wouldn't that be because it is considered morally wrong? What other reason is there? Some human tribes, as I'm sure you are well aware, have practiced cannibalism in the past (probably still) as part of their culture. Does that make their culture inherently evil? How about immoral? I don't believe so.
This doesn't express my position very well, because I can't really say it in words. It's like saying "good and evil don't exist," although clearly, they do exist as observations of an action. Two people can see the same action and have different responses though, which is why morality isn't concrete.
Are they only empty because they don't agree with your views? Americans aren't as stupid as you seem to think. If they are perfectly contented knowing what is going on in the world and still just sitting around watching TV because that's what makes them happy, who are you to say their lives are empty?
> You control nothing when you degenerate in your tv room or code some app
Unless you are are the leader of a country, no one controls anything of importance. About the only control anyone else has is the remote in the living room.
> Amerika
America. Not sure if it was an "intentional typo," but as much as you might not like to hear it, that's not a very good insult (assuming it was intentional).
> Id rather have the West disappear than all of Earth disappear because of feckin' mindless yanks...
That's pretty ignorant. The U.S. has every interest in not destroying the world. If we destroyed the world, there would be no more slave labor, nobody to sell our overpriced junk to, no one to kill for oil. No, staying alive is the first step in making a profit, which is the primary motivator for the U.S. government (AKA American corporations).
> americans are pussies ; they arent warriors,
Yet conveniently, when the topic changes to war, suddenly Americans are ruthless aggressors who will start a war for any (bad) reason. You have a slightly flawed view of Americans. It's not that we are pussies, it's that we don't give a shit about you (generally, not everyone is like that). We are perfectly contented how we are, so we want it to stay this way. That's why some people like Bush (OK, there are some mindless "fecks" then). They became overrun with emotion after an attack that had no direct effect on them, and Bush acted like he could do something to keep the status quo inside the country. It may be the position that arises from being an "imperialist empire," but not liking us for it doesn't change the fact.
Yeah, I'm discontented with the country. I think the Iraqi war was total B.S. & Bush should be held accountable. I don't agree that the ends justify the means (in this case). I hate the average American city-dweller & ignorant rednecks. I think Bush using God's name to push his agenda should be considered a personal insult to anyone of any religion. I want to see Washington D.C. -- and California too, mostly Hollywood -- go up in a nuclear blaze of glory. My opinions on these topics, however, have no impact on the realities of them, except at the voting booth (theoretically).
Slashdot Mirror
> sane, hot, intelligent, available, nice
> the exceptions always have boyfriends
Wouldn't that mean they aren't available? Not always, but you were talking about "rules of thumb."
> You think that's nerdy? Check out this picture
There is a fine line between nerdy & idiotic. I don't claim to know which side this is on, but I'd place a wager on the latter.
> What exactly would the reason to block a campaign website from the rest of the world be, xenophobia?
Maybe. And maybe there IS a good reason. There is -- it may not be the true reason, but it makes sense.
Obviously, Bush is disliked by the majority of the world, there's no denying that. With that many enemies, surely TONS of them would have an incentive to [D]DoS the site. Well, if you stop them from accessing it, you make it harder for them to attack it, making the site more viewable within the target audience -- American residents.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the number of American foreign nationals who are voting and would be swayed by looking at his website are very few. Few enough that "disenfranchising" them is a minor-to-nil risk.
Meanwhile, the risk of NOONE seeing it is pretty good, if the whole world is allowed to access it.... a million times a second.
There are enough Americans willing to attempt a DoS on it as-is.
> Prior Bono, Gone with the Wind would have expired in [...] 2011
I was trying to figure out what "Prior Bono" meant by comparing it to the legal term "pro bono." Took me a minute to realize you meant Sonny Bono('s Copyright Law).
> Consider, at least, that the jury that DID hear all of the facts unanimously found for the plaintiff.
I plainly disagree with that statement. All of the time, there is evidence that is left out/stricken from the record. That means that the jury RARELY has all the evidence. Big-money lawyers can get all kinds of good evidence thrown out. Of course, the ability to do that is based on sound reasoning though.
> McDonalds could probably afford better lawyers than she, so please don't blame the award on the gullibility of juries
That's an extremely good point that I hadn't considered when tiring of McD's coffee threads the last 30 times I've seen them. Amazing that new[*] ideas can be found on old issues.
([*] to me)
> Do you know what 3rd degree burns are? They are serious burns and do not normally result from hot fluids designed for consumption.
Have you ever drank coffee immediately after poured? It's certainly too hot for consumption as well, unless your coffee maker is broken. I'll admit that coffee shouldn't be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, but that lady has to take responsibility for her own idiocy as well. SHE PUT A HOT CUP OF COFFEE BETWEEN HER LEGS! If she doesn't realize that that's just asking for pain, she's too stupid to be driving on the same roads as us. For the price of two of those cups, she could buy a cup holder (assuming she amazingly had the only contemporary car produced without one).
It could have been a COLD drink, if she poured it on herself, got startled, and crashed as a result, would the company be liable for not having spillproof cups?
I've seen this dumb story trotted out every time someone wants to make an off-the-cuff remark about either corporate evilness or stupid users. Want to know where the fault really lies (lays?)? With both of them. The company was very irresponsible, she was a fucking moron. Both deserve a konk on the head.
> I always wondered what they used all those copies of microsoft Bob for...
They sold them dirt cheap to AOL, who relabeled them & shipped them out. Seriously, it would either become a coaster/trash, or it would go to a potential AOLer -- would they know the difference?
"Gee this Internet thing's great: I don't get why people complain about the porn!"
> Wow, a case where spending $20-50 on that extended warranty scam may have been a good idea.
That's like saying insurance is a scam! Oh wait, it is...
> Wasn't the coldest inhabited place Vostok(?) in Russia?
Isn't Vostok just the name of the Russian base in Antarctica? Look Here.
> At least the work we do can set us apart from the animals.
Unless you are a Dam Builder. Then, the beavers have got you beat.
> If your gym sauna reached 225 easily , either its thermometer is broken or you are disfigured beyond recognition.
Or they placed the thermometer inches away from the heat source & sat across the room.
God, I love science. Or maybe it's just the scientists with imagination.
> Welcome to slashdot, the home of the following overused jokes and habbits:
"habits." And you forgot the pedants! HOW could you forget the pedants!
> No, I just have a sense of ethics. Not everybody in this world is motivated by love of money.
Not everybody has the same sense of ethics.
> if Fox News Channel [...] speak about France in french,
Then they wouldn't be an American station. You see, the primary language of USA is English.
If the article was about freedom of French-speaking press, you would have a point.
> the rating of "flamebait" seems a bit harsh considering I was being frank and honest in my post.
You got that not for voicing your opinion, but because you suggest that to be "pure" you must become offended by everything. Someone can have "purity" and still be tolerant of others. As stated in South Park, you don't have to like something or agree with it to be tolerant of it.
Saying you can't watch TV without being offended is laughable. Just don't watch any fluff TV. If you get offended watching the Discovery channel, that means there is something wrong with you, not something wrong with TV.
You also seem to take it as a given that "over-sexualization" is a bad thing. I've never been into porn, nor have I "stashed" any. I've never owned a porn movie (although I've seen a few), I have a good bit of self-control
> I guess it's disappointing to see such knee jerk, animalistic reactions
Your statements are knee-jerk as well: you just don't see it because you assume everyone should hold the same ideals, and they don't. You are reacting "in the name of God." (not literally, but you know what I mean).
> By the way, life is much more fulfilling and meaningful when lived with grace and virtue:
I practiced grace & virtue until I was about 21 and it was all shite. It's not gotten any better nor much worse since then. YOUR life may be better being virtuous. Wonderful for you. If I ever become a Christian again, I'll pray that your life only gets even better because of your decisions, but stop pretending that something that works for you will work for everyone: that's dishonest and counterproductive.
> Why I am replying to such flamebait anyway?
Calm, it wasn't flamebait, it was a joke.
What kind of an asshole do you have to be to go to a public place where people are watching TV and then turn it off because it distracts you? DON'T GO TO BW3'S YOU INCONSIDERATE BASTARD! Don't want TV on around you? Don't go to a place that has one, but don't fucking turn it off yourself. Christ, people get all high & mighty because they think not watching TV makes them on par with God himself and then they complain when other people do. YOU DON'T HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NEVER ENCOUNTER TV IN A PUBLIC PLACE.
Fucking Cocks.
> So, if there is tampering with votes. What is step 2?
That IS step 2. Step 1 is "Become buddies with someone who will run for president."
> What are you doing on November 2nd?
Working, so that I can pay taxes to the government that is supposed to provide a working voting system.
> > "dealer^H^H^H^H^Hdoctor"
> could you please explain what this means
^H means backspace, so it's sorta' like *cough*-ing.
> Everybody else with an ounce of healthy cynicism and an extra IQ point or two
Keep in mind that half the population is below-average...
> The question is, if you have money and choice what will you buy? Porsche or Ferrari?
Or 50 Kias. 50 Kias will probably last a lot longer than a single sports car.
> I was sickened to realize that psychology is essentially amoral
Why were you sickened? Are you taking psychology to help you become a minister or something? Any truly scientific field that I can think of requires amorality. When you bring morals into play, you limit yourself to things that are considered "good." I'm sure many good things have come out of bad actions.
However, I don't completely agree that psychology is amoral. It's just that the morality part of it coincides with commonly-held morals so you don't see it. Wouldn't a psychologist consider cannibalism a socially deviant behavior? Wouldn't that be because it is considered morally wrong? What other reason is there? Some human tribes, as I'm sure you are well aware, have practiced cannibalism in the past (probably still) as part of their culture. Does that make their culture inherently evil? How about immoral? I don't believe so.
This doesn't express my position very well, because I can't really say it in words. It's like saying "good and evil don't exist," although clearly, they do exist as observations of an action. Two people can see the same action and have different responses though, which is why morality isn't concrete.
> empty people who buy into
Are they only empty because they don't agree with your views? Americans aren't as stupid as you seem to think. If they are perfectly contented knowing what is going on in the world and still just sitting around watching TV because that's what makes them happy, who are you to say their lives are empty?
> You control nothing when you degenerate in your tv room or code some app
Unless you are are the leader of a country, no one controls anything of importance. About the only control anyone else has is the remote in the living room.
> Amerika
America. Not sure if it was an "intentional typo," but as much as you might not like to hear it, that's not a very good insult (assuming it was intentional).
> Id rather have the West disappear than all of Earth disappear because of feckin' mindless yanks...
That's pretty ignorant. The U.S. has every interest in not destroying the world. If we destroyed the world, there would be no more slave labor, nobody to sell our overpriced junk to, no one to kill for oil. No, staying alive is the first step in making a profit, which is the primary motivator for the U.S. government (AKA American corporations).
> americans are pussies ; they arent warriors,
Yet conveniently, when the topic changes to war, suddenly Americans are ruthless aggressors who will start a war for any (bad) reason. You have a slightly flawed view of Americans. It's not that we are pussies, it's that we don't give a shit about you (generally, not everyone is like that). We are perfectly contented how we are, so we want it to stay this way. That's why some people like Bush (OK, there are some mindless "fecks" then). They became overrun with emotion after an attack that had no direct effect on them, and Bush acted like he could do something to keep the status quo inside the country. It may be the position that arises from being an "imperialist empire," but not liking us for it doesn't change the fact.
Yeah, I'm discontented with the country. I think the Iraqi war was total B.S. & Bush should be held accountable. I don't agree that the ends justify the means (in this case). I hate the average American city-dweller & ignorant rednecks. I think Bush using God's name to push his agenda should be considered a personal insult to anyone of any religion. I want to see Washington D.C. -- and California too, mostly Hollywood -- go up in a nuclear blaze of glory. My opinions on these topics, however, have no impact on the realities of them, except at the voting booth (theoretically).