Censorship is anytime a person, or a group of people, wish to block the dissemination of information because they find it objectionable. For whatever reasons.
You are asking for censorship because you find the information about GMO in food to be objectionable, therefore it should not be present. Of course, you are saying we should not force it to be present, but given corporations penchant for lying and obfuscation, it is really the same thing.
The reason nutritional content is labelled on food is because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is relevant to people's dietary health choices, not because some idiot wants it. If you're going to force companies to provide information at their expense, there has to be a valid objective justification. If it were determined that GM foods had some negative health effects, it might be time to start thinking about labelled them. But since just being GMO will *never* be linked to health effects (if there ever is a health effect, it will be of a particular gene insertion, not all GMOs), that situation will never come to pass.
1) You're making a huge assumption about the science. One of my particular objections to GMO is the cowboy attitude in how the science is approached. There is not enough data, not even remotely, to be making any solid claims that support GMO being done out in the open. It's insane to be performing research, and implementing research, in an open environment in which your actions can have massive unintended consequences and run wild across the entire globe. We have enough problems as it is with invasive species, diminishing crop diversity, etc. without running around wild doing this shit.
2) It is not just dietary health choices. I think your claim of *never* is quite dubious. Anybody seriously calling themselves a rational scientist is more conservative than that. Until the science progresses a lot farther, and we can see a few more generations worth of data, I believe it is relevant to dietary health choices.
3) Damages to society are also part of dietary health choices. You can't possibly be that shortsighted. If you knew a particular food was produced in such a way as to be wholly unsustainable and would impact our food production severely in another decade, would it not be part of your overall dietary health for yourself, and for society to modify your behavior now? Tragedy of the commons indeed....
4) GMO and its methods are extremely damaging to nature. That's not some wild tin-hat idea that there will be some runaway mutation and the lettuce will revolt and start attacking us. GMO is often used to allow us to heavily increase the use of pesticides and herbicides. It's not like we are trying to create the strawberry-banana hybrid and I object to that because it is an affront to God. I object to it because it is a pointless battle that only creates super pests with respect to weeds and insects, all while damaging the surrounding environment with the pesticides and chemicals.
I have some pretty rational objections to GMO. Most of it is based on how the science is performed, and the conduct of the corporations with respect to IP law and their damage to society.
Having labels of what food has GMO in it allows me to vote with my wallet and not support any company that uses GMO. That's not to say it would be all GMO either. If I knew of a company that produced its products in a controlled environment (like herbs in a massive greenhouse) and was not suing everybody in sight when their DNA is "sold" by the wind, I would probably be just fine with purchasing it.
All of that, is extremely relevant to my long term dietary health choices (being able to eat), and my quite genuine concern that without some common sense now, my descendants will have a pretty damn difficult time getting something to eat.
When did advertising suddenly become evil, after 300+ years of being the main revenue source for most media?
It was not sudden. Advertising has always been evil. In fact, it was much less evil for awhile with all the restrictive laws we put in place that governed what advertisers could actually say. Now advertisers are hell bent on destroying whatever shred of privacy we had left for the "big data" quest.
There is nothing about advertising that is truthful. It is all deception and manipulation, and quite frankly, at this point in affront to any intelligent human being.
So people like you need to rationalize their selfish behavior, and invented a new, not very logical, moral model.
Utter bullshit.
I am either receiving the content for free, or I have purchased a license to the content, or I am viewing it with somebody who has. There is nothing, ever, that has constrained me with how I choose to view the content . Nothing in society, or copyright law, has ever, not once, not even for a minute, obligated me to watch the commercials.
It's not selfish. I don't want to see that fucking crap, so I am not going to. Simple as that. What next? I might as well be killing babies because I will never click on an advertisement?
Mind you, I'd love to see content providers start relying on payments from readers
Now that is the only sensible and worthwhile thing you have said. My subscription to Slashdot is not current, but I have had a few. Penny Arcade recently did something on Kickstarter to be advertisement free for a year as one of the goals. Was too late for it, but I do support Penny Arcade with some merch here and there.
I also hope for different models that allow us as society to move back to a more patronage type model to support content producers directly. Fuck the middle men. They demand unreasonable prices and use the insane amounts of money and power they have to influence laws that are just horrible for society to unjustly enrich themselves.
BTW, the only reason ad-blocking even works is that only a few techies know how to do it
Wrong. There are plenty of people that only knew how to search for an extension called Adblock and install it. You don't have to be a techie anymore to do it.
As for content providers that do block me, I just ignore them. CNN videos is a good example, as well as Hulu. Fine, I get my content elsewhere. 99% of everything on CNN can be found with a quick search elsewhere, and Hulu has too many advertisements as it is. Might as well be a cable subscription.
when technology started making it easy for people to rip off content
That sounds an awful lot like saying it was stolen, which again, means that is bullshit. You can't steal content, and in your case, you really just mean the content was not consumed in the exact manner you wished for. Which, that is deeply unethical and immoral. If you also feel that way and want to push for technology and laws to force me, then you are the true enemy of society.
You are fighting a losing battle. Other than a few, sparse, very sparse, edge cases, nobody wants advertising. Gee... I wonder why. Perhaps because most people realize that they are an insult to their intelligence and a waste of their time because they impart nothing useful and only seek to manipulate them?
It's illogical and immoral to skip past that stuff huh?
Yes, it is. The very definition of evil applies to advertising.
Advertising:
1) Uses deceit to further its own agenda. 2) Manipulates other people through lies and distortions of the truth.
Whatever you think is good about advertising, is not. It may have manipulated you into thinking it was valuable information, but the information it provides is never useful to an informed purchasing decision.
Do some people benefit? Sure. Just like Swiss bankers benefited from Nazi's stealing the wealth of the people they just abused and killed. Strong analogy I know, but apt. Just because a site benefits from it does not mean advertising has some sort of redeeming virtue because of it.
It is truly a disgusting, wasteful, and shameful blight on humanity at this point. The sooner we can move past such behaviors, the better.
You ever see a description of Utopia that included advertising? Yeah, me neither.
Unless you can really provide a compelling case why it is in the best interests of society, and public health, to possess my personal information yourself, your request is hereby denied.
People deserve to know the companies, methods, ingredients, technology, etc. involved with the food they are eating.
The people asking for the information not to be provided are the ones encouraging the act of censorship. Censorship is not just the government preventing speech, it is any entity preventing undesirable speech.
As far as compulsory speech goes, that's pretty silly. We already mandate a fuck-ton of compulsory speech all over the place. Emergency exit signs, nutritional labels, warning labels, etc. The list goes on and on and on.
Companies have to be forced to give the information or they don't. They also need to be forced not to lie. Simple as that.
People can rant here all they want against the "scientifically illiterate" and it has nothing to do with the fact that the consumer deserves the information period to make their own decisions regarding the food they want to consume.
To say it is not relevant is to deny them information and choice, and that is just unethical.
People, such as yourself, are asking that we be denied the information based on your opinions. Specifically, you object (find the content objectionable), and don't wish for the information to be on the product.
Companies have to be forced to give that kind of information. You act like it is a perfect world and companies just love to do that shit . If there was not a law mandating it, you know damn well we would not even know how many calories are in an Oreo Cookie.
You don't want to put it on your label? Too fucking bad. It's information that I want, so I can avoid your products.
For the record, science is the last reason I object to GMO. There are plenty of other very good reasons to do so, like objections towards owning genes and allowing corporations, such as Monsanto to terrorize the world in the name of glorious profits.
So there. I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-patents and anti-corporation. Either way, you're being ridiculous and more than a little bit tyrannical to deny me that information.
You're still asking for censorship because of how valuable you feel the information is.
What kind of retarded bullshit logic is that? You don't get to decide if the information is valuable or not, and your hyperbole aside, the consumer gets to decide.
Disclosure of the companies and technology that was involved is not trivial or stupid. Furthermore, science is not the only fucking reason why we should get to know if GMO is being used in our food. Just maybe, just maybe, we can be objecting for reasons not based on science. Like, I dunno, the fact Monsanto is an evil fucking corporation that uses lawsuits like AQ uses bombs and plenty of people can strongly disagree with the very idea you patent genes.
Bottom line is that your analogies are bullshit. It's important information and consumer deserve to make up their own mind about it.
What you want amounts to censorship . Just because people may use information to further their agenda does not make the release of such information unethical.
All of the pro-GMO arguments basically boil down to the fact they don't want the information out there, the arguments about that information to occur, and the ability for anyone to make a purchasing decision based on that information.
Ummm, that's not to anyone's benefit. Restricting the information because you may feel you "know what is best for the rest of us" is abhorrent logic.
Let them label it, and let people make their own decisions.
Unless we have lost all pretense about living in a country where we have freedom and it is really isn't just about corporations and 1%'s fucking us over like slaves.
It can be very effective. The goal of the spammer is to have their content visible to both users and search engines for as long as possible. If the account gets banned in this way very quickly then the whole operation is without value, especially long term value to any search engines.
Create as many accounts as you like. If they get banned in the same way, the spammer never accomplishes his goal and has to spend an enormous amount of resources (botnets are not cheap to create) just to get short term visibility.
Some other ideas:
- Add some URL lookups to identify spam/malware similar to lists used to classify emails
- Ban URL shorteners. Not needed for a site like Slashdot where you don't even see the link. Either that, or just convert the link, evaluate it, and display the target domain to the user anyways.
- 72 hour probation period before your posts become visible to search engines.
- Spam button for users to click. Set a threshold and allow users with good standing, high karma, to report. Real users would complain when they notice they are banned (like cpu6502) and the site admins can evaluate and take appropriate action.
Yes, there are alternatives, but unless you can get other companies to employ the alternative you can be screwed as well.
For one company I am only running a Windows server because it is required for their CRM platform. Could I create an alternative? Sure.... for tens of thousands of dollars (per programmer at a minimum) and about a years worth of custom coding. Not to mention support for all the 3rd party programs from other companies designed to download and sync data from their own platforms.
It's a web of vendor lock-in. Even if you are aware of the alternatives, and desperate to move to them, you could still be just as stuck.
I have been evaluating SaaS offering for the past 18 months looking for a solution, without finding one that even meets the minimum requirements.
If MS Office disappeared we could get over it. As long as no other company was trying to send us MS docs, or more often, complaining they can't read our docs, we will be just fine.
No Windows on the desktops? Still survive. No Windows on the servers? Screwed.
The game’s main course is ridiculously easy even by Mario standards, although there’s some challenge presented by the final level and a few of the extra unlockable courses.
Well, yeah.
I'm old enough to have played video games when the only thing you had was pong... and you were grateful for it. Kill screens were the "epic shit" of the day, and you had one, it was as revered as an Olympic Gold medal.
Video games used to be hard . They were a test of manliness and skill, not to mention perseverance.
Now it is all about psychology. Why make a video game when you can make an experience. You don't want to make it too hard, no no no. It has to be exquisitely designed to string you along till the next endorphin rush checkpoint where you have collected an achievement or unlocked something.
Clickety-clickety-clickety.
It reminds of that episode of Star Trek where the whole point of the game was to become progressively zombified. I had that same reaction with Farmville, and could swear it was some mind control experiment by the government being conducted on a massive scale. Clicking to feed chickens. Yes, that was ultimately how the government was going to control our minds.
To be fair this guy is selling prescription drugs illegally.
That's like protected by copyrights and patents and shit. If he was selling coke or heroin to kids that might be one thing, but now he is messing the very fabric of our economy!
Every time I have tried to watch sports in the last decade all I hear and see is stupid fucking crap like:
- Let's see the replay on the Pizza Hut Replay Cam - Brought to you buy BlahBlahBlah - Check out our awesome display screen with real time stats that needs a brand name in front of everything - It's not Football anymore. It's Chase Superbowl. (Like Chase had anything to fucking do with Football other than being the highest bidder) - The entire field having advertisements plastered all over it, and now CGI overlays that can replace *those* advertisements when viewed by television.
It's far worse than commercials or overlays infecting television programming. I could not even go to a game in person without being bombarded with the filth.
I did not watch the Olympics even though I could have torrented the shit out of it in HD. I knew NBC was going to fuck it up (and they did), and make it one long commercial advertisement platform.
The Olympics can fucking blow me. Those people are as foaming at the mouth insane as anybody in the RIAA. Trying to tell the people who run the Redneck Olympics that they "own" a couple thousand year old word that means contest between athletes?
A true contest is no longer possible anymore with all of the drugs. Your lamentation of the commercialization is spot on. There is so much money in it that I would not be surprised if 80% of all gold medal athletes are doping. There are books to that effect as well that talk about drugs in sports, and specifically the Olympics. It's not limited to East German women.
If you want originality then Spirits is part of the bundle!
It's so cool. You must choose a few good spirits to build stairs, change wind flow, and act as guides for the rest of the spirits, making decisions that may ultimately sacrifice the few to save the many...
Depends on the ransomware. I have run across the FBI thing twice now and the real problem is that the machine had business data. Paying to get access to your business data was the main reason why they were willing to pay.
These particular variants were making it difficult to locate data since they had silently redirected the My Documents folder. If you could get out of it and back into safe mode you would see your data missing unless the ransomware program was actually running.
Even more problematic is that some of these programs encrypt the data. Then you really have a problem.
It's a hard lesson of why you need to keep business machines and fapping stations separate .
Saying that we must not give in and have to fix Vegas instead is like demanding an event be held in Kabul because to move it somewhere safer would be giving the terrorists validation.
That's hyperbole. Furthermore, right there, you are giving an excuse to all men visiting Las Vegas to perform acts of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and/or sexual battery just because it is Las Vegas.
Las Vegas is not Kabul. It is a city within the United States, and is governed by the laws of the State of Nevada and any applicable Federal Laws.
It's more than a little ridiculous to just give up and have the convention elsewhere because you think Las Vegas is the contributing cause to totally unacceptable behavior everywhere else in the US.
You are not being realistic by moving it, and are just ignoring the problem and hoping that a venue change will magically alter men's behavior.
The correct approach is to use laws that exist and prosecute for assault and battery, and enforce whatever sexual harassment policies that exist. As far as I am concerned the woman writing the article was a victim of sexual battery and it should be treated like a crime. You don't move venues when crimes occur, you call the police.
I know the crotch grabbing thing was separate, which seems to have stirred the pot here quite a bit.
It's a pretty harsh far reaching zero-tolerance policy too. It goes beyond just banning him from Readercon, and seems to have blackballed him from an entire industry. Unless I am reading that wrong. He may have been a little creepy, and the shoulder thing violated her personal space, but was a "death" sentence warranted?
To put in perspective here, Sandusky was fucking little boys and Penn State did not even get a lifetime ban......
That's their decision, and while harsh, I hope it does lead to a more civilized environment at the conventions.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to not know what censorship is.
Neither do you.
Censorship is anytime a person, or a group of people, wish to block the dissemination of information because they find it objectionable. For whatever reasons.
You are asking for censorship because you find the information about GMO in food to be objectionable, therefore it should not be present. Of course, you are saying we should not force it to be present, but given corporations penchant for lying and obfuscation, it is really the same thing.
The reason nutritional content is labelled on food is because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is relevant to people's dietary health choices, not because some idiot wants it. If you're going to force companies to provide information at their expense, there has to be a valid objective justification. If it were determined that GM foods had some negative health effects, it might be time to start thinking about labelled them. But since just being GMO will *never* be linked to health effects (if there ever is a health effect, it will be of a particular gene insertion, not all GMOs), that situation will never come to pass.
1) You're making a huge assumption about the science. One of my particular objections to GMO is the cowboy attitude in how the science is approached. There is not enough data, not even remotely, to be making any solid claims that support GMO being done out in the open. It's insane to be performing research, and implementing research, in an open environment in which your actions can have massive unintended consequences and run wild across the entire globe. We have enough problems as it is with invasive species, diminishing crop diversity, etc. without running around wild doing this shit.
2) It is not just dietary health choices. I think your claim of *never* is quite dubious. Anybody seriously calling themselves a rational scientist is more conservative than that. Until the science progresses a lot farther, and we can see a few more generations worth of data, I believe it is relevant to dietary health choices.
3) Damages to society are also part of dietary health choices. You can't possibly be that shortsighted. If you knew a particular food was produced in such a way as to be wholly unsustainable and would impact our food production severely in another decade, would it not be part of your overall dietary health for yourself, and for society to modify your behavior now? Tragedy of the commons indeed....
4) GMO and its methods are extremely damaging to nature. That's not some wild tin-hat idea that there will be some runaway mutation and the lettuce will revolt and start attacking us. GMO is often used to allow us to heavily increase the use of pesticides and herbicides. It's not like we are trying to create the strawberry-banana hybrid and I object to that because it is an affront to God. I object to it because it is a pointless battle that only creates super pests with respect to weeds and insects, all while damaging the surrounding environment with the pesticides and chemicals.
I have some pretty rational objections to GMO. Most of it is based on how the science is performed, and the conduct of the corporations with respect to IP law and their damage to society.
Having labels of what food has GMO in it allows me to vote with my wallet and not support any company that uses GMO. That's not to say it would be all GMO either. If I knew of a company that produced its products in a controlled environment (like herbs in a massive greenhouse) and was not suing everybody in sight when their DNA is "sold" by the wind, I would probably be just fine with purchasing it.
All of that, is extremely relevant to my long term dietary health choices (being able to eat), and my quite genuine concern that without some common sense now, my descendants will have a pretty damn difficult time getting something to eat.
When did advertising suddenly become evil, after 300+ years of being the main revenue source for most media?
It was not sudden. Advertising has always been evil. In fact, it was much less evil for awhile with all the restrictive laws we put in place that governed what advertisers could actually say. Now advertisers are hell bent on destroying whatever shred of privacy we had left for the "big data" quest.
There is nothing about advertising that is truthful. It is all deception and manipulation, and quite frankly, at this point in affront to any intelligent human being.
So people like you need to rationalize their selfish behavior, and invented a new, not very logical, moral model.
Utter bullshit.
I am either receiving the content for free, or I have purchased a license to the content, or I am viewing it with somebody who has. There is nothing, ever, that has constrained me with how I choose to view the content . Nothing in society, or copyright law, has ever, not once, not even for a minute, obligated me to watch the commercials.
It's not selfish. I don't want to see that fucking crap, so I am not going to. Simple as that. What next? I might as well be killing babies because I will never click on an advertisement?
Mind you, I'd love to see content providers start relying on payments from readers
Now that is the only sensible and worthwhile thing you have said. My subscription to Slashdot is not current, but I have had a few. Penny Arcade recently did something on Kickstarter to be advertisement free for a year as one of the goals. Was too late for it, but I do support Penny Arcade with some merch here and there.
I also hope for different models that allow us as society to move back to a more patronage type model to support content producers directly. Fuck the middle men. They demand unreasonable prices and use the insane amounts of money and power they have to influence laws that are just horrible for society to unjustly enrich themselves.
BTW, the only reason ad-blocking even works is that only a few techies know how to do it
Wrong. There are plenty of people that only knew how to search for an extension called Adblock and install it. You don't have to be a techie anymore to do it.
As for content providers that do block me, I just ignore them. CNN videos is a good example, as well as Hulu. Fine, I get my content elsewhere. 99% of everything on CNN can be found with a quick search elsewhere, and Hulu has too many advertisements as it is. Might as well be a cable subscription.
when technology started making it easy for people to rip off content
That sounds an awful lot like saying it was stolen, which again, means that is bullshit. You can't steal content, and in your case, you really just mean the content was not consumed in the exact manner you wished for. Which, that is deeply unethical and immoral. If you also feel that way and want to push for technology and laws to force me, then you are the true enemy of society.
You are fighting a losing battle. Other than a few, sparse, very sparse, edge cases, nobody wants advertising. Gee... I wonder why. Perhaps because most people realize that they are an insult to their intelligence and a waste of their time because they impart nothing useful and only seek to manipulate them?
It's illogical and immoral to skip past that stuff huh?
Advertising isn't evil
Yes, it is. The very definition of evil applies to advertising.
Advertising:
1) Uses deceit to further its own agenda.
2) Manipulates other people through lies and distortions of the truth.
Whatever you think is good about advertising, is not. It may have manipulated you into thinking it was valuable information, but the information it provides is never useful to an informed purchasing decision.
Do some people benefit? Sure. Just like Swiss bankers benefited from Nazi's stealing the wealth of the people they just abused and killed. Strong analogy I know, but apt. Just because a site benefits from it does not mean advertising has some sort of redeeming virtue because of it.
It is truly a disgusting, wasteful, and shameful blight on humanity at this point. The sooner we can move past such behaviors, the better.
You ever see a description of Utopia that included advertising? Yeah, me neither.
Nice strawman.
Unless you can really provide a compelling case why it is in the best interests of society, and public health, to possess my personal information yourself, your request is hereby denied.
People deserve to know the companies, methods, ingredients, technology, etc. involved with the food they are eating.
The people asking for the information not to be provided are the ones encouraging the act of censorship. Censorship is not just the government preventing speech, it is any entity preventing undesirable speech.
As far as compulsory speech goes, that's pretty silly. We already mandate a fuck-ton of compulsory speech all over the place. Emergency exit signs, nutritional labels, warning labels, etc. The list goes on and on and on.
Companies have to be forced to give the information or they don't. They also need to be forced not to lie. Simple as that.
People can rant here all they want against the "scientifically illiterate" and it has nothing to do with the fact that the consumer deserves the information period to make their own decisions regarding the food they want to consume.
To say it is not relevant is to deny them information and choice, and that is just unethical.
It is censorship.
People, such as yourself, are asking that we be denied the information based on your opinions. Specifically, you object (find the content objectionable), and don't wish for the information to be on the product.
Companies have to be forced to give that kind of information. You act like it is a perfect world and companies just love to do that shit . If there was not a law mandating it, you know damn well we would not even know how many calories are in an Oreo Cookie.
You don't want to put it on your label? Too fucking bad. It's information that I want, so I can avoid your products.
For the record, science is the last reason I object to GMO. There are plenty of other very good reasons to do so, like objections towards owning genes and allowing corporations, such as Monsanto to terrorize the world in the name of glorious profits.
So there. I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-patents and anti-corporation. Either way, you're being ridiculous and more than a little bit tyrannical to deny me that information.
You're still asking for censorship because of how valuable you feel the information is.
What kind of retarded bullshit logic is that? You don't get to decide if the information is valuable or not, and your hyperbole aside, the consumer gets to decide.
Disclosure of the companies and technology that was involved is not trivial or stupid. Furthermore, science is not the only fucking reason why we should get to know if GMO is being used in our food. Just maybe, just maybe, we can be objecting for reasons not based on science. Like, I dunno, the fact Monsanto is an evil fucking corporation that uses lawsuits like AQ uses bombs and plenty of people can strongly disagree with the very idea you patent genes.
Bottom line is that your analogies are bullshit. It's important information and consumer deserve to make up their own mind about it.
So this isn't about their rights.
Bullshit.
We can drop all of the arguments about GMO here.
What you want amounts to censorship . Just because people may use information to further their agenda does not make the release of such information unethical.
All of the pro-GMO arguments basically boil down to the fact they don't want the information out there, the arguments about that information to occur, and the ability for anyone to make a purchasing decision based on that information.
Ummm, that's not to anyone's benefit. Restricting the information because you may feel you "know what is best for the rest of us" is abhorrent logic.
Let them label it, and let people make their own decisions.
Unless we have lost all pretense about living in a country where we have freedom and it is really isn't just about corporations and 1%'s fucking us over like slaves.
It can be very effective. The goal of the spammer is to have their content visible to both users and search engines for as long as possible. If the account gets banned in this way very quickly then the whole operation is without value, especially long term value to any search engines.
Create as many accounts as you like. If they get banned in the same way, the spammer never accomplishes his goal and has to spend an enormous amount of resources (botnets are not cheap to create) just to get short term visibility.
Some other ideas:
- Add some URL lookups to identify spam/malware similar to lists used to classify emails
- Ban URL shorteners. Not needed for a site like Slashdot where you don't even see the link. Either that, or just convert the link, evaluate it, and display the target domain to the user anyways.
- 72 hour probation period before your posts become visible to search engines.
- Spam button for users to click. Set a threshold and allow users with good standing, high karma, to report. Real users would complain when they notice they are banned (like cpu6502) and the site admins can evaluate and take appropriate action.
Yes, there are alternatives, but unless you can get other companies to employ the alternative you can be screwed as well.
For one company I am only running a Windows server because it is required for their CRM platform. Could I create an alternative? Sure.... for tens of thousands of dollars (per programmer at a minimum) and about a years worth of custom coding. Not to mention support for all the 3rd party programs from other companies designed to download and sync data from their own platforms.
It's a web of vendor lock-in. Even if you are aware of the alternatives, and desperate to move to them, you could still be just as stuck.
I have been evaluating SaaS offering for the past 18 months looking for a solution, without finding one that even meets the minimum requirements.
If MS Office disappeared we could get over it. As long as no other company was trying to send us MS docs, or more often, complaining they can't read our docs, we will be just fine.
No Windows on the desktops? Still survive. No Windows on the servers? Screwed.
Ok fine....
Nerdliness.
You happy now?
The game’s main course is ridiculously easy even by Mario standards, although there’s some challenge presented by the final level and a few of the extra unlockable courses.
Well, yeah.
I'm old enough to have played video games when the only thing you had was pong... and you were grateful for it. Kill screens were the "epic shit" of the day, and you had one, it was as revered as an Olympic Gold medal.
Video games used to be hard . They were a test of manliness and skill, not to mention perseverance.
Now it is all about psychology. Why make a video game when you can make an experience. You don't want to make it too hard, no no no. It has to be exquisitely designed to string you along till the next endorphin rush checkpoint where you have collected an achievement or unlocked something.
Clickety-clickety-clickety.
It reminds of that episode of Star Trek where the whole point of the game was to become progressively zombified. I had that same reaction with Farmville, and could swear it was some mind control experiment by the government being conducted on a massive scale. Clicking to feed chickens. Yes, that was ultimately how the government was going to control our minds.
Anyhoo, all you young games are pussies.
Ohh, and get off my lawn.
To be fair this guy is selling prescription drugs illegally.
That's like protected by copyrights and patents and shit. If he was selling coke or heroin to kids that might be one thing, but now he is messing the very fabric of our economy!
What it deserves is one of the girls screaming, "Fire Da Laser!".
If I heard that in the control room I think I would die laughing.
Well.. yes. They do sort of act like lemmings running towards a cliff and you have to save them. Why did you bring that up? :)
This.
Every time I have tried to watch sports in the last decade all I hear and see is stupid fucking crap like:
- Let's see the replay on the Pizza Hut Replay Cam
- Brought to you buy BlahBlahBlah
- Check out our awesome display screen with real time stats that needs a brand name in front of everything
- It's not Football anymore. It's Chase Superbowl. (Like Chase had anything to fucking do with Football other than being the highest bidder)
- The entire field having advertisements plastered all over it, and now CGI overlays that can replace *those* advertisements when viewed by television.
It's far worse than commercials or overlays infecting television programming. I could not even go to a game in person without being bombarded with the filth.
I did not watch the Olympics even though I could have torrented the shit out of it in HD. I knew NBC was going to fuck it up (and they did), and make it one long commercial advertisement platform.
The Olympics can fucking blow me. Those people are as foaming at the mouth insane as anybody in the RIAA. Trying to tell the people who run the Redneck Olympics that they "own" a couple thousand year old word that means contest between athletes?
A true contest is no longer possible anymore with all of the drugs. Your lamentation of the commercialization is spot on. There is so much money in it that I would not be surprised if 80% of all gold medal athletes are doping. There are books to that effect as well that talk about drugs in sports, and specifically the Olympics. It's not limited to East German women.
If you want originality then Spirits is part of the bundle!
It's so cool. You must choose a few good spirits to build stairs, change wind flow, and act as guides for the rest of the spirits, making decisions that may ultimately sacrifice the few to save the many...
Totally original :)
Which is why the most valuable asset you will have is technology that can make drinking water safe.
If I make it into a grocery store the first thing I am going after is the Brita water filters.
I read this Morgan Freeman's voice and I still have tears streaming down my face I am laughing so hard.
+5 funny indeed.
This is also why the Taliban (or AQ) put rules in their manuals that no member may be alone with an unbearded boy.
It is an ongoing problem for them to police their own ranks.
Depends on the ransomware. I have run across the FBI thing twice now and the real problem is that the machine had business data. Paying to get access to your business data was the main reason why they were willing to pay.
These particular variants were making it difficult to locate data since they had silently redirected the My Documents folder. If you could get out of it and back into safe mode you would see your data missing unless the ransomware program was actually running.
Even more problematic is that some of these programs encrypt the data. Then you really have a problem.
It's a hard lesson of why you need to keep business machines and fapping stations separate .
It makes no sense at all to move it.
Saying that we must not give in and have to fix Vegas instead is like demanding an event be held in Kabul because to move it somewhere safer would be giving the terrorists validation.
That's hyperbole. Furthermore, right there, you are giving an excuse to all men visiting Las Vegas to perform acts of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and/or sexual battery just because it is Las Vegas.
Las Vegas is not Kabul. It is a city within the United States, and is governed by the laws of the State of Nevada and any applicable Federal Laws.
It's more than a little ridiculous to just give up and have the convention elsewhere because you think Las Vegas is the contributing cause to totally unacceptable behavior everywhere else in the US.
You are not being realistic by moving it, and are just ignoring the problem and hoping that a venue change will magically alter men's behavior.
The correct approach is to use laws that exist and prosecute for assault and battery, and enforce whatever sexual harassment policies that exist. As far as I am concerned the woman writing the article was a victim of sexual battery and it should be treated like a crime. You don't move venues when crimes occur, you call the police.
Lol. But you got better right?
No.
12 months in jail for grabbing a woman's vagina in public when she does not even know you.
I know the crotch grabbing thing was separate, which seems to have stirred the pot here quite a bit.
It's a pretty harsh far reaching zero-tolerance policy too. It goes beyond just banning him from Readercon, and seems to have blackballed him from an entire industry. Unless I am reading that wrong. He may have been a little creepy, and the shoulder thing violated her personal space, but was a "death" sentence warranted?
To put in perspective here, Sandusky was fucking little boys and Penn State did not even get a lifetime ban......
That's their decision, and while harsh, I hope it does lead to a more civilized environment at the conventions.