"Spying at a public protest: 'Make sure you get a record of everyone's faces & match them up to names & addresses so we know who the troublemakers are.'"
I'm interested in why you define recording people who are outside to be seen and heard as spying.
You wouldn't say the news was "spying" if they did it.
And what does the testing of drugs/chemicals which require someone to actually test ON have to do with testing devices that only require crowds, such as at a baseball game?
The "testing" argument is stupid, and your point doesn't apply at all.
Explain how someone can spy on a public exhibition, the purpose of which was to be seen?
The only reason you and those like you say it was spying is becuase "spying" engenders a visceral emotional reaction. It certainly isn't accurate.
You're still a pathetic fucking loser
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"I like how you let the post sit at +5 all weekend so the people who want to make sure your loser ass gets fired stop paying attention, then you come in and mod it down sunday night so no one will have to answer the question.
You're a pathetic fucking loser dawson."
You're still a pathetic fucking loser dawson. Keep censoring people because you hate that they're right, while pretending you're anti censorship."
Modding it down doesn't make it less true you cunt.
"As has been pointed out, any contract term, EULA, et cetera that did specify the iPhone must not be hacked in order to allow it to be used with other carriers would not be valid nor enforcable, since it is the legal right of the owner of a phone to unlock it to use whatever carrier they choose. It is perfectly reasonable for folks to want to hack the iPhone, regardless of whatever your myopic view of it may be."
You really have no clue what this debate is about do you?
Hint: it doesn't have anything to do with what you posted there, and not one person has tried to make the argument you are suggesting has been made.
"Well, I'm having a hard time coming up with hard numbers..."
As I expected.
"You answered your own question before you asked it."
OH NO, you came at me with guns blazing, so no sir, you fucking answer the question or apologize.
You don't get a pass because you're used to seeing sarcastic jerks, I didn't do or say ANYTHING that would lead yo to believe I was doing anything other than answering a question.
"That belief is held by such an insignificant minority of Christians"
Source that please.
"that it's absolutely ridiculous for you to shove it in someone's face without particular knowledge that they hold that belief, no matter how simple-minded they might be."
I was ASKING A QUESTION you insufferable twat, and not in the "asking a question but really making a sarcastic statement" way that is so common around here, but AN ACTUAL FUCKING QUESTION.
"Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone."
You left out a "should" there, as in, "Publication of the idea should make it unpatentable "prior art;", but sadly the reality of the situation is that it frequently doesn't"
"It's actually a common misconception that the Bible condemns killing. The misquoted verse from the 10 commandments was mis-translated in the KJV as "thou shalt not kill"."
I thought the translation was divinely inspired. Well? Was god wrong when he did the translation?
"Could someone try to explain why knowing something is a crime?"
It isn't, and this story doesn't claim it is.
"Did he do anything resembling a crime besides wanting to know something?"
Yes, had you bothered to RTFA before you chicken-littled, you would know that.
But don't let me stop you, dystopian anti-government rants are +5 all the time here, so far be it from me to spoil your whoring.
And please don't use try to conclude from my post I am pro anything or support anything, I'm just tired of you and those like you ranting and unnecessarily polluting the discussion with your ignorance then getting modded up because no one is smart enough to bother understanding what actually happened.
I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone support government censorship and not get modded to oblivion.
As to what you said, I'm glad you are happy with the government censoring you, but frankly, I think you're an idiot. I'll take local governments who I can oust effectively, local organizations who I can sue effectively, and local individuals who I can debate effectively over the faceless machine that is the government.
You can justify it however you like, but your point is ridiculous on its face, and the mods who modded you up deserve a KITN.
Why is it so hard for you people to see that it was both?
Japan DID NOT surrender. No matter your opinion, claiming "they were ready" speaks to knowledge that none of us have. ANd frankly, if they were ready, got the fuck bombed out of them, and then WAITED TO BE BOMBED AGAIN before surrendering, you have to wonder exactly how "ready" they were.
So any argument that bases its central point on something that has been prove to be false is hard to swallow.
Go ahead and tell me they were ready, then I'll ask why they allowed themselves to be bombed more than once, and we'll watch your argument fall apart in a shower of half-truths and justifications that fail to prove your point.
"I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result. The Japanese had already offered to surrender (though not unconditionally) to the Russians. The atomic bombs were dropped to make them surrender to the USA instead, and to make their surrender unconditional."
Normally, I go apeshit when I see this level of ignorance, but this time I'll try something different.
You claim they were ready to surrender to the Russians, and despite having the time and opportunity to do so, they didn't. Hmmm, seem to be a glaring hole on your theory there somewhere.
Second, had you bothered to investigate beyond what was necessary to confirm your pre-existing bias, you'd realize the conditional surrender was unacceptable (and when you are the aggressor, losing means you don't get to name your terms, keep it in mind if you choose to be the aggressor).
Maybe it JUST POSSIBLE that it did indeed save many lives while ALSO having the secondary (and far less important) effects you claim.
And by the way, you just said it and pretended it was true while making the incredibly snide comment that "I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result". I think you need to apply your own standard to your post before denouncing others for what you did yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
"Unless you redefine "value" your point is meaningless."
Oops!
"The mother, who cares about performance and utility, wasn't impressed."
With all due respect to mom, if she thinks Vista is hard to install, then her opinion about its "performance and utility" is completely worthless.
"Ballmer talks of "value", as if HOME USERS give a shit."
I have no idea why you posted this because it makes no sense.
Unless you define "value" your point is meaningless.
"Spying at a public protest: 'Make sure you get a record of everyone's faces & match them up to names & addresses so we know who the troublemakers are.'"
I'm interested in why you define recording people who are outside to be seen and heard as spying.
You wouldn't say the news was "spying" if they did it.
And what does the testing of drugs/chemicals which require someone to actually test ON have to do with testing devices that only require crowds, such as at a baseball game?
The "testing" argument is stupid, and your point doesn't apply at all.
"and sent spies"
That entire concept is pretty silly.
Explain how someone can spy on a public exhibition, the purpose of which was to be seen?
The only reason you and those like you say it was spying is becuase "spying" engenders a visceral emotional reaction. It certainly isn't accurate.
"I like how you let the post sit at +5 all weekend so the people who want to make sure your loser ass gets fired stop paying attention, then you come in and mod it down sunday night so no one will have to answer the question.
You're a pathetic fucking loser dawson."
You're still a pathetic fucking loser dawson. Keep censoring people because you hate that they're right, while pretending you're anti censorship."
Modding it down doesn't make it less true you cunt.
"As has been pointed out, any contract term, EULA, et cetera that did specify the iPhone must not be hacked in order to allow it to be used with other carriers would not be valid nor enforcable, since it is the legal right of the owner of a phone to unlock it to use whatever carrier they choose. It is perfectly reasonable for folks to want to hack the iPhone, regardless of whatever your myopic view of it may be."
You really have no clue what this debate is about do you?
Hint: it doesn't have anything to do with what you posted there, and not one person has tried to make the argument you are suggesting has been made.
"Lately Apple keeps hitting successfully the downsides."
I think the Apple is avoiding the downsides that matter.
http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=AAPL
"Jan 03-Oct 10, 2007 +81.64 (96.23%)
I was doing anything other than asking a question.
"Well, I'm having a hard time coming up with hard numbers..."
As I expected.
"You answered your own question before you asked it."
OH NO, you came at me with guns blazing, so no sir, you fucking answer the question or apologize.
You don't get a pass because you're used to seeing sarcastic jerks, I didn't do or say ANYTHING that would lead yo to believe I was doing anything other than answering a question.
But modding me down doesn't make that swill you call food any better, you snaggletooth fucks.
"That belief is held by such an insignificant minority of Christians"
Source that please.
"that it's absolutely ridiculous for you to shove it in someone's face without particular knowledge that they hold that belief, no matter how simple-minded they might be."
I was ASKING A QUESTION you insufferable twat, and not in the "asking a question but really making a sarcastic statement" way that is so common around here, but AN ACTUAL FUCKING QUESTION.
What the fuck is wrong with you...
"Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone."
You left out a "should" there, as in, "Publication of the idea should make it unpatentable "prior art;", but sadly the reality of the situation is that it frequently doesn't"
My version is much closer to the truth.
So what's the over under on the percentage of porn sites?
85%?
"It's actually a common misconception that the Bible condemns killing. The misquoted verse from the 10 commandments was mis-translated in the KJV as "thou shalt not kill"."
I thought the translation was divinely inspired. Well? Was god wrong when he did the translation?
"What's illegal is acting on this hate."
Except that's already covered, and the hate crime laws cover what you THINK while acting on the hate.
What a surprise, you rail against "thoughtcrime" yet ignore a real life example because it goes against your politics.
"No, the traditional food isn't bland."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA
BWAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAA
Awesome, thanks for that, I think picturing you saying that with a straight face is what made it funny.
We've been there for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes
Where was all your outrage when those laws got passed?
"Could someone try to explain why knowing something is a crime?"
It isn't, and this story doesn't claim it is.
"Did he do anything resembling a crime besides wanting to know something?"
Yes, had you bothered to RTFA before you chicken-littled, you would know that.
But don't let me stop you, dystopian anti-government rants are +5 all the time here, so far be it from me to spoil your whoring.
And please don't use try to conclude from my post I am pro anything or support anything, I'm just tired of you and those like you ranting and unnecessarily polluting the discussion with your ignorance then getting modded up because no one is smart enough to bother understanding what actually happened.
"The dumber you are, the better citizen you are"
I agree you are a good citizen.
I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone support government censorship and not get modded to oblivion.
As to what you said, I'm glad you are happy with the government censoring you, but frankly, I think you're an idiot. I'll take local governments who I can oust effectively, local organizations who I can sue effectively, and local individuals who I can debate effectively over the faceless machine that is the government.
You can justify it however you like, but your point is ridiculous on its face, and the mods who modded you up deserve a KITN.
"It's only paranoia if they're not out to get you."
Then it's paranoia.
I remember the kind of faux outrage you're pretending to, but that was years ago and I was a child.
I wonder what your excuse is...
"You dare not suggest a solution for fear of me twisting it to my advantage!"
No, I won't say anything because you refuse to debate fairly, and rely on logical fallacies and lies.
Which you used AGAIN, as though I hadn't called you on it several times already.
"Someday maybe my opinion of you will matter"
If it's like the rest of your opinions, then no, it won't ever matter for anything.
YOu can keep trying that stupid straw man/lying crap, but so far you've lost even with it.
Why is it so hard for you people to see that it was both?
Japan DID NOT surrender. No matter your opinion, claiming "they were ready" speaks to knowledge that none of us have. ANd frankly, if they were ready, got the fuck bombed out of them, and then WAITED TO BE BOMBED AGAIN before surrendering, you have to wonder exactly how "ready" they were.
So any argument that bases its central point on something that has been prove to be false is hard to swallow.
Go ahead and tell me they were ready, then I'll ask why they allowed themselves to be bombed more than once, and we'll watch your argument fall apart in a shower of half-truths and justifications that fail to prove your point.
"I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result. The Japanese had already offered to surrender (though not unconditionally) to the Russians. The atomic bombs were dropped to make them surrender to the USA instead, and to make their surrender unconditional."
Normally, I go apeshit when I see this level of ignorance, but this time I'll try something different.
You claim they were ready to surrender to the Russians, and despite having the time and opportunity to do so, they didn't. Hmmm, seem to be a glaring hole on your theory there somewhere.
Second, had you bothered to investigate beyond what was necessary to confirm your pre-existing bias, you'd realize the conditional surrender was unacceptable (and when you are the aggressor, losing means you don't get to name your terms, keep it in mind if you choose to be the aggressor).
Maybe it JUST POSSIBLE that it did indeed save many lives while ALSO having the secondary (and far less important) effects you claim.
And by the way, you just said it and pretended it was true while making the incredibly snide comment that "I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result". I think you need to apply your own standard to your post before denouncing others for what you did yourself.