The difference is: you can actually fight back successfully against Crony capitalism. Oh, not the general idea of it (though the less power the government has, the less cronyism matters), but specific instances. Politicians are happy to fuck their constituents over for a buck from a donor as long as most people don't care, but they'll drop a donor like an ugly baby the moment there's sufficient voter outrage.
Deterring free speech is too high a cost for deterring assholes. Or, put the traditional way, freedom of offensive speech is the only kind of freedom of speech that matters.
Free speech is only in regards to the ability to have the freedom of speech and not have the government (federal or state) stifle what you can say.
Entirely wrong. Free speech is the fundamental principle holding society together without tyranny, because it the only tool we humans have to resolve social conflict without violence.
So if YOU are one of those people that feels you should be able to say anything you want but should not faces any consequences then you can "FUCK OFF"
The only "consequences" for saying something stupid should be that everyone now knows you're stupid. The only "consequences" for saying something rude should be that everyone now knows you're rude.
Do you really think the right thing to do with someone stupid is to bar them from education? Do you really think that the right thing to do with someone rude is to deny them further socialization? How does that begin to make sense?
"Mocking" is a very fundamental right. Mockery is often the only tool left to a marginalized, other-ized group to use to strive against an overbearing establishment. Never push back too hard against mockery, of all things, if you value freedom - it's the most valuable part of our most valuable right. It's the last pressure release valve for non-violent resolution of social conflict.
Further marginalizing and other-izing people because they mocked what you hold holy is a recipe for the dissolution of society onto violence and chaos.
Sure, it's legal and all. But it sure has a chilling effect - no doubt that's the point. Watch what you say, watch what you think, watch what shows on your face - they're watching you. For your own good, you understand, like a big brother looking out for you.
Ideally, you pick up the sprint task from your team-mate who is falling behind, so that the team as a whole meets every deadline. I worked on a team that actually worked that way once - it was pretty amazing. Only time I've ever seen scrum done by the book (e.g., managers banned from daily standups).
There's no point in tracking bugs for long. If you didn't fix them withing a couple sprints after they were reported, you never will, so you might as well auto-delete them. Nothing of value will be lost, and suddenly you can easily see all your bugs and pick the high-priority ones.
If you don't think his persona would spark controversy in society at large, you need to meet a broader range of people. Of course, within the very narrow world of games journalism, he's controversial and radical for a very different reason: he's willing to tell the publishers "fuck off, I'm writing an honest review of your shitty game, boycott me all you want". TB is the only other PC games reviewer I know that does the same.
Twitter in particular is fairly open about their political bias in censorship. I think that's perfectly OK for a business - there are all kinds of walled gardens, after all, and some people seem to enjoy them. I just wish these social media companies were more open and honest about it all, but I guess it really is hard to see one's own biases.
I recommend it. It's still the same long-winded style as LOTR, don't get me wrong, but there are some great fantasy stories in there.
I found It fascinating, though it was never stated explicitly, that no one ever fought a Balrog and lived. Some heroes killed a Balrog or three, but none survived. Puts Gandalf's last stand in perspective.
In the days of dial-up, there were already good ways to " to load content on demand and to minimize the actual content loaded". For example, hyperlinks.
The important thing with the Silmarillion is to be willing to "skip the begats" (much as with reading the old testament). There's a lot of stuff up front with no plot, just laying out the creation myth and history of the early days. That puts a lot of people off, who never really give the book a chance. And that's a shame, because it's filled with wonderful short stories.
No, they can't. If the bullshit the preachers spread is offensive, then quoting it to highlight just how crazy those guys are will get you a community strike and eventually banned. People reading sections of the Koran that call for violence against the infidel, to make a point about Islam, have been banned - not for hate speech against Islam, which would make some vague sense, but for supporting terrorism.
Being civil is no form of defense at all. Meanwhile, Jim Fucking Sterling Son still has never had a video taken down, and "uncivil" is pretty much his whole theme (of course, he doesn't monetize his videos, so YouTube gives 0 fucks about him since there are no ads running next to the guy waving the 3-foot dildo sword).
But that also shows the way out: support yourself via patreon or similar, not YouTube ad revenue, and YouTube will leave you alone.
Admit it, like me you're an oppressed ethnic Kekistani. (And, dammit, I can't get the Kekistani National Anthem out of my head - the metal version by FrogRock is especially catchy.)
I can't blame YouTube for this, they're just in it for the money. The NYT is working on a hitpiece showing big advertisers names next to actual hate videos, trying their best to save themselves by scare ad revenue away from the internet. YouTube is pretty savvy, fighting back before it even blows up.
That's not unfair advantage. That's comparative advantage
Now you've abandoned free markets (that didn't take long) and are embracing protectionism as long as it benefits the other guy.
Nah, it benefits those who take personal responsibility of their lives over those who seem to think the world owes them a job.
Not everyone is going to be producing IP, and very few indeed will be part of the MPAA/RIAA. We have millions of skilled manufacturing jobs unfilled, but no programs to train people displaced from old school manufacturing. How about we fix that? Personal responsibility extends only to what's reasonably in your power to accomplish or plan for.
Sounds like the Occupy movement: a whole bunch of disorganized complaints,
They all follow the same theme: govern for the interests of the people, not the largest donors. A lost cause IMO, but I'm sympathetic on principle.
accepted without question or scrutiny because apparently they are the majority?
Yup, democracy sucks worse than any other kind of government, except everything else that's ever been tried. (And, yes, a republic is a kind of democracy.)
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is: you can actually fight back successfully against Crony capitalism. Oh, not the general idea of it (though the less power the government has, the less cronyism matters), but specific instances. Politicians are happy to fuck their constituents over for a buck from a donor as long as most people don't care, but they'll drop a donor like an ugly baby the moment there's sufficient voter outrage.
"Nice business you're got there, pity if something should happen to it"? Yep, that how the left government to act.
No, I really want the incentive of $billions to drive research. Far better to get it a few years later, than never because the incentive wasn't there.
There are generic alternatives to EpiPen at a reasonable price. This isn't an IP issue, it's a fashion issue.
There are generic auto-injectors available at a reasonable price. There's just no reason to buy EpiPen, unless the kid's school is in on the scam.
Deterring free speech is too high a cost for deterring assholes. Or, put the traditional way, freedom of offensive speech is the only kind of freedom of speech that matters.
Free speech is only in regards to the ability to have the freedom of speech and not have the government (federal or state) stifle what you can say.
Entirely wrong. Free speech is the fundamental principle holding society together without tyranny, because it the only tool we humans have to resolve social conflict without violence.
So if YOU are one of those people that feels you should be able to say anything you want but should not faces any consequences then you can "FUCK OFF"
The only "consequences" for saying something stupid should be that everyone now knows you're stupid. The only "consequences" for saying something rude should be that everyone now knows you're rude.
Do you really think the right thing to do with someone stupid is to bar them from education? Do you really think that the right thing to do with someone rude is to deny them further socialization? How does that begin to make sense?
"Mocking" is a very fundamental right. Mockery is often the only tool left to a marginalized, other-ized group to use to strive against an overbearing establishment. Never push back too hard against mockery, of all things, if you value freedom - it's the most valuable part of our most valuable right. It's the last pressure release valve for non-violent resolution of social conflict.
Further marginalizing and other-izing people because they mocked what you hold holy is a recipe for the dissolution of society onto violence and chaos.
Ah, so your values agree with their values, and that's all that matters? Of course that's all that maters! Unpeople are unwelcome anywhere!
Sure, it's legal and all. But it sure has a chilling effect - no doubt that's the point. Watch what you say, watch what you think, watch what shows on your face - they're watching you. For your own good, you understand, like a big brother looking out for you.
Ideally, you pick up the sprint task from your team-mate who is falling behind, so that the team as a whole meets every deadline. I worked on a team that actually worked that way once - it was pretty amazing. Only time I've ever seen scrum done by the book (e.g., managers banned from daily standups).
There's no point in tracking bugs for long. If you didn't fix them withing a couple sprints after they were reported, you never will, so you might as well auto-delete them. Nothing of value will be lost, and suddenly you can easily see all your bugs and pick the high-priority ones.
If you don't think his persona would spark controversy in society at large, you need to meet a broader range of people. Of course, within the very narrow world of games journalism, he's controversial and radical for a very different reason: he's willing to tell the publishers "fuck off, I'm writing an honest review of your shitty game, boycott me all you want". TB is the only other PC games reviewer I know that does the same.
Twitter in particular is fairly open about their political bias in censorship. I think that's perfectly OK for a business - there are all kinds of walled gardens, after all, and some people seem to enjoy them. I just wish these social media companies were more open and honest about it all, but I guess it really is hard to see one's own biases.
I recommend it. It's still the same long-winded style as LOTR, don't get me wrong, but there are some great fantasy stories in there.
I found It fascinating, though it was never stated explicitly, that no one ever fought a Balrog and lived. Some heroes killed a Balrog or three, but none survived. Puts Gandalf's last stand in perspective.
The function of an airplane is to carry property. Communist planes don't count, as there's no property to carry.
He was talking about Blue Origin, Bezos' aerospace company, you thickwit.
Ah, I see, but he fucked up and said "Amazon" instead, which is about as accurate as saying the Washington Post went to space (I'd pay to see that).
In the days of dial-up, there were already good ways to " to load content on demand and to minimize the actual content loaded". For example, hyperlinks.
The important thing with the Silmarillion is to be willing to "skip the begats" (much as with reading the old testament). There's a lot of stuff up front with no plot, just laying out the creation myth and history of the early days. That puts a lot of people off, who never really give the book a chance. And that's a shame, because it's filled with wonderful short stories.
Tolkien died after the first Mickey Mouse film, so presumably his stuff will never enter the public domain.
Worried about robots harming the children and elderly? Stop worrying! Just buy Old Glory robot insurance, and you're covered.
Ford paid something like double the going wage - he wanted his pick of workers.
Heh, Slashdot mods, so predictable.
No, they can't. If the bullshit the preachers spread is offensive, then quoting it to highlight just how crazy those guys are will get you a community strike and eventually banned. People reading sections of the Koran that call for violence against the infidel, to make a point about Islam, have been banned - not for hate speech against Islam, which would make some vague sense, but for supporting terrorism.
Being civil is no form of defense at all. Meanwhile, Jim Fucking Sterling Son still has never had a video taken down, and "uncivil" is pretty much his whole theme (of course, he doesn't monetize his videos, so YouTube gives 0 fucks about him since there are no ads running next to the guy waving the 3-foot dildo sword).
But that also shows the way out: support yourself via patreon or similar, not YouTube ad revenue, and YouTube will leave you alone.
Admit it, like me you're an oppressed ethnic Kekistani. (And, dammit, I can't get the Kekistani National Anthem out of my head - the metal version by FrogRock is especially catchy.)
I can't blame YouTube for this, they're just in it for the money. The NYT is working on a hitpiece showing big advertisers names next to actual hate videos, trying their best to save themselves by scare ad revenue away from the internet. YouTube is pretty savvy, fighting back before it even blows up.
That's not unfair advantage. That's comparative advantage
Now you've abandoned free markets (that didn't take long) and are embracing protectionism as long as it benefits the other guy.
Nah, it benefits those who take personal responsibility of their lives over those who seem to think the world owes them a job.
Not everyone is going to be producing IP, and very few indeed will be part of the MPAA/RIAA. We have millions of skilled manufacturing jobs unfilled, but no programs to train people displaced from old school manufacturing. How about we fix that? Personal responsibility extends only to what's reasonably in your power to accomplish or plan for.
Sounds like the Occupy movement: a whole bunch of disorganized complaints,
They all follow the same theme: govern for the interests of the people, not the largest donors. A lost cause IMO, but I'm sympathetic on principle.
accepted without question or scrutiny because apparently they are the majority?
Yup, democracy sucks worse than any other kind of government, except everything else that's ever been tried. (And, yes, a republic is a kind of democracy.)