You do realize that somewhere, right now, someone is having more fun than you are, right? You should try to fix that.
Also, by not drinking moderate amounts of coffee and alcohol, you are actually decreasing your lifespan by increasing your risk of prostate cancer and heart disease.
Exactly what a bully would say. You can tell your side, but It's my fault that I get offended, so I should shut up and get over it. Free speech is only a privilege for bullies, eh?
I just hope the AC reads this. Mostly, I don't feel the need to defend the religious because they aren't really an oppressed minority. But on Slashdot they are. And I had a feeling this guy you were talking about wasn't your average baptist preacher.
Oh no, you said something, someone else got offended, and they told you that they found what you said offensive. How dare they trample your right to free speech?!?!
You do see how ridiculous and hypocritical that is, right? You exercised your right to free speech, but now you want to take away our right to say how we feel about it? Fuck you, grow a pair, stop being a whiny little princess and take responsibility for the things you say and how they impact the other human beings who have to share the planet with you. You aren't the oppressed one. You aren't the victim. You want the right to put others in their place with your "jokes", without being put in yours.
Like bullies everywhere, when your victims stand up to you, YOU cry victimization. Go cry somewhere else, bully, we don't care because we don't have to. That's what you hate the most, isn't it? That's what we've taken away from you. That was the power you had, but have no longer, and that is why you cry victim. You are pathetic. And we don't have to care.
Further regulation can only help so much. It's not like making illegal stuff more illegal does anything to stem the tide.
Really? If we shot all spammers, it might deter some. There are other problems with that, but generally, when a crime is hard to catch and prosecute, we increase the penalty to increase the risk/reward ratio. Deterrence is, theoretically, one of the reasons we punish criminals.
In another sense, if we put more cops on this particular beat, we would catch more criminals. And if we regulated more effectively, we might manage to cut off a choke point in the process completely.
You can still punch a hippie but you need a new justification. I'll give you the all purpose justification: we don't punch back. Use that one at your own risk though. Some of us do.
You really have no idea how much that baptist minister emphasized going to hell in his sermons. Maybe he rode a skateboard and was a real cooool cat. Maybe he played guitar and sang about love and forgiveness and turning the other cheek and not casting the first stone and all that shit that Jesus supoosedly actually said, as opposed to hell, which one crazy dude on drugs wrote about much later.
Well, the way I see it, we have two choices: make some laws and put some cops on the most effective beat we can; or we can accept that we will not regulate this area of human interaction and live with the consequences. On the gripping hand, there is always the avenue of educating the populace. My credit union has signs up for people to read while waiting in line laying out how to detect and avoid problems with online scams and spam.
Regulate and you have the problem of regulatory expense and potential for capture, and potential freedom of speech issues. These issues have been dealt with successfully in similar contexts before, so we know we could do it right here.
Don't regulate and, for example, you get your grandma in the hospital because she bought bad drugs online, or your dumb cousin gets scammed out of his life savings and family honor requires you to take the law into your own hands because no one else will and you go to Africa, track the scammer down, and get shot in the head. I jest at the deregulator's expense, but I'm sure there are solutions to those problems too, like:
Education. If buying from spammers is bad, spend the money you would have spent regulating them and locking them up, and educate people as to why it is bad for them. The problem with education is that it sometimes goes by other names, like propaganda and indoctrination. If your group gets branded 'spammers' unfairly, who do you appeal to, and how?
Luckily, we have a solution to all of this, and it is called a constitutional democracy. Now we just have to use it.
But if the story only involves those things on a minor level, where do you draw the line?
Good question, and probably the reason a lot of people don't consider Slaughterhouse Five to be science fiction.
I just figured it out. I'm biased. I think of science fiction as 'cool' and people who like science fiction as 'interesting.' So I'm going to massage my definition of science fiction to include as much 'cool' stuff as possible, and exclude crap that is 'boring.' Thus, Slaughterhouse Five goes in, and Star Wars goes out.
Thanks, but I don't need you "defending" me by characterizing "hippie punching" as "mocking the unworkable solutions of a bunch of utopians." You are in fact hippie punching, by claiming hippies are all utopians and their solutions are all unworkable. Was Rahm Emmanuel mocking an unworkable solution when he said all leftists were "Fucking Retards?" No, he was hippie punching. We don't need any smug, smirking, "Serious" people telling us our ideas are unworkable, when the most ridiculous and proven ineffective ideas, such as "trickle down economics" are still being touted as real solutions.
You want to know some of our "unworkable" ideas? The eight hour day. Weekends. Workplace safety. Child labor laws. Minimum wage. Civil rights. Women's suffrage. Environmental protection. What ideas have you come up with that have been adopted into government policies and proven workable over the course of decades?
We can tell racist jokes. It is physically possible. It is also physically possible to eat dog shit, punch a pregnant lady in the stomach, and stab a baby. Those things are only slightly less repugnant than telling racist jokes. However, we can still tell jokes about assholes like you. Did you hear the one about the racist that got shot in the face? Yeah, that's the punchline, you are supposed to laugh now.
Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.
Fixed that for ya. Apparently Nature doesn't provide free lunches:(
Oh no, Nature is charging for lunch now? Does she accept credit cards? Does "lunch" include the things necessary to create lunch, like the sun? Do I have to pay for the sun now?!? That sounds expensive.
Ahahahaha, oh my. Seriously? You fail reading comprehension, my lefty comrade. You fail hard. And you must not be much of a leftist AT ALL, or you would know what the term means. "Hippie punching" refers not to any sort of physical violence, it refers to the fact that even on the left, politicians try to find someone to the left of them to attack.
When Rahm Emmanuel called leftists "Fucking retards," THAT was hippie punching. In fact, there was a huge shitstorm over it where just about everyone on the left was using the term "hippie punching" and accusing the White House of it. Sorry we forgot to call and tell you about all the fun.
When I was volunteering with Food Not Bombs in San Francisco and the cops threw me to the ground, stood on my shoulder blades, zip-tied my hands and pulled up HARD on my arms, that was not hippie punching. That was just plain old police violence.
See the difference? Generally, only those on the left get accused of hippie punching, because on the right, it is just par for the course. Man bites dog and all that.
Shit.
You do know I am not actually advocating biting a dog here, right?
Yeah, I would consider Donny Darko to be science fiction. But it is a gray area, as the time travel isn't really explained. Perhaps speculative fiction is a better term. But science fiction doesn't need to have blasters, space ships, and robots to be science fiction. If it is about human interaction with a scientific or technological phenomenon including such things as aliens, time travel, or a universe made of rock where the planets are voids in the rock (a very old science fiction short I read) then it is science fiction.
In fact, I would call Donnie Darko science fiction, while I would call Star Wars fantasy. Donnie Darko focuses on human interaction with a scientific phenomenon, time travel. Star Wars is just a fantasy story where blasters and the force replace magic.
In politics, left or right, you must punch a hippie at least once in order to be considered a serious candidate. In a similar vein, in tech commentary, you must troll an apple user at least once to be considered a serious commentator.
Slaughterhouse Five is considered to be SciFi? Besides the time traveling aspect, I don't really see it.
Besides the one thing that absolutely and unequivocally makes it sci fi, you don't see what makes it sci fi? Time travel is science fiction, and if that's not good enough for you, it also has aliens. Science Fiction doesn't mean it is set in the future and has space ships and blasters.
Fuck that pedo the user named Dishevel. You are morally bankrupt and have no place to criticize anyone for their rage and contempt, you utter fucking waste of oxygen. I will never tolerate your type of intolerance. You are a selfish, self centered, evil, angry, hate filled sub human animal and until you change, I have no compassion for you at all. You and I are at war, and unless you become a good person, we will always be at war.
Funny, I found it a very easy, page turning kind of read. Unlike, say, Dune, which I think if kind of tedious. I don't generally enjoy flowery, overly descriptive language in fiction. To me, Neuromancer was poetic, but sparse.
As long as we don't have Keanu playing the main character, I think this movie will be all right.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that somewhere, right now, someone is having more fun than you are, right? You should try to fix that.
Also, by not drinking moderate amounts of coffee and alcohol, you are actually decreasing your lifespan by increasing your risk of prostate cancer and heart disease.
Now what, boring dude?
Oooh! A mind reader! What number am I thinking of?
Congratulations. You seem to understand irony.
I won't tolerate your intolerance of the poor, the weak, the underprivileged, Muslims, or anyone else you want to put in their place.
I'm not psychic. I don't need to be. You've demonstrated your characteristics for all to see.
You aren't trolling, you really believe this crap.
What violence have I done to you, princess? Whine some more, maybe your momma cares, because I don't. I don't have to care.
Dur hur, are you saying we don't vote? Dipshit.
Exactly what a bully would say. You can tell your side, but It's my fault that I get offended, so I should shut up and get over it. Free speech is only a privilege for bullies, eh?
I just hope the AC reads this. Mostly, I don't feel the need to defend the religious because they aren't really an oppressed minority. But on Slashdot they are. And I had a feeling this guy you were talking about wasn't your average baptist preacher.
Oh no, you said something, someone else got offended, and they told you that they found what you said offensive. How dare they trample your right to free speech?!?!
You do see how ridiculous and hypocritical that is, right? You exercised your right to free speech, but now you want to take away our right to say how we feel about it? Fuck you, grow a pair, stop being a whiny little princess and take responsibility for the things you say and how they impact the other human beings who have to share the planet with you. You aren't the oppressed one. You aren't the victim. You want the right to put others in their place with your "jokes", without being put in yours.
Like bullies everywhere, when your victims stand up to you, YOU cry victimization. Go cry somewhere else, bully, we don't care because we don't have to. That's what you hate the most, isn't it? That's what we've taken away from you. That was the power you had, but have no longer, and that is why you cry victim. You are pathetic. And we don't have to care.
Sigh. That was part of the joke...
Further regulation can only help so much. It's not like making illegal stuff more illegal does anything to stem the tide.
Really? If we shot all spammers, it might deter some. There are other problems with that, but generally, when a crime is hard to catch and prosecute, we increase the penalty to increase the risk/reward ratio. Deterrence is, theoretically, one of the reasons we punish criminals.
In another sense, if we put more cops on this particular beat, we would catch more criminals. And if we regulated more effectively, we might manage to cut off a choke point in the process completely.
You can still punch a hippie but you need a new justification. I'll give you the all purpose justification: we don't punch back. Use that one at your own risk though. Some of us do.
You really have no idea how much that baptist minister emphasized going to hell in his sermons. Maybe he rode a skateboard and was a real cooool cat. Maybe he played guitar and sang about love and forgiveness and turning the other cheek and not casting the first stone and all that shit that Jesus supoosedly actually said, as opposed to hell, which one crazy dude on drugs wrote about much later.
Well, the way I see it, we have two choices: make some laws and put some cops on the most effective beat we can; or we can accept that we will not regulate this area of human interaction and live with the consequences. On the gripping hand, there is always the avenue of educating the populace. My credit union has signs up for people to read while waiting in line laying out how to detect and avoid problems with online scams and spam.
Regulate and you have the problem of regulatory expense and potential for capture, and potential freedom of speech issues. These issues have been dealt with successfully in similar contexts before, so we know we could do it right here.
Don't regulate and, for example, you get your grandma in the hospital because she bought bad drugs online, or your dumb cousin gets scammed out of his life savings and family honor requires you to take the law into your own hands because no one else will and you go to Africa, track the scammer down, and get shot in the head. I jest at the deregulator's expense, but I'm sure there are solutions to those problems too, like:
Education. If buying from spammers is bad, spend the money you would have spent regulating them and locking them up, and educate people as to why it is bad for them. The problem with education is that it sometimes goes by other names, like propaganda and indoctrination. If your group gets branded 'spammers' unfairly, who do you appeal to, and how?
Luckily, we have a solution to all of this, and it is called a constitutional democracy. Now we just have to use it.
But if the story only involves those things on a minor level, where do you draw the line?
Good question, and probably the reason a lot of people don't consider Slaughterhouse Five to be science fiction.
I just figured it out. I'm biased. I think of science fiction as 'cool' and people who like science fiction as 'interesting.' So I'm going to massage my definition of science fiction to include as much 'cool' stuff as possible, and exclude crap that is 'boring.' Thus, Slaughterhouse Five goes in, and Star Wars goes out.
Thanks, but I don't need you "defending" me by characterizing "hippie punching" as "mocking the unworkable solutions of a bunch of utopians." You are in fact hippie punching, by claiming hippies are all utopians and their solutions are all unworkable. Was Rahm Emmanuel mocking an unworkable solution when he said all leftists were "Fucking Retards?" No, he was hippie punching. We don't need any smug, smirking, "Serious" people telling us our ideas are unworkable, when the most ridiculous and proven ineffective ideas, such as "trickle down economics" are still being touted as real solutions.
You want to know some of our "unworkable" ideas? The eight hour day. Weekends. Workplace safety. Child labor laws. Minimum wage. Civil rights. Women's suffrage. Environmental protection. What ideas have you come up with that have been adopted into government policies and proven workable over the course of decades?
We can tell racist jokes. It is physically possible. It is also physically possible to eat dog shit, punch a pregnant lady in the stomach, and stab a baby. Those things are only slightly less repugnant than telling racist jokes. However, we can still tell jokes about assholes like you. Did you hear the one about the racist that got shot in the face? Yeah, that's the punchline, you are supposed to laugh now.
Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.
Fixed that for ya. Apparently Nature doesn't provide free lunches :(
Oh no, Nature is charging for lunch now? Does she accept credit cards? Does "lunch" include the things necessary to create lunch, like the sun? Do I have to pay for the sun now?!? That sounds expensive.
Ahahahaha, oh my. Seriously? You fail reading comprehension, my lefty comrade. You fail hard. And you must not be much of a leftist AT ALL, or you would know what the term means. "Hippie punching" refers not to any sort of physical violence, it refers to the fact that even on the left, politicians try to find someone to the left of them to attack.
When Rahm Emmanuel called leftists "Fucking retards," THAT was hippie punching. In fact, there was a huge shitstorm over it where just about everyone on the left was using the term "hippie punching" and accusing the White House of it. Sorry we forgot to call and tell you about all the fun.
When I was volunteering with Food Not Bombs in San Francisco and the cops threw me to the ground, stood on my shoulder blades, zip-tied my hands and pulled up HARD on my arms, that was not hippie punching. That was just plain old police violence.
See the difference? Generally, only those on the left get accused of hippie punching, because on the right, it is just par for the course. Man bites dog and all that.
Shit.
You do know I am not actually advocating biting a dog here, right?
Yeah, I would consider Donny Darko to be science fiction. But it is a gray area, as the time travel isn't really explained. Perhaps speculative fiction is a better term. But science fiction doesn't need to have blasters, space ships, and robots to be science fiction. If it is about human interaction with a scientific or technological phenomenon including such things as aliens, time travel, or a universe made of rock where the planets are voids in the rock (a very old science fiction short I read) then it is science fiction.
In fact, I would call Donnie Darko science fiction, while I would call Star Wars fantasy. Donnie Darko focuses on human interaction with a scientific phenomenon, time travel. Star Wars is just a fantasy story where blasters and the force replace magic.
In politics, left or right, you must punch a hippie at least once in order to be considered a serious candidate. In a similar vein, in tech commentary, you must troll an apple user at least once to be considered a serious commentator.
Slaughterhouse Five is considered to be SciFi? Besides the time traveling aspect, I don't really see it.
Besides the one thing that absolutely and unequivocally makes it sci fi, you don't see what makes it sci fi? Time travel is science fiction, and if that's not good enough for you, it also has aliens. Science Fiction doesn't mean it is set in the future and has space ships and blasters.
Fuck that pedo the user named Dishevel. You are morally bankrupt and have no place to criticize anyone for their rage and contempt, you utter fucking waste of oxygen. I will never tolerate your type of intolerance. You are a selfish, self centered, evil, angry, hate filled sub human animal and until you change, I have no compassion for you at all. You and I are at war, and unless you become a good person, we will always be at war.
You kids and your fancy dimensions. In my day, movies were one dimensional and that's the way we liked it, just moving dots on a line.
Funny, I found it a very easy, page turning kind of read. Unlike, say, Dune, which I think if kind of tedious. I don't generally enjoy flowery, overly descriptive language in fiction. To me, Neuromancer was poetic, but sparse.
As long as we don't have Keanu playing the main character, I think this movie will be all right.
Dear Intern,
Get back to work and stop posting on Slashdot. That's what our PR department is for.
Signed,
Jim Whitehurst