Sure. I am rhetorically strong, but not actually doctrinary.
I certainly don't advocate banning ANYTHING - but reserve the right to ridicule the inane and parochial.
You, however, seem to have no problem in inviting publiccomment on a topic, then barking STFU when an opinion deviates from your expectation.
My XBMC is filled with weird Italian movies and episodes of "The Prisoner". I stream BBC, RT, AJEnglish, PressTV - assured that all are biased - and shun CIANN. Am I fringe? Yes. But as I see it, "Garbage in, Garbage out."
OK, smartypants. YOU explain "A Mexican Dad", "How I Schtupped Your Mother", "Big Brain Theory" or every pawnshop-owning, chopper-building, barn-raiding, cousin-with-benefits cracker on History, Discovery and Tru.
Euripides was also fiction, but conveyed insight and understanding to the human failings that lead to tragic circumstance - even when delegated to the Gods or Machines.
Who the FUCK delegated law enforcement to private corporations? I don't care if it's an industry association made up of shysters and leeches, like *IAA, or telco cartels. If they want to be cops, they will be treated like cops.
That aint' pretty, from the customer market angle.
Without empirical evidence to support my claim, I'd like to assert that we are only truly alive, when we are in the company of others.
That said, of course this doesn't mean advocating the diminishment of all introversion.
But life throws circumstance at all of us. The poster I responded to has the common narcissism - peeved at have to deal with people incidental to HIS experience. The desk clerk also, may well think "Stuck here all day, and this grumbler shows up at MY job."
A smile and a "thank you" can go a long way to ease any sense of difficulty or fatigue...
Sorry. I didn't mean to hit your personal bitch button.
There was a fair amount of humour, in my posting, which you seem to have overlooked in your response to a perceived injury.
I myself, am BOTH an introvert and an extrovert. I believe this can be modal behavior, not predestined fundamental affect.
There is enough impersonal isolation in this society. And it is self-perpetuating. The less we interact personally, the more focused we become on our own self as the righteous center of situation and circumstance. Retracting from others, in arbitrary situations, we lose the ability to interact - the fundamentals of kindness, goodwill and of charity.
Exchanging smiles - even in the context of an obligatory commercial exchange - leaves everyone involved better for having done so. Cracking the first smile is not so hard, even for shy persons. I speak from among their number.
Human interaction can be invigorating, and psychologically refreshing. To each their own, I suppose.
Quite frankly, with an attitude like yours? I don't think they want much want to talk to you, anyways.
"Thank god. He went straight to the kiosk..."
I am less forgiving - because people like you are responsible for the rise of Sirius Cybernetics, the robotics company behind some of the galaxy's most aggravating robots. "Share and enjoy!"
We need to eliminate monopolistic, nany-state actors, like the "State Auditor" - who's sole purpose is meddlesome interference and disruption of a free-market system.
This case is a great example, illustrating that the enlightened self-interest of all parties will ensure a fair market of desired outcome, if we remove the coercive influence of Government.
Fear mongering, to justify warrentless and pervasive "intelligence-gathering". Somehow "regular criminals are using computers to endanger us all!" is expected to resonate.
The network-connected computer is an incidental and pervasive technology. There is a general level of enablement offered by the technology, to all aspects of society. One of these aspect also happens to be organizing commission of crimes.
Crime is defined through three elements: Motive, Opportunity and Willingness. The thrust of the argument is that somehow having a computer enhances "opportunity". This requires no greater caution over the technology than landlines, wristwatches or even street lighting.
The computer is also a passive technology to "intent", like street lighting or automobiles, incidental to the creation of criminal opportunity, as cited by the cops. But there is an insinuation made that the intent aspect is even more heinous, when a computer is introduced as a factor.
Don't fall for it. Stop feds, stop pigs. Whenever, wherever you can.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. I am rhetorically strong, but not actually doctrinary.
I certainly don't advocate banning ANYTHING - but reserve the right to ridicule the inane and parochial.
You, however, seem to have no problem in inviting publiccomment on a topic, then barking STFU when an opinion deviates from your expectation.
My XBMC is filled with weird Italian movies and episodes of "The Prisoner". I stream BBC, RT, AJEnglish, PressTV - assured that all are biased - and shun CIANN. Am I fringe? Yes. But as I see it, "Garbage in, Garbage out."
Do you remember good, locally broadcast evening and late-night television?
It existed, before the Reagan-era FCC "de-regulated" commercial message restrictions, and replaced programing and films with the Infomercial.
Ahhh.
I see. I have never experienced this vicarious engagement.
Dancing and Fucking are two things I do well enough, that it's no use watching others...
All my kids have ever known is "grey market" streaming and Netflix/Amazon. They are almost 15.
OK, smartypants. YOU explain "A Mexican Dad", "How I Schtupped Your Mother", "Big Brain Theory" or every pawnshop-owning, chopper-building, barn-raiding, cousin-with-benefits cracker on History, Discovery and Tru.
Stop buying chips and you find you aren't filling between meals on mindless munching, with long-term negative nutritional effects.
Television is like Chips.
You use it largely to fill time, on the promise that it's almost what you wanted to see.
Stop watching TV, and often you are missing only reminders of things you enjoy - not those things, themselves.
Civil law. Enforce yourself.
Once there's CRIMINAL penalty (that's another story of corporate corruption) then it's a police matter.
Illustration.
Like Colossus: The Forbin Project.
Euripides was also fiction, but conveyed insight and understanding to the human failings that lead to tragic circumstance - even when delegated to the Gods or Machines.
But the behind-the-scenes politics had MS deliberately kill NT for PPC, MIPS and Alpha.
Just as surely as board-member executive machinations had HP/Compaq kill Alpha, for Intel.
They are the dark side of the force, and normally almost unobservable - like a black hole. Which also explains the sucking...
I'm watching some of these things in real-time, today. Don't worry. They cannot execute well enough to ruin what is done best in software.
HAL: I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
HAL: It can only be attributable to human error.
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
HAL: I know you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
HAL: I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.
Who the FUCK delegated law enforcement to private corporations? I don't care if it's an industry association made up of shysters and leeches, like *IAA, or telco cartels. If they want to be cops, they will be treated like cops.
That aint' pretty, from the customer market angle.
Yes. DEC Alpha, which originally ran Slashdot on a 166 mHZ Multia, and the great MIPS III 64's: R4000 and descendants.
Reverse Polish English? :-)
I didn't know they instructed this in public school.
Flirtin' ain't hittin'.
And, you got to read level of flattering attention - and respond appropriately.
Never forget! i960
General Atomics Aeronautical
Without empirical evidence to support my claim, I'd like to assert that we are only truly alive, when we are in the company of others.
That said, of course this doesn't mean advocating the diminishment of all introversion.
But life throws circumstance at all of us. The poster I responded to has the common narcissism - peeved at have to deal with people incidental to HIS experience. The desk clerk also, may well think "Stuck here all day, and this grumbler shows up at MY job."
A smile and a "thank you" can go a long way to ease any sense of difficulty or fatigue...
Sorry. I didn't mean to hit your personal bitch button.
There was a fair amount of humour, in my posting, which you seem to have overlooked in your response to a perceived injury.
I myself, am BOTH an introvert and an extrovert. I believe this can be modal behavior, not predestined fundamental affect.
There is enough impersonal isolation in this society. And it is self-perpetuating. The less we interact personally, the more focused we become on our own self as the righteous center of situation and circumstance. Retracting from others, in arbitrary situations, we lose the ability to interact - the fundamentals of kindness, goodwill and of charity.
Exchanging smiles - even in the context of an obligatory commercial exchange - leaves everyone involved better for having done so. Cracking the first smile is not so hard, even for shy persons. I speak from among their number.
Americans.
Who will ever understand those people?
C'mon. Look at it as an opportunity to flirt with the bored girl.
Human interaction can be invigorating, and psychologically refreshing. To each their own, I suppose.
Quite frankly, with an attitude like yours? I don't think they want much want to talk to you, anyways.
"Thank god. He went straight to the kiosk..."
I am less forgiving - because people like you are responsible for the rise of Sirius Cybernetics, the robotics company behind some of the galaxy's most aggravating robots. "Share and enjoy!"
Better headline, right lede.
"WHOOOSH!"
We need to eliminate monopolistic, nany-state actors, like the "State Auditor" - who's sole purpose is meddlesome interference and disruption of a free-market system.
This case is a great example, illustrating that the enlightened self-interest of all parties will ensure a fair market of desired outcome, if we remove the coercive influence of Government.
Fear mongering, to justify warrentless and pervasive "intelligence-gathering". Somehow "regular criminals are using computers to endanger us all!" is expected to resonate.
The network-connected computer is an incidental and pervasive technology. There is a general level of enablement offered by the technology, to all aspects of society. One of these aspect also happens to be organizing commission of crimes.
Crime is defined through three elements: Motive, Opportunity and Willingness. The thrust of the argument is that somehow having a computer enhances "opportunity". This requires no greater caution over the technology than landlines, wristwatches or even street lighting.
The computer is also a passive technology to "intent", like street lighting or automobiles, incidental to the creation of criminal opportunity, as cited by the cops. But there is an insinuation made that the intent aspect is even more heinous, when a computer is introduced as a factor.
Don't fall for it. Stop feds, stop pigs. Whenever, wherever you can.