The so-called "Freedom of Speech" is but a damn charade - for it's the so-called "freedom" allowed by tptb.
That's severely lacking in perspective, or is a wild overstatement. In much of the world and throughout much of history I couldn't say things like "Your religion is bullshit and I don't believe in your god" or "Our current president is the worst president ever" without being prosecuted by the government, and I can here. You seem to be taking limits on your freedom and assuming that means you have no freedom. It's not black and white, 100% total freedom or zero.
If you can accurately criticize the government, or say things that upset people but that still need to be said, and not find yourself imprisoned, that's "freedom of speech."
Have the site host the most vile and disgusting human perversions... links to NAMBLA, Neo-Nazi Organizations, Satanic Churches, and perhaps Skat-Play with Enema Porn as a cherry on top
You kind of went down in vile and disgustingness there. Would have been a more effective statement had you worked UP to NAMBLA rather than down from it.
And if you try to make them change, they will feign near-catatonic levels of stupidity, throw fits, intentionally sabotage equipment (yep, actually seen it happen), and generally throw up any roadblock they can manage to stand in the way of learning even the simplest new task.
You're lucky. At universities where I've worked, there is a shadow board of decision makers who decree that any new change, such as e-mail, must be mangled together with the old ways. The result is idiotic and more frustrating than had they simply stuck with the old way.
For instance, an accounting software update meant that all employees had to be updated every quarter. You'd think this could be done automatically, but it was decided that in order to make sure employees who had left weren't automatically put back into the system, you'd have to respond that yes, you were still there. At some point it was updated to where an e-mail would suffice BUT you weren't allowed to respond with an e-mail or edit the PDF. The PDF was e-mailed to you, you printed it out, try to write in legibly, walk it over to the office, and then they'd complain that they couldn't read it. All to let the office know that you hadn't suddenly quit without telling them. This, by the way, had nothing to do with payroll, which was a whole separate system. There was no danger that they'd send you extra paychecks, this was basically to make sure you didn't keep your printer access.
You act as if there are a set of rational rules regarding intellectual property laws, when reality quite clearly demonstrates there's nothing at all logical about any of it.
I keep expecting to hear that patent trolls are going to make anti-patents and will be able to sue you for NOT using them.
Trying an app before you bought it is something some of us like to do. Some apps have free trial modes, but plenty don't. Most of the apps I installed via installous, I ended up deleting because they were crap. A good chunk, I ended up buying because I liked it, and ONLY would have bought it had I tried it out first. Google's store at least has a 15 minute return for full refund policy, but apple's store obviously has none. So your implication that this was just to ripoff free digital goods is simply wrong.
Second, you're a moron if you think this will prevent piracy. You can torrent the.ipa files and sync them through itunes even as long as you are jailbroken. Given that installous had about two capachas each time you tried to download a file, and given that more than half of them failed to download (even if you found the right "download this file" button to click on amongst the deceptive ads on all those file hosting sites) or downloaded glacially slow (infinity blade was going to take 200 hours to download), that's much better anyway.
I'd argue half the problem is that the voters don't see any problem with it. Enough of them actually think terrorists are out to get them, and this will keep them safe to keep it going. You can't simply blame the politicians: if you threw every incumbent out, they'd simply be replaced by other charlatans willing to sell the public what they stupidly want, which is someone to take their rights and keep them safe from imaginary super-terrorists.
It would be funny if it didn't affect the rest of us. Anyway, my point is that the voters share the blame. Congress, the president, AND the voters would ideally be changed for the problem to be solved.
I was pessimistic about their chances. Mostly because from the limited amount that I heard, it sounded like it was going to be another phantom console. If "infinium labs" could con real investors out of money for a console they never intended to make, it must be a lot easier for someone to scam kickstarter the same way.
I guess you can't judge a startup by how similar its cover is to a scam.
Does even Myspace require you to have a myspace account to work for them? If I were applying for a job and they asked what my myspace account was, I'd assume they were weeding out people who did have one. "I regret to say that yes, I do have one. I was young and dumb. I don't remember what the account name was, or the password to my hotmail account, so I can't delete it. My references will verify that I have since learned the error in my ways and no longer have anything to do with myspace."
I'm guessing that the iOS people who use the web most would set their search page to google rather than bing though. My mother might find herself using Bing as the default on her iphone if they push that, but I'm not sure she knows that her phone HAS an internet browser. So I'm skeptical that google would lose a huge market share because of that.
I'm also thinking that apple would want to tread lightly after the maps debacle of a PR move. "First maps now the internet! Apple won't let you google anymore, don't upgrade!" making it's way through facebook and twitter is probably something that apple wouldn't want to risk.
Not to step on the joke, but while your feces do have a lot of your cells in them, they're mostly dead cells which would be useless for induced pluripotency. Furthermore, I've heard it's about one third bacteria, so you'd have contamination problems. Urine, on the other hand, is much more sterile and free from bacteria, and it would presumably be much easier to spin down urine and collect living cells than it would be to separate cells out from feces.
Most importantly, the reason they were using urine was not to make brain cells from weird places, they had previously discovered that kidney cells took much less time to turn pluripotent than some other cell types, such as skin cells. I'd assume that colon cells wouldn't have this advantage even if you did isolate them living from poop. And I'm not going to test that hypothesis either...
Reminds ME of another little Nintendo RPG trick. "Alchoholic beverage? More like soda! Can't teach american kids to fetch alcoholic beverages for adults!"
our we take back all the games you bought from us and all your games you bought elsewhere and which use our DRM
I'm confused as to what you mean by that. Your bought your games "elsewhere" obviously being online, since if you have the physical media that doesn't matter. Origin is out, as I can' t think of a reason you'd buy something on origin, then register it with steam, if you can even do that.
What does that even leave? Good old games that you for some reason put onto steam (can you not download from them again?) and the most recent humble bundle?
New user ID and fawning over corporations.
You sound like a paid shill.
Occam's razor: it's just a sad little man who knows how to troll slashdot effectively, not anyone earning anything. Other than maybe a slight reprieve from the emptiness and/or loneliness.
If they indemnify this woman, they have to do it every time someone sues someone else for libel over their service even when it was clearly a rival organization? I'm actually asking. I'm guessing they can pick and choose who they pay the lawsuit fees for.
Well then, I propose we declare war on the laws of thermodynamics.
On a more serious note, the important costs with most of those are dollars. "Solar kills what lives under them" is really not what's stopping solar power, the costs of converting are. And maybe that's mainly due to lobbyists and subsidies, I don't know. What I do know is that it's the money and not concern for the empty lots where panels would be placed that's keeping us from switching.
It would be rather stupid of them to rebut the argument they made. The biggest reason would be that it would call more attention to an issue they don't want to see debated. After all, "They gave us a lot of money to shut up about it" isn't a compelling argument. A secondary reason would be that would be all the more embarrassing: to explain why they were wrong in the first place.
Or maybe the bigger reason is that they know the only people who will care that matter are the IP holders who are lining their pockets with cash. You don't really need to explain your reasoning to the public when the public is totally apathetic about it. Aside from us, and what is congress going to tell us about IP that we don't know already to change our minds?
If they said "Facebook is lying through their teeth," people would perceive that as negative and would use that as an excuse to ignore what they're saying.
How many times have you been watching an election, and you think there's a clear right and wrong choice (or one clear right choice and several wrong choices), and voters complain that the race had "too much mudslinging."
Sometimes I want to shake such people by the collar and say "IT'S NOT 'NEGATIVE' IF IT'S TRUE, YOU MORON!... OKAY WELL MAYBE IT TECHNICALLY IS, BUT DO YOU GET MY POINT? Alright I'll stop yelling and let you go... wait, why are you running? I was explaining why candidate X is actually bad!"
Anyway, suggesting that it was an innocent misunderstanding and not lying like a senator may simply be PR.
You make a good point about Detroit. Tyranny though, even the police have drones these days, and other toys which make guns civilians can own non-competitive. If we had a tyrannical government, and a civilian uprising were causing any real trouble, I have no doubt that the national guard at least would be called in to put it down.
Perhaps they're trying to set low expectations so that if it doesn't work out, no one is shocked. Saying "Colonize mars! Bring your kids!" and then having the vehicle crash would really discourage anyone from trying again. Saying "Suicide mission! Let's see what happens and just have fun!" and then everyone dies, well, no one can say that went much worse than planned.
IANA forensic microbiologist, but I'd guess that the decomposition wouldn't be complete. Anerobes in your body would probably do well, but there wouldn't be anything to eat outside in, and once the internal anerobes digested to a point where they were opened up to the external environment and exposed to mars, I would expect they'd die.
The leftovers and the bacterial byproducts would probably just sit there. So there wouldn't be a body sitting around, but I'd guess that there would be a partially decomposed and collapsed, dried out corpse that would look much more ghastly than an eternally preserved body or a simple skeleton.
On the other hand, you wouldn't need to bury a body very deep since there would be no scavenging animals to dig it up. Just bury it deep enough that the winds aren't going to expose it. Or drop the bodies off in a valley that you never had to look at until the next person died.
Gun proponents would probably say that is beside the point. Other people misusing their freedoms is not a reason to take away mine. And they also would point out that those are illegal guns. Outlawing gun ownership by citizens wouldn't get rid of criminals with guns.
At least not immediately. And I think that while it's a compelling theory, I could also see it being the case that more legal guns contributes to more illegal guns through several pathways: theft, continued glorification of guns in society, and a very real arms race.
As far as the first point, I'm not entirely sure bearing arms is a "right" so much as it is "A good idea back when the US was founded." It's not true that today you need a gun to be safe, at least not in urban areas, and it's also not the case anymore that personal firearms can defend against government tyranny. That said, I see no real need to take away the second amendment or legal guns. Just crack down on illegal guns.
Slashdot Mirror
The so-called "Freedom of Speech" is but a damn charade - for it's the so-called "freedom" allowed by tptb.
That's severely lacking in perspective, or is a wild overstatement. In much of the world and throughout much of history I couldn't say things like "Your religion is bullshit and I don't believe in your god" or "Our current president is the worst president ever" without being prosecuted by the government, and I can here. You seem to be taking limits on your freedom and assuming that means you have no freedom. It's not black and white, 100% total freedom or zero.
If you can accurately criticize the government, or say things that upset people but that still need to be said, and not find yourself imprisoned, that's "freedom of speech."
Have the site host the most vile and disgusting human perversions... links to NAMBLA, Neo-Nazi Organizations, Satanic Churches, and perhaps Skat-Play with Enema Porn as a cherry on top
You kind of went down in vile and disgustingness there. Would have been a more effective statement had you worked UP to NAMBLA rather than down from it.
And if you try to make them change, they will feign near-catatonic levels of stupidity, throw fits, intentionally sabotage equipment (yep, actually seen it happen), and generally throw up any roadblock they can manage to stand in the way of learning even the simplest new task.
You're lucky. At universities where I've worked, there is a shadow board of decision makers who decree that any new change, such as e-mail, must be mangled together with the old ways. The result is idiotic and more frustrating than had they simply stuck with the old way.
For instance, an accounting software update meant that all employees had to be updated every quarter. You'd think this could be done automatically, but it was decided that in order to make sure employees who had left weren't automatically put back into the system, you'd have to respond that yes, you were still there. At some point it was updated to where an e-mail would suffice BUT you weren't allowed to respond with an e-mail or edit the PDF. The PDF was e-mailed to you, you printed it out, try to write in legibly, walk it over to the office, and then they'd complain that they couldn't read it. All to let the office know that you hadn't suddenly quit without telling them. This, by the way, had nothing to do with payroll, which was a whole separate system. There was no danger that they'd send you extra paychecks, this was basically to make sure you didn't keep your printer access.
How does this hold any legal water at all?
You act as if there are a set of rational rules regarding intellectual property laws, when reality quite clearly demonstrates there's nothing at all logical about any of it.
I keep expecting to hear that patent trolls are going to make anti-patents and will be able to sue you for NOT using them.
Trying an app before you bought it is something some of us like to do. Some apps have free trial modes, but plenty don't. Most of the apps I installed via installous, I ended up deleting because they were crap. A good chunk, I ended up buying because I liked it, and ONLY would have bought it had I tried it out first. Google's store at least has a 15 minute return for full refund policy, but apple's store obviously has none. So your implication that this was just to ripoff free digital goods is simply wrong.
.ipa files and sync them through itunes even as long as you are jailbroken. Given that installous had about two capachas each time you tried to download a file, and given that more than half of them failed to download (even if you found the right "download this file" button to click on amongst the deceptive ads on all those file hosting sites) or downloaded glacially slow (infinity blade was going to take 200 hours to download), that's much better anyway.
Second, you're a moron if you think this will prevent piracy. You can torrent the
Because "-1: insane delusional wishful thinking" isn't an option.
I'd argue half the problem is that the voters don't see any problem with it. Enough of them actually think terrorists are out to get them, and this will keep them safe to keep it going. You can't simply blame the politicians: if you threw every incumbent out, they'd simply be replaced by other charlatans willing to sell the public what they stupidly want, which is someone to take their rights and keep them safe from imaginary super-terrorists.
It would be funny if it didn't affect the rest of us. Anyway, my point is that the voters share the blame. Congress, the president, AND the voters would ideally be changed for the problem to be solved.
I was pessimistic about their chances. Mostly because from the limited amount that I heard, it sounded like it was going to be another phantom console. If "infinium labs" could con real investors out of money for a console they never intended to make, it must be a lot easier for someone to scam kickstarter the same way.
I guess you can't judge a startup by how similar its cover is to a scam.
I don't have a Myspace account.
Does even Myspace require you to have a myspace account to work for them? If I were applying for a job and they asked what my myspace account was, I'd assume they were weeding out people who did have one. "I regret to say that yes, I do have one. I was young and dumb. I don't remember what the account name was, or the password to my hotmail account, so I can't delete it. My references will verify that I have since learned the error in my ways and no longer have anything to do with myspace."
I'm guessing that the iOS people who use the web most would set their search page to google rather than bing though. My mother might find herself using Bing as the default on her iphone if they push that, but I'm not sure she knows that her phone HAS an internet browser. So I'm skeptical that google would lose a huge market share because of that.
I'm also thinking that apple would want to tread lightly after the maps debacle of a PR move. "First maps now the internet! Apple won't let you google anymore, don't upgrade!" making it's way through facebook and twitter is probably something that apple wouldn't want to risk.
Or am I being paranoid?
"Paranoid," when talking about governments and your freedoms, is short for "not an idiot."
Not to step on the joke, but while your feces do have a lot of your cells in them, they're mostly dead cells which would be useless for induced pluripotency. Furthermore, I've heard it's about one third bacteria, so you'd have contamination problems. Urine, on the other hand, is much more sterile and free from bacteria, and it would presumably be much easier to spin down urine and collect living cells than it would be to separate cells out from feces.
Most importantly, the reason they were using urine was not to make brain cells from weird places, they had previously discovered that kidney cells took much less time to turn pluripotent than some other cell types, such as skin cells. I'd assume that colon cells wouldn't have this advantage even if you did isolate them living from poop. And I'm not going to test that hypothesis either...
In the year of the Linux desktop no less!
Why is slashdot not preventing posting AC or new accounts from posting within ten minutes of a story going up?
Reminds ME of another little Nintendo RPG trick. "Alchoholic beverage? More like soda! Can't teach american kids to fetch alcoholic beverages for adults!"
our we take back all the games you bought from us and all your games you bought elsewhere and which use our DRM
I'm confused as to what you mean by that. Your bought your games "elsewhere" obviously being online, since if you have the physical media that doesn't matter. Origin is out, as I can' t think of a reason you'd buy something on origin, then register it with steam, if you can even do that.
What does that even leave? Good old games that you for some reason put onto steam (can you not download from them again?) and the most recent humble bundle?
New user ID and fawning over corporations. You sound like a paid shill.
Occam's razor: it's just a sad little man who knows how to troll slashdot effectively, not anyone earning anything. Other than maybe a slight reprieve from the emptiness and/or loneliness.
If they indemnify this woman, they have to do it every time someone sues someone else for libel over their service even when it was clearly a rival organization? I'm actually asking. I'm guessing they can pick and choose who they pay the lawsuit fees for.
Well then, I propose we declare war on the laws of thermodynamics.
On a more serious note, the important costs with most of those are dollars. "Solar kills what lives under them" is really not what's stopping solar power, the costs of converting are. And maybe that's mainly due to lobbyists and subsidies, I don't know. What I do know is that it's the money and not concern for the empty lots where panels would be placed that's keeping us from switching.
It would be rather stupid of them to rebut the argument they made. The biggest reason would be that it would call more attention to an issue they don't want to see debated. After all, "They gave us a lot of money to shut up about it" isn't a compelling argument. A secondary reason would be that would be all the more embarrassing: to explain why they were wrong in the first place.
Or maybe the bigger reason is that they know the only people who will care that matter are the IP holders who are lining their pockets with cash. You don't really need to explain your reasoning to the public when the public is totally apathetic about it. Aside from us, and what is congress going to tell us about IP that we don't know already to change our minds?
If they said "Facebook is lying through their teeth," people would perceive that as negative and would use that as an excuse to ignore what they're saying.
How many times have you been watching an election, and you think there's a clear right and wrong choice (or one clear right choice and several wrong choices), and voters complain that the race had "too much mudslinging."
Sometimes I want to shake such people by the collar and say "IT'S NOT 'NEGATIVE' IF IT'S TRUE, YOU MORON!... OKAY WELL MAYBE IT TECHNICALLY IS, BUT DO YOU GET MY POINT? Alright I'll stop yelling and let you go... wait, why are you running? I was explaining why candidate X is actually bad!"
Anyway, suggesting that it was an innocent misunderstanding and not lying like a senator may simply be PR.
You make a good point about Detroit. Tyranny though, even the police have drones these days, and other toys which make guns civilians can own non-competitive. If we had a tyrannical government, and a civilian uprising were causing any real trouble, I have no doubt that the national guard at least would be called in to put it down.
Perhaps they're trying to set low expectations so that if it doesn't work out, no one is shocked. Saying "Colonize mars! Bring your kids!" and then having the vehicle crash would really discourage anyone from trying again. Saying "Suicide mission! Let's see what happens and just have fun!" and then everyone dies, well, no one can say that went much worse than planned.
IANA forensic microbiologist, but I'd guess that the decomposition wouldn't be complete. Anerobes in your body would probably do well, but there wouldn't be anything to eat outside in, and once the internal anerobes digested to a point where they were opened up to the external environment and exposed to mars, I would expect they'd die.
The leftovers and the bacterial byproducts would probably just sit there. So there wouldn't be a body sitting around, but I'd guess that there would be a partially decomposed and collapsed, dried out corpse that would look much more ghastly than an eternally preserved body or a simple skeleton.
On the other hand, you wouldn't need to bury a body very deep since there would be no scavenging animals to dig it up. Just bury it deep enough that the winds aren't going to expose it. Or drop the bodies off in a valley that you never had to look at until the next person died.
Gun proponents would probably say that is beside the point. Other people misusing their freedoms is not a reason to take away mine. And they also would point out that those are illegal guns. Outlawing gun ownership by citizens wouldn't get rid of criminals with guns.
At least not immediately. And I think that while it's a compelling theory, I could also see it being the case that more legal guns contributes to more illegal guns through several pathways: theft, continued glorification of guns in society, and a very real arms race.
As far as the first point, I'm not entirely sure bearing arms is a "right" so much as it is "A good idea back when the US was founded." It's not true that today you need a gun to be safe, at least not in urban areas, and it's also not the case anymore that personal firearms can defend against government tyranny. That said, I see no real need to take away the second amendment or legal guns. Just crack down on illegal guns.