I think copyright laws are an abomination, but I wouldn't put them in the same category of evil as the censorship going on in China. It's annoying to have the MPAA shutting down websites and suing legitimate video websites, sure, but that's a far cry from blocking political discussions.
Aside from just a question of taste, I also think you make those of us opposed to the MPAA's actions look like loons by equating the two, to say nothing of the pointless American bashing. Yes, we like beer and TV and complaining on slashdot, and yes, we are a little too apathetic about some things. Still, pointing it out as you have though is counterproductive, unless you're doing some sort of counter-astroturfing for the MPAA. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar as the saying goes, even if it isn't literally true.
Either way, after reading your post, my gut impulse was to grab a beer and write the MPAA and tell them I'm okay with them rewriting the law in whatever country "bleble" lives in.
does that mean religion is proved to be bullshit? Cause I really hope it does.
Does the smear campaign against Al Gore disprove the evidence for global climate change? No. One bad representative does not change the truth of what they are saying
Though... it would be really useful if it did. "Sorry Al, it's a little too hot. Gotta photoshop some pictures of you kicking a puppy." Or "Gee, Mr. Dentist, you say I need an expensive and painful root canal, but you're parked in a handicap space. Wow, my tooth suddenly feels better!"
To be fair, most people who are sure that tomorrow ISN'T the rapture have exactly the same amount of evidence behind them as those who think it IS.
Hard evidence maybe, but we DO have a much longer track record of being right. Plus, the rapture has failed to occur FAR more often than it has occurred.
Even if the world does happen to end tomorrow, it's not because this kook knew it.
The bible verse ""No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" could still apply here. This guy has previously predicted the end would come a few years ago, incorrectly I might add. It's possible no one believes this prediction, not even the guy making the prediction.
It is when we LEAST expect it, therefore it's EXACTLY when God will strike!
I should refrain from such discussions on slashdot and rather prepare my fishing tackle for tomorrow. Way better for my blood pressure.
I always find fishing raises my blood pressure, but it's been years since I tried bait-and-tackle rather than flyfishing, or as I call it "catching trees and bushes."
If you send the nation into poverty to clean the air, people who are starving aren't going to thank you
It is pure idiotic FUD to suggest that false dichotomy: that the only two options are 1. unrestricted global climate change or 2. economic armageddon and killing grandparents in florida.
Only crazy drugged-out hippies would suggest shutting down all coal plants immediately. The smart thing to do would be to set gradual caps, adjust subsidies gradually, have reasonable, balanced goals. Maybe say "no NEW coal plants." The only way that produces economic ruin is if you're a coal company and refuse to diversify.
Between a conspiracy of the makers of solar panels, hybrid cars, nuclear power, and hippies, and a conspiracy on the part of coal and oil, I'm much more worried about the coal and oil conspiracy. They got more money.
Anyway, my point was mainly that economic interests confused the issue. If it goes for both sides, fine, just don't say it's all "emotion" and no logic.
when emotions and political leanings enter the argument it is far to often to emerge wrong, not matter how right one may be.
You forgot economic interests. The problem with the climate change debate is NOT that there is too much emotion in it, it's that there is too much MONEY in pretending it's not real. The oil and coal industries throwing FUD against preventing climate change is precisely the problem with the debate.
I suppose there would still be people who prefer to distrust scientists and or disreguard "treehuggers" just as there were/are still people who pretended cigarettes were perfectly healthy long after the tobacco industry stopped fooling people. Still, I think if it weren't for the lies, the debate would have been HOW to reduce carbon emissions ten years ago, not whether we should. We likely could have done it more gradually and cheaper, and had less damage done, than what we're facing now.
Not regularly in Call of Duty, no, but they sure do in Fallout (provided you shoot them enough or have the bloody mess perk) and Borderlands (provided you're using a ridiculously high level gun on low level enemies.) And, yes, it is satisfying. Virtually seeing a head explode in slow-motion after you shoot it with the gauss rifle, with the body ragdolling around a second later is disturbingly satisfying. Taking a level 60 shotgun against a hoard of level 1 "badasses," and seeing torsos disappear, with bits of gore raining down, that does happen in games, and it is oddly rewarding. You do indeed feel powerful on some minor level, even as you realize you couldn't do that in real life even if you DID have a high power weapon and lacked moral qualms about slaughtering people.
In other words, the principle is right even if the exact example is not.
Furthermore (spoilers for modern warfare) there is that one sniping mission where you shoot the target's arm off. Again, satisfying.
First of all, we have a first-past-the-post election scheme, and that means you can vote for party A, party B, or effectively do nothing. That's just how it is. Wishing it were different and voting for a 3rd party isn't going to change that.
Second, I'm not a one-issue voter. I agree with nearly everything the dems DO stand for, when they stand for anything. I'm not going to vote for a libertarian who is going to cut the government programs I agree with just because he or she doesn't like the patriot act either.
Anyway, how many voters outside the slashdot crowd are even aware the patriot act is still with us let alone oppose it? That doesn't excuse Obama or any of the Democrats, but it's never going to go away until more people start caring about it. Rather than bring up that saying year in year out, why not, oh, I don't know, do something to raise awareness about it?
I mean, I guess that doesn't get you slashdot karma...
I'm very liberal and always end up voting democratic using the "Who seems like the lesser of two evils," standard. So you could say I'm usually more optimistic than many about the democratic senate.
I have no hope that the senate will block it.
I don't know if this is optimism or pessimism, but I suspect a few democrat senators will vote against it. Not enough to raise the issue with the apathetic public mind you, let alone block it's passage. Just enough to give their opponents ammo to say "Democrats are weak on security!" in the next election, giving them control of the senate as well. I'm similarly pessimistic that the republicans who take their place will actually do things that I agree with either. For example, they sure won't reduce spending (well, maybe things like planned parenthood and research grants, but they'll make it up in other things.)
A real-life zombie apocalypse would very likely look nothing like the movies.
You mean they won't be shambling, mindless creatures bent on eating your brains? Wow, those would definitely be the most dangerous zombies of all. You can't tell them apart from normal people!
Hmm... Better be safe.
[Fires up chainsaw and starts driving to grandma's house]
Don't forget that there are some Christians out there who take the transfiguration literally and actually believe they are eating flesh and drinking blood. Granted, it looks like bread (or Styrofoam) and watered-down wine respectively, but if you take them at their word...
Plus every zombie movie I've ever seen (except Shaun of the Dead) the living were fucked over by one fact: they didn't seem to know what zombies were.
"Oh Jimmy! I thought you were dead! You got hurt though and kind of have an odd vacant expression, let me give you A BIG HUG... OW! Why are you biting me, drooling, and grunting?!? No! Stop! Jimmy, I don't understand! Are you hungry? Oh good, a big crowd of people just showed up to help me.... OH GOD WHY ARE THEY BITING ME TOO?!?! THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!!"
Maybe some people who are so sheltered they've never seen a zombie movie would make that rookie mistake, but the rest of us will be all
"I'm sorry grandma... well sorry you're dead anyway, but no use crying over spilled milk and I've ALWAYS WANTED TO DO THIS WITH A CHAINSAW!!!"
And some of the few people who notice and realize the significance of it shrug it off because it's not new and is evidently boring. Or maybe just because they want to excuse their apathy.
Seriously, the news at 11 should be examining why one would take -persistent- threats less seriously than -new- threats to our freedom. Why does this story elicit a yawn rather than a "THIS IS THE LAST FUCKING STRAW!"
I'm guessing it's because we don't know what to do about it?
That's interesting, but "slave" still implies "forced work without pay" even if that type of pure slavery is rare in history. And it has nothing to do with income taxes. Suggesting that chinese workers are less enslaved than us because they pay a lower tax percentage is nuts.
Well, that's certainly true. I guess I'd say China tends to come up a lot more often than Burma, and the US (which most slashdotters live in) deals a lot more with China as equals than we do with Burma or Pakistan*, so we're less focused on them too. And when discussing an article about China, criticisms of China's human rights are more germane than Guantanamo Bay or the others.
(* Russia escapes the treatment purely because of the "in Soviet Russia" jokes)
Slashdot Mirror
I think copyright laws are an abomination, but I wouldn't put them in the same category of evil as the censorship going on in China. It's annoying to have the MPAA shutting down websites and suing legitimate video websites, sure, but that's a far cry from blocking political discussions.
Aside from just a question of taste, I also think you make those of us opposed to the MPAA's actions look like loons by equating the two, to say nothing of the pointless American bashing. Yes, we like beer and TV and complaining on slashdot, and yes, we are a little too apathetic about some things. Still, pointing it out as you have though is counterproductive, unless you're doing some sort of counter-astroturfing for the MPAA. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar as the saying goes, even if it isn't literally true.
Either way, after reading your post, my gut impulse was to grab a beer and write the MPAA and tell them I'm okay with them rewriting the law in whatever country "bleble" lives in.
does that mean religion is proved to be bullshit? Cause I really hope it does.
Does the smear campaign against Al Gore disprove the evidence for global climate change? No. One bad representative does not change the truth of what they are saying
Though... it would be really useful if it did. "Sorry Al, it's a little too hot. Gotta photoshop some pictures of you kicking a puppy." Or "Gee, Mr. Dentist, you say I need an expensive and painful root canal, but you're parked in a handicap space. Wow, my tooth suddenly feels better!"
An earthquake is also supposedly going to happen in each time zone. That is going to be some interesting plate tectonics.
To be fair, most people who are sure that tomorrow ISN'T the rapture have exactly the same amount of evidence behind them as those who think it IS.
Hard evidence maybe, but we DO have a much longer track record of being right. Plus, the rapture has failed to occur FAR more often than it has occurred.
Statistics are really on our side here.
Even if the world does happen to end tomorrow, it's not because this kook knew it.
The bible verse ""No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" could still apply here. This guy has previously predicted the end would come a few years ago, incorrectly I might add. It's possible no one believes this prediction, not even the guy making the prediction.
It is when we LEAST expect it, therefore it's EXACTLY when God will strike!
Why wait? It should already be happening in Asia right now; I imagine it has already made the news.
Oops! I'm really sorry I'm late I just got caught up watching the Pirates of the Caribbean marathon have you seen those things?
-Jesus
You have to adapt the joke to the slashdot audience: In heaven, the lovers are other people.
If your group gets branded 'spammers' unfairly, who do you appeal to, and how?
The people themselves. Via unsolicited mass e-mailings.
I should refrain from such discussions on slashdot and rather prepare my fishing tackle for tomorrow. Way better for my blood pressure.
I always find fishing raises my blood pressure, but it's been years since I tried bait-and-tackle rather than flyfishing, or as I call it "catching trees and bushes."
If you send the nation into poverty to clean the air, people who are starving aren't going to thank you
It is pure idiotic FUD to suggest that false dichotomy: that the only two options are 1. unrestricted global climate change or 2. economic armageddon and killing grandparents in florida.
Only crazy drugged-out hippies would suggest shutting down all coal plants immediately. The smart thing to do would be to set gradual caps, adjust subsidies gradually, have reasonable, balanced goals. Maybe say "no NEW coal plants." The only way that produces economic ruin is if you're a coal company and refuse to diversify.
Between a conspiracy of the makers of solar panels, hybrid cars, nuclear power, and hippies, and a conspiracy on the part of coal and oil, I'm much more worried about the coal and oil conspiracy. They got more money.
Anyway, my point was mainly that economic interests confused the issue. If it goes for both sides, fine, just don't say it's all "emotion" and no logic.
when emotions and political leanings enter the argument it is far to often to emerge wrong, not matter how right one may be.
You forgot economic interests. The problem with the climate change debate is NOT that there is too much emotion in it, it's that there is too much MONEY in pretending it's not real. The oil and coal industries throwing FUD against preventing climate change is precisely the problem with the debate.
I suppose there would still be people who prefer to distrust scientists and or disreguard "treehuggers" just as there were/are still people who pretended cigarettes were perfectly healthy long after the tobacco industry stopped fooling people. Still, I think if it weren't for the lies, the debate would have been HOW to reduce carbon emissions ten years ago, not whether we should. We likely could have done it more gradually and cheaper, and had less damage done, than what we're facing now.
Not regularly in Call of Duty, no, but they sure do in Fallout (provided you shoot them enough or have the bloody mess perk) and Borderlands (provided you're using a ridiculously high level gun on low level enemies.) And, yes, it is satisfying. Virtually seeing a head explode in slow-motion after you shoot it with the gauss rifle, with the body ragdolling around a second later is disturbingly satisfying. Taking a level 60 shotgun against a hoard of level 1 "badasses," and seeing torsos disappear, with bits of gore raining down, that does happen in games, and it is oddly rewarding. You do indeed feel powerful on some minor level, even as you realize you couldn't do that in real life even if you DID have a high power weapon and lacked moral qualms about slaughtering people.
In other words, the principle is right even if the exact example is not.
Furthermore (spoilers for modern warfare) there is that one sniping mission where you shoot the target's arm off. Again, satisfying.
First of all, we have a first-past-the-post election scheme, and that means you can vote for party A, party B, or effectively do nothing. That's just how it is. Wishing it were different and voting for a 3rd party isn't going to change that.
Second, I'm not a one-issue voter. I agree with nearly everything the dems DO stand for, when they stand for anything. I'm not going to vote for a libertarian who is going to cut the government programs I agree with just because he or she doesn't like the patriot act either.
That's just one issue, and on that particular issue neither party is really better.
He's not exactly the new boss. It's been years.
Anyway, how many voters outside the slashdot crowd are even aware the patriot act is still with us let alone oppose it? That doesn't excuse Obama or any of the Democrats, but it's never going to go away until more people start caring about it. Rather than bring up that saying year in year out, why not, oh, I don't know, do something to raise awareness about it?
I mean, I guess that doesn't get you slashdot karma...
I'm very liberal and always end up voting democratic using the "Who seems like the lesser of two evils," standard. So you could say I'm usually more optimistic than many about the democratic senate.
I have no hope that the senate will block it.
I don't know if this is optimism or pessimism, but I suspect a few democrat senators will vote against it. Not enough to raise the issue with the apathetic public mind you, let alone block it's passage. Just enough to give their opponents ammo to say "Democrats are weak on security!" in the next election, giving them control of the senate as well. I'm similarly pessimistic that the republicans who take their place will actually do things that I agree with either. For example, they sure won't reduce spending (well, maybe things like planned parenthood and research grants, but they'll make it up in other things.)
A real-life zombie apocalypse would very likely look nothing like the movies.
You mean they won't be shambling, mindless creatures bent on eating your brains? Wow, those would definitely be the most dangerous zombies of all. You can't tell them apart from normal people!
Hmm... Better be safe.
[Fires up chainsaw and starts driving to grandma's house]
You liked zombies better when they were underground?
Don't forget that there are some Christians out there who take the transfiguration literally and actually believe they are eating flesh and drinking blood. Granted, it looks like bread (or Styrofoam) and watered-down wine respectively, but if you take them at their word...
Plus every zombie movie I've ever seen (except Shaun of the Dead) the living were fucked over by one fact: they didn't seem to know what zombies were.
"Oh Jimmy! I thought you were dead! You got hurt though and kind of have an odd vacant expression, let me give you A BIG HUG... OW! Why are you biting me, drooling, and grunting?!? No! Stop! Jimmy, I don't understand! Are you hungry? Oh good, a big crowd of people just showed up to help me.... OH GOD WHY ARE THEY BITING ME TOO?!?! THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!!"
Maybe some people who are so sheltered they've never seen a zombie movie would make that rookie mistake, but the rest of us will be all
"I'm sorry grandma... well sorry you're dead anyway, but no use crying over spilled milk and I've ALWAYS WANTED TO DO THIS WITH A CHAINSAW!!!"
And some of the few people who notice and realize the significance of it shrug it off because it's not new and is evidently boring. Or maybe just because they want to excuse their apathy.
Seriously, the news at 11 should be examining why one would take -persistent- threats less seriously than -new- threats to our freedom. Why does this story elicit a yawn rather than a "THIS IS THE LAST FUCKING STRAW!"
I'm guessing it's because we don't know what to do about it?
That's interesting, but "slave" still implies "forced work without pay" even if that type of pure slavery is rare in history. And it has nothing to do with income taxes. Suggesting that chinese workers are less enslaved than us because they pay a lower tax percentage is nuts.
Well, that's certainly true. I guess I'd say China tends to come up a lot more often than Burma, and the US (which most slashdotters live in) deals a lot more with China as equals than we do with Burma or Pakistan*, so we're less focused on them too. And when discussing an article about China, criticisms of China's human rights are more germane than Guantanamo Bay or the others.
(* Russia escapes the treatment purely because of the "in Soviet Russia" jokes)
What's this thing with regular promotion of bitcoins on /.? Shouldn't it be in advertising box or something?
They tried to, but real advertising costs real money. A slashvetisement on the other hand can be purchased with bitcoins.