The other exec used the word "discriminate," which to me seems like the bigger word choice gaffe. Granted, he avoided saying things like raping free speech, fucking over the little guys who can't afford our extortion, whoring your ability to access content out to the biggest spender, or comparing his own company to nazis, but I'd argue he probably didn't want point out that they intent to "discriminate." Seems like a bad PR move.
That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.
Are you kidding?!? The psychiatric organization is the worst of them all! They're the ones at the forefront of trying to take away my tinfoil hat to establish a new world order!
Seriously though. There -are- conspiracies to shut down wikileaks. Not really that shadowy though: like many conspiracies that are real and not just paranoia, they're much less secretive than the imagined conspiracies. The actors aren't concealing their dislike of wikileaks.
No one is accusing anyone of plotting literal assassination, but to deny that some people have an interest in shutting down wikileaks is naive.
Those being that you don't want to offend the powerful staff of "wired?" You want to continue to be seen as completely neutral about wired? Your statement was pretty qualified.
Stem cell research appears to hold a lot of promise for brain trauma patients such as the man I met.
Induced pluripotent stem cell research, more likely. And it will be interesting to see the patients who have such therapy done in certain parts of their brain. Whether or not there are new neurons produced in some areas of the brain like the neocortex is still somewhat controversial. The thinking was for a long time that you couldn't get new neurons because they 1. weren't produced in the brain 2. wouldn't be able to integrate properly and 3. would change the personality if they did. 1 was proven wrong. 2 seems to have been proven wrong too, I think. As far as I know, no one knows whether or not new neurons in your brain would make you a different person. There have definitely been cases of brain injuries changing people's personality. So it will be interesting to see if this type of therapy, or IPsC therapy will cure the damage, but make a new person rather than bring back the old person.
My point was that was an ad hominem attack. I expect better from slashdotters.
Manners aside, I'm not convinced that slashdot actually has a liberal bias any more than I'm convinced CNN does. Furthermore, if there is bias, I'm of the opinion that the answer is not intentional bias in the opposite direction, since obviously I'm not convinced Fox has done anything beneficial for cable news with that same approach.
I mean, who in their right mind would think it is not OK to videotape in public, or that we needed to "protect" the police from video cameras?!
How many state legislators qualify as "in their right mind?"
By the way, if anyone here is of the opinion that local control is the way to solve every problem, this is just one of hundreds of examples that I think demonstrate that local governments can be about as bad.
You obviously don't know anything about Antonin Scalia apart from what Moveon.org and the DailKos tell you to "think".
Ah yes, good form old chap. Someone says something you disagree with on the internet, and you respond first with "you're ignorant and influenced by news/propaganda sources I personally don't agree with." Allow me to respond in kind.
I think we got the better ruling, though I'm no lawyer. I guess the police made the argument "Even though you had no way of knowing he was a cop, you should have stopped filming because he was a cop." I would have been pleasantly surprised if the outcome had been that once an officer identified himself you had to stop filming, but before that it was okay. And I say pleasantly surprised because it would have made some sense.
so Slashdot suddenly loves activist judges when they make decisions Slashdot agrees with
"Activist judge" has always been code for "judge who made a ruling we didn't like" for as long as I've been hearing the term. So "activist judge making rulings you like" is nonsense. It's a bit like saying "An enemy of mine who is my ally." Unless you're proposing a change in the meaning of the term "activist judge" to "A judge who does anything." Which I guess makes more sense than what it means now.
these are the guys in business that seem to play by their own rules when it comes to anything and everything as long as it doesn't land them into too much hot water with the rest of the world - and if it does, then it is okay as long as the money keeps pouring in.
Hmm, sounds like the same guys we have here. Here being virtually anywhere.
No, this is American capitalist propaganda! Chinese air is the cleanest air in the world! In other countries, they have air pollution that is under 2.5 microns, wheras here in China there is none!
(Note that this would be funnier if you read the summary, and also maybe if we could safely assume no such line has been uttered by a Chinese official about this matter)
I don't understand how people can stand surfing with NoScript--it's got to be the most obnoxious add-on ever.
Yes, it is extremely frustrating to four important groups of people, those being
1. Malware authors who are perfectionists and want -everyone- to get infected, not just 90% 2. Advertisers who are convinced that ads that flash at you, pop up a billion ads, and start playing noises are the way to economic recovery 3. People who can't be bothered to click a part of the window the first time they visit a new website 4. People who hate not being infected with malware.
I, thinking myself an actual expert in the field being discussed, read the subject line and decide to rebut, and maybe start to do so, but then I tell myself I have better things to do, so instead I make an immature joke (possibly about poop) or reference the simpsons.
The "better things to do" if you're wondering consists mostly of making other immature jokes on slashdot.
No, penguinisto just really thinks poorly of Sheryl Crow fans. All they wanna do is have some fun, they don't concern themselves with things like the definition of irony.
To his credit, there are no Alanis Morissette fans really.
As an outside observer who is not American, when I look at the mess GWB left for BO to deal with I have to say he's doing one hell of a job. The USA would be a third-world country by now if it wasn't for the crazy hard decisions Obama had to make to keep the US from tanking more than it did!
Political discussion in the US has largely declined to a point where it's all dichotomies, black and white. Politicians are either all good or they're all bad depending on how you feel about them. If you like a politician, you focus on one thing he or she has done or stands for and the rest doesn't matter. If you don't like a politician, you focus on something shameful they've done and act as if that is all they have done. The idea that there's no real right answer to economic questions is beyond many people. Anything that Bush or Obama have done which can be construed as injustices are taken as proof that they are the next Hitler.
Frankly, I have no idea how it got to this point. I remember telling myself I hated everything that Bush did, then realizing I only remembered a few things he did. Those people who are opposed to Obama never seem to actually be opposed to everything he's done (for instance I have yet to run into someone who thinks denying coverage for preexisting conditions is a good thing that should be allowed), and those of us who would vote for Obama again tend to ignore the things we disagree with, like the RIAA lawyers.
Is it all selective memory, and if so, is the US unique in this regard?
I don't understand why you folks keep buying such consoles and other locked down devices.
We buy consoles based on the shiny games available for them. Most of the console games I own will never be released for the PC. If I can jailbreak the devices I play them on, that's good, but even if I can't, I'm not willing to forego those games just to take a stand for consumer control. I'm aware that this is a shortsighted view, and I'm sure I'd be surprised at the number of games available for the PC, but that's the answer you'd probably get from most console users if they were being honest.
I don't know what to say besides we reap what we sow.
Even if you can find their shops, you may be greeted with "NO FOREIGNER ALLOWED" thing, lovely huh?
In Akihabara? No. In a district famous worldwide for selling electronics, with extremely expensive rent, you are not likely to find a place unwilling to sell to foreigners. That would be a bit like a bar with a sign "No drunk people allowed." In Tokyo, the only place I ran into a "no gaijin" policy was a love hotel in Shibuya.
We might want to save that power for when we really need it. The first time we use it will also be the last, before it's quickly put into law that only large corporations get the power to censor the net through DMCA.
I suppose it would be bad for them to all die, but I'm not sure why, exactly.
Genetic diversity is in general a good thing to preserve. If a particularly bad bird disease decimates most of the major birds, but the kakapo is resistant, we'd really be glad we saved them. The chances of that happening seem extremely low, and I think it's also pretty unlikely that we'll find any other practical use for them, but if we can it would still be prudent to save them.
Furthermore, just because we don't have the resources to restore the environment to how it was before, eliminating all of the introduced predators, doesn't mean we won't be able to at some point in the future. It seems less likely that we'd be able to recreate this bird though. I'm no zoologist, but I'd imagine there are some species that wouldn't be able to go from captivity to back into the wild. If the bird goes extinct in the wild, we keep it alive in a zoo, and then at some point try to rebuild that ecosystem, maybe the birds wouldn't know how to get food unless it's from a trough, and would starve.
Plus, doesn't everyone feel a little guilty when they hear about a species going extinct because of human shortsightedness?
Maybe there are plans to deal with the introduced predators. Maybe yes keep them deodorized indefinitely until they come up with an easier plan. Maybe they figure the price of this deodorant will be worth preventing a species from going extinct in the wild. I don't see why we should adopt natural selection as a goal after we introduce invasive species. I personally don't think "natural is always better," especially since it sounds like they're only going extinct because we introduced predators. Even if they were naturally going extinct, what's that matter? We naturally don't live far beyond 30. If we like the birds, save them, fuck natural selection. Survival of the species we like best might work better for us than pure survival of the fittest.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard he's going to mandate that all Federal agencies cut over to IPv6 by the time they close Gitmo.
It will dovetail nicely with his plan for ensuring net neutrality, at least the parts that aren't "Say that we support net neutrality."
The other exec used the word "discriminate," which to me seems like the bigger word choice gaffe. Granted, he avoided saying things like raping free speech, fucking over the little guys who can't afford our extortion, whoring your ability to access content out to the biggest spender, or comparing his own company to nazis, but I'd argue he probably didn't want point out that they intent to "discriminate." Seems like a bad PR move.
That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.
Are you kidding?!? The psychiatric organization is the worst of them all! They're the ones at the forefront of trying to take away my tinfoil hat to establish a new world order!
Seriously though. There -are- conspiracies to shut down wikileaks. Not really that shadowy though: like many conspiracies that are real and not just paranoia, they're much less secretive than the imagined conspiracies. The actors aren't concealing their dislike of wikileaks.
No one is accusing anyone of plotting literal assassination, but to deny that some people have an interest in shutting down wikileaks is naive.
Posting as AC, for obvious reasons.
Those being that you don't want to offend the powerful staff of "wired?" You want to continue to be seen as completely neutral about wired? Your statement was pretty qualified.
Are you saying that a cop should be able to tell you to stop filming them doing a traffic stop?
No... that's in fact the opposite of what I was saying.
Stem cell research appears to hold a lot of promise for brain trauma patients such as the man I met.
Induced pluripotent stem cell research, more likely. And it will be interesting to see the patients who have such therapy done in certain parts of their brain. Whether or not there are new neurons produced in some areas of the brain like the neocortex is still somewhat controversial. The thinking was for a long time that you couldn't get new neurons because they 1. weren't produced in the brain 2. wouldn't be able to integrate properly and 3. would change the personality if they did. 1 was proven wrong. 2 seems to have been proven wrong too, I think. As far as I know, no one knows whether or not new neurons in your brain would make you a different person. There have definitely been cases of brain injuries changing people's personality. So it will be interesting to see if this type of therapy, or IPsC therapy will cure the damage, but make a new person rather than bring back the old person.
It's running linux, so never.
My point was that was an ad hominem attack. I expect better from slashdotters.
Manners aside, I'm not convinced that slashdot actually has a liberal bias any more than I'm convinced CNN does. Furthermore, if there is bias, I'm of the opinion that the answer is not intentional bias in the opposite direction, since obviously I'm not convinced Fox has done anything beneficial for cable news with that same approach.
I mean, who in their right mind would think it is not OK to videotape in public, or that we needed to "protect" the police from video cameras?!
How many state legislators qualify as "in their right mind?"
By the way, if anyone here is of the opinion that local control is the way to solve every problem, this is just one of hundreds of examples that I think demonstrate that local governments can be about as bad.
You obviously don't know anything about Antonin Scalia apart from what Moveon.org and the DailKos tell you to "think".
Ah yes, good form old chap. Someone says something you disagree with on the internet, and you respond first with "you're ignorant and influenced by news/propaganda sources I personally don't agree with." Allow me to respond in kind.
(ahem)
You're just brainwashed by faux-news!
I think we got the better ruling, though I'm no lawyer. I guess the police made the argument "Even though you had no way of knowing he was a cop, you should have stopped filming because he was a cop." I would have been pleasantly surprised if the outcome had been that once an officer identified himself you had to stop filming, but before that it was okay. And I say pleasantly surprised because it would have made some sense.
This ruling is better though.
so Slashdot suddenly loves activist judges when they make decisions Slashdot agrees with
"Activist judge" has always been code for "judge who made a ruling we didn't like" for as long as I've been hearing the term. So "activist judge making rulings you like" is nonsense. It's a bit like saying "An enemy of mine who is my ally." Unless you're proposing a change in the meaning of the term "activist judge" to "A judge who does anything." Which I guess makes more sense than what it means now.
these are the guys in business that seem to play by their own rules when it comes to anything and everything as long as it doesn't land them into too much hot water with the rest of the world - and if it does, then it is okay as long as the money keeps pouring in.
Hmm, sounds like the same guys we have here. Here being virtually anywhere.
No, this is American capitalist propaganda! Chinese air is the cleanest air in the world! In other countries, they have air pollution that is under 2.5 microns, wheras here in China there is none!
(Note that this would be funnier if you read the summary, and also maybe if we could safely assume no such line has been uttered by a Chinese official about this matter)
Actually, users who know what they are doing don't need NoScript, we just don't visit shitty sites in the first place
Users who know what they are doing never visit porn sites?
Wow. So I don't know what I'm doing and am also more perverted than the average slashdot user. That's... unexpected...
I don't understand how people can stand surfing with NoScript--it's got to be the most obnoxious add-on ever.
Yes, it is extremely frustrating to four important groups of people, those being
1. Malware authors who are perfectionists and want -everyone- to get infected, not just 90%
2. Advertisers who are convinced that ads that flash at you, pop up a billion ads, and start playing noises are the way to economic recovery
3. People who can't be bothered to click a part of the window the first time they visit a new website
4. People who hate not being infected with malware.
Those people have my deepest sympathies.
I, thinking myself an actual expert in the field being discussed, read the subject line and decide to rebut, and maybe start to do so, but then I tell myself I have better things to do, so instead I make an immature joke (possibly about poop) or reference the simpsons.
The "better things to do" if you're wondering consists mostly of making other immature jokes on slashdot.
(This especially includes all Sheryl Crow fans)
Ironically, you probably meant Alanis Morissette.
No, penguinisto just really thinks poorly of Sheryl Crow fans. All they wanna do is have some fun, they don't concern themselves with things like the definition of irony.
To his credit, there are no Alanis Morissette fans really.
As an outside observer who is not American, when I look at the mess GWB left for BO to deal with I have to say he's doing one hell of a job. The USA would be a third-world country by now if it wasn't for the crazy hard decisions Obama had to make to keep the US from tanking more than it did!
Political discussion in the US has largely declined to a point where it's all dichotomies, black and white. Politicians are either all good or they're all bad depending on how you feel about them. If you like a politician, you focus on one thing he or she has done or stands for and the rest doesn't matter. If you don't like a politician, you focus on something shameful they've done and act as if that is all they have done. The idea that there's no real right answer to economic questions is beyond many people. Anything that Bush or Obama have done which can be construed as injustices are taken as proof that they are the next Hitler.
Frankly, I have no idea how it got to this point. I remember telling myself I hated everything that Bush did, then realizing I only remembered a few things he did. Those people who are opposed to Obama never seem to actually be opposed to everything he's done (for instance I have yet to run into someone who thinks denying coverage for preexisting conditions is a good thing that should be allowed), and those of us who would vote for Obama again tend to ignore the things we disagree with, like the RIAA lawyers.
Is it all selective memory, and if so, is the US unique in this regard?
I don't understand why you folks keep buying such consoles and other locked down devices.
We buy consoles based on the shiny games available for them. Most of the console games I own will never be released for the PC. If I can jailbreak the devices I play them on, that's good, but even if I can't, I'm not willing to forego those games just to take a stand for consumer control. I'm aware that this is a shortsighted view, and I'm sure I'd be surprised at the number of games available for the PC, but that's the answer you'd probably get from most console users if they were being honest.
I don't know what to say besides we reap what we sow.
Even if you can find their shops, you may be greeted with "NO FOREIGNER ALLOWED" thing, lovely huh?
In Akihabara? No. In a district famous worldwide for selling electronics, with extremely expensive rent, you are not likely to find a place unwilling to sell to foreigners. That would be a bit like a bar with a sign "No drunk people allowed." In Tokyo, the only place I ran into a "no gaijin" policy was a love hotel in Shibuya.
Hee hee... "erect!"
We might want to save that power for when we really need it. The first time we use it will also be the last, before it's quickly put into law that only large corporations get the power to censor the net through DMCA.
I suppose it would be bad for them to all die, but I'm not sure why, exactly.
Genetic diversity is in general a good thing to preserve. If a particularly bad bird disease decimates most of the major birds, but the kakapo is resistant, we'd really be glad we saved them. The chances of that happening seem extremely low, and I think it's also pretty unlikely that we'll find any other practical use for them, but if we can it would still be prudent to save them.
Furthermore, just because we don't have the resources to restore the environment to how it was before, eliminating all of the introduced predators, doesn't mean we won't be able to at some point in the future. It seems less likely that we'd be able to recreate this bird though. I'm no zoologist, but I'd imagine there are some species that wouldn't be able to go from captivity to back into the wild. If the bird goes extinct in the wild, we keep it alive in a zoo, and then at some point try to rebuild that ecosystem, maybe the birds wouldn't know how to get food unless it's from a trough, and would starve.
Plus, doesn't everyone feel a little guilty when they hear about a species going extinct because of human shortsightedness?
Maybe there are plans to deal with the introduced predators. Maybe yes keep them deodorized indefinitely until they come up with an easier plan. Maybe they figure the price of this deodorant will be worth preventing a species from going extinct in the wild. I don't see why we should adopt natural selection as a goal after we introduce invasive species. I personally don't think "natural is always better," especially since it sounds like they're only going extinct because we introduced predators. Even if they were naturally going extinct, what's that matter? We naturally don't live far beyond 30. If we like the birds, save them, fuck natural selection. Survival of the species we like best might work better for us than pure survival of the fittest.