Let's not forget the fact that they attempt to maintain complete control over your device. There's an App we don't approve of? Too bad! You can't have it. You want to have songs on your iPod AND your iPhone? No deal! Buy it twice! You want to downgrade from our new firmware that slows your phone down because you don't have our latest and greatest iPhone 4? No way! You stick with our new firmware that is slow as molasses on your old phone, or you buy a new one!
The list goes on.
I'm not defending the action itself, only his right as the IT dept in his company to do it. It was suggested that he was out of line, and I think to the contrary. He was mandated to run IT as efficiently as possible, and anything he thinks is going to make his job more efficient, is his right to implement. Whether or not this move will be helpful or wise in the long run wasn't what the Parent was talking about.
I disagree. In the workplace, you're not the owner of your machine. I've never worked in an office that allowed me to do whatever I wanted with a computer. Maybe certain websites were blocked, maybe I couldn't install stuff. Maybe something I would have liked on the Desktop wasn't there. In a lot of cases, Admin can setup your computer however they want, because THEY are the ones who have to fix it when it's broken. I think he's well in line with what he should be allowed to do. The very first time someone deletes something and wants it back, and he can do it in 35 seconds, they'll be glad he did it.
While I can't say that you're wrong, it is (supposedly) the job of Slashdot to select news from around the Internet that would be most interesting to its user base. It does this because targeted advertising is always more effective than blanket advertising. The more useless articles like this that makes it to the front page, the less of this user base will stick around, and the harder it will be to attract new membership for this demographic. Yes, I clicked on the article and read it, and yes, that means someone got my attention and gets paid their advertising dollars. But they're killing the cow here. Staying relevant will keep my readership. Continually put up articles of this caliber will not. I may click through a few times on silly things like this to make sure I'm not missing something, but that's not going to last very long. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, and if things keep progressing in this direction, I'll look somewhere else to provide me with regular "serious" news, without crap like this mixed in.
Maybe that's an empty threat, and maybe it's not. But it's a silly risk to take to score a few extra click through advertising bucks.
I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.
Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.
That's the way someone who understands computers thinks. We are not the majority of people who use computers anymore. The majority of people do NOT understand the way computers work, they just happily sign on to Facebook or their Email when they want to. The idea of being able to go to their friends house and access all their stuff there seems like something out of Sci-Fi to them. It's super cool, and nothing but convenient. I mean, why WOULDN'T you want to be able to do that?
Things like privacy issues aren't really a concern to them either. You ever tried to tell someone about the way Facebook operates, and had them say they don't care about any of that? Happens to me all the time. Also, as a general rule, a lot of people (especially in North America) see what is happening in Egypt, and say to themselves "But that could never happen here."
Finally, in closing, a lot of people do not WANT things in their immediate control. Having all your data on your computer means that it could break, or could get a virus, and then it's in danger of being lost unless Geek Squad can fix it. Many would rather trust it to Google than to themselves. Having worked previously in Geek Squad many moons ago, I have to say, for some of them, trusting their data to anyone but themselves was the wise thing to do.
We're not sure exactly what 'high' means but it is probably over 2GB [Citation Needed] of data per month.
Seriously, where does this 2GB a month guess come from? Why couldn't it be over 5 GB or over 20 GB to reach the top 5%? If it turns out the top 5% are actually downloading well over 100GB a month, or something like that, I don't really HAVE a problem with them being throttled!
That's a kind of silly question. It's not like a door that has been broken open and won't close. They'll probably take it home, install Linux on it, maybe change the MAC address on the NIC, and it's basically a new machine.
Can we call them "potentially habitable planets" instead of going all the way to "habitable" that quickly? I think I'd like to make sure of certain things before being so definite -- for instance: water, temperature, oxygen levels, lack of poisonous gases making the oxygen-level issue moot, edible flora and/or fauna, radiation levels... hmmm, could be here awhile...
I don't see how that would help Nasa get more funding.
What are Vegetarians going to do when this comes out? It'll throw the WHOLE damn system out of whack! "Sorry, is that a Vegetarian Friendly Steak? Great! Medium-Rare."
You're confusing "free" with "someone else is paying for it." In this case, your Electricity is not free, it is being paid for by some mysterious philanthropist. If you assume that this will continue forever, and are suddenly caught unaware when said philanthropist says "I can't afford to do this anymore," you don't really have my sympathies. If you then COMPLAIN that it was unfair it was taken away, I'd laugh and suggest that it was fortunate you ever got it paid for, for you, at all!
People did live without electricity, gas and phone lines for several millennia. Does that mean they can cut them off? And if you were provided with free gas, heating, electricity and transportation for years and then quickly cut off for no reason, you'd be troubled as well.
City dwellers may need gas for heating and cooking more than people in rural areas, but those need their car more. And nerds need Internet access more than jocks. .
Now, Facebook may not be the most life-critical utility to me, but the question should be "When does a nice-to-have utility become a must-have necessity and for whom and why?"
Yes, you can cut them off. Gas, Phone, Power, those things are not free, they are paid for by you, every month. Stop paying, stop receiving. Your suggestion, that because someone is receiving something for free, they should continue to receive it for free, because taking it away would trouble them is nothing short of baffling to me. Nothing is free, someone ELSE is just paying your way if you aren't, and they are probably getting something out of that too, or they likely wouldn't do it. If those people don't want to pay your way anymore, why should they be forced to? No one is going to force the Gas company to service you after you breach your contract and don't pay for months. Why should someone force Facebook to continue to service someone after they breached the contract they agreed to when they started using the service?
That is a really interesting way of looking at it that I never thought of before. I'm not sure that the Employee analogy really works, but very interesting nonetheless.
I'm pretty sure there is something in the EULA that would state Facebook reserves the right to cancel your account for whatever reason they want.
I'm pretty sure this is where the justice comes in.
They are not like almost any business in this regard. Most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for almost any reason. Maybe that in and of itself is injust as you are suggesting. But that's a much, much bigger discussion than just this little tiff about Facebook.
Do you have family thousands of miles away in a foreign country? 20 years ago instead of facebook keeping you close with your family and friends, you just didn't talk/see them. Going abroad meant saying goodbye. You didn't call them but for holidays if you could even afford it - it cost anywhere from $1-5 or more a minute to call overseas. I was in Petrozavodsk Russia in 1995, at that time it cost about $2.50 a minute to speak to my family in the US.
For most people, facebook is a unique little addition to their everyday life and a way to see what Johnny from 3rd grade is doing these days. For others, it's a lifeline to their family and culture from vast distances away. I think we need to be aware of that when we consider just how much affect the internet and facebook has had on the world.
I'm 100% behind the idea that The Internet needs to be a protected right. I really do think everyone who wants access to the Internet, should be provided access, and that guaranteeing access of SOME kind should be mandatory. But we're not talking about the Internet, we're talking about facebook, which is a very small part of the Internet itself. I'm not saying it's not convenient, and I'm not saying it hasn't made a lot of people's lives much easier. I'm saying it's not a god given right, and suing because it was taken away is not going to accomplish anything.
This man still has many ways he can communicate with his family. He has Email, he has AIM/MSN/ICQ or whatever he chooses. He has Skype or any variation on these. He can start a Blog, etc. He is FAR from disconnected, and has many many ways to stay in touch. Facebook is just the one that requires the least amount of effort put forward to actually touch base with someone. It is easily the most convenient. The points you're making are all points that are valid to the Internet itself, not facebook specifically.
You still have Telephone, you still have Internet, you still have any number of ways that people can use to keep in touch. No more than 20 years ago, we didn't even have Internet as commonly as we do now. This is not a requirement for you to live. They didn't cut off your power unjustly, or even your phone line. When I read "More than just a hobby" I thought it was going to explain that he makes a living through facebook... maybe then I'd see where he's coming from. As it is, all I see is another facebook addict who feels that it's his god given right to keep up to date with his friends.
This looks like a pretty clear cut cash grab. He says it's for "Justice" but I call bullshit on that. Justice in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars maybe. Too bad for him, I'm pretty sure there is something in the EULA that would state Facebook reserves the right to cancel your account for whatever reason they want. I don't know what this guy is expecting to have happen. In the end, frankly, I hope they counter sue for legal costs. Suing for a ridiculous reason like this shouldn't go unpunished. It's an affront to the legal system to be wasting it's time like this.
So I've noticed something I consider an issue, and detrimental to the commenting process. Highly rated comments, even rating of 5, are not showing immediately if they are not a parent comment to the main story. Any time someone replies to a comment, unless you drill down into that comment, you can't find the replies. This is a major problem for a reason reasons.
First, as a reader, I am going to obviously be most interested in comments rated at 3, 4 or 5. I may not have time to read every comment rated at 1, so I may miss tons of highly rated comments because I didn't expand EVERY single comment on there. Why this is a problem should be self explanatory, not presenting readers with the best comments first and foremost is going to be bad for readership in general.
Second, as a commenter, knowing what I just stated, it makes me less likely to want to reply to a comment, rather than make a parent response to the topic itself. If other commenters believe the same thing, it will lead to a disorganization of ideas. If more and more people post comments in the hope of being notice and modded up as a parent and not a reply, we'll have a situation where no one wants to reply.
Finally, as a moderated, knowing what I mentioned above, I feel less inclined to moderate up replies, even if they are the best comment on the site. I feel less inclined, because despite a moderation of +5, many people may not see the comment for exactly the reasons I outlined, which would mean I basically wasted moderation points.
All in all, I hope that this can be changed in some way. A +5 moderated comment should always appear without needing to drill into other comments, IMHO.
I don't care much for Apple or it's products for exactly the reasons stated in TFA. The closed nature of the offerings usually locks me out of doing something I considered basic, that I wanted to do. Little or no reprieve from this is often offered. It's Apple's way, or the highway.
But the fact is, this attitude has been nothing but good for them from a business standpoint. Most consumers don't need or WANT options that they consider complex or confusing. Time and again it has been proven through sales that people want simple. People want 1 click, 1 button, no chance of screwing up. When people are more confident with their product right out of the box, they like it more. And Apple is great at giving people something they feel comfortable using the moment they turn it on.
Why would Apple change this? It feels like sour grapes to me. Developers have a hard time, but consumers are happy. In the end, Apple cares more about it's customers than it's partners, which is the right choice to make from a business standpoint. The only way Patrick Lo is going to be proven right, is if people stop buying Apple products. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Call me Paranoid, but an ISP based in France, that is Not for Profit, is offering Dial Up to anyone in Egypt? Is this out of the goodness of their hearts, or are they charging an arm and a leg? I mean, I know they're Not for Profit, but that doesn't always meant they offer all services free. If they ARE offering it for free... I can't help but wonder what their angle is. I mean, good on them but... why?
Also, I wonder how this is going to affect relations between Egypt and France, if at all.
Anonymous cannot be destroyed by prosecuting its individual members. In order to charge someone, the prosecution must first de-anonymize that person, which immediately voids their membership in Anonymous.
That's nothing more than rhetoric, suggesting that the group doesn't exist to make it sound cooler/safer is pretty weak. I bet you got that from an Anon member, right? Being caught doesn't change the fact that you were, for a time, working in conjunction with the other members of Anon. That logic is nothing more than a way for people to make themselves feel better when they take part in these joint projects. In some ways, it's almost like a type of brainwashing designed to not let people feel fear for themselves when they see another get caught. "He isn't Anon" they'll say to themselves "He was de-anonymized, and is therefore no longer a member. We cut off the gangrenous limb, and now the body, which I am a part of, is safe." How juvenile. If you're going to break the law for a cause, and you're not ready for the consequences of doing that (one of which is prosecution, and possibly jail) don't fucking do it.
Well ACTUALLY, Mr. Carmack decided he wanted to draw a comparison to Smartphones now didn't he? I was suggesting that comparing the NGP to Smartphones is pointless because the NGP lacks the very functionality that makes a Smartphone, a Smartphone. A better comparison would have been to the iPad itself. I have no idea how that got modded Offtopic. How dare I mention phones in a topic where TFA compares the NGP to Smartphones!
On the other hand, I wonder what the numbers would look like if the survey asked teachers if they were reluctant to teach creationism in class. Probably much higher, in public schools at least. (Given that trying to teach religion in public school is *illegal* for good reason).
I'm not sure there is anything to worry about here. Unless you happen to be a creationist.
Yeah, it's not really fair that The Theory of Evolution gets it's own building. A building where people who are educated on the subject matter can teach it to a large number of pupils all at once; some of whom are there by choice, some of whom are there because their parents told them they had to be there. This clear example of inequality needs to stop now! Where is creationisms building, I ask you that!
Can someone other than the person I am conversing with, read this exchange? That is to say, is this conversation readable by more than just the people taking part in it? If the answer is yes, there is a good chance this is not private data. That's my way of looking at it at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not forget the fact that they attempt to maintain complete control over your device. There's an App we don't approve of? Too bad! You can't have it. You want to have songs on your iPod AND your iPhone? No deal! Buy it twice! You want to downgrade from our new firmware that slows your phone down because you don't have our latest and greatest iPhone 4? No way! You stick with our new firmware that is slow as molasses on your old phone, or you buy a new one! The list goes on.
I'm not defending the action itself, only his right as the IT dept in his company to do it. It was suggested that he was out of line, and I think to the contrary. He was mandated to run IT as efficiently as possible, and anything he thinks is going to make his job more efficient, is his right to implement. Whether or not this move will be helpful or wise in the long run wasn't what the Parent was talking about.
I disagree. In the workplace, you're not the owner of your machine. I've never worked in an office that allowed me to do whatever I wanted with a computer. Maybe certain websites were blocked, maybe I couldn't install stuff. Maybe something I would have liked on the Desktop wasn't there. In a lot of cases, Admin can setup your computer however they want, because THEY are the ones who have to fix it when it's broken. I think he's well in line with what he should be allowed to do. The very first time someone deletes something and wants it back, and he can do it in 35 seconds, they'll be glad he did it.
While I can't say that you're wrong, it is (supposedly) the job of Slashdot to select news from around the Internet that would be most interesting to its user base. It does this because targeted advertising is always more effective than blanket advertising. The more useless articles like this that makes it to the front page, the less of this user base will stick around, and the harder it will be to attract new membership for this demographic. Yes, I clicked on the article and read it, and yes, that means someone got my attention and gets paid their advertising dollars. But they're killing the cow here. Staying relevant will keep my readership. Continually put up articles of this caliber will not. I may click through a few times on silly things like this to make sure I'm not missing something, but that's not going to last very long. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, and if things keep progressing in this direction, I'll look somewhere else to provide me with regular "serious" news, without crap like this mixed in.
Maybe that's an empty threat, and maybe it's not. But it's a silly risk to take to score a few extra click through advertising bucks.
I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.
Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.
You couldn't pay me to take that... thing up to 240 km an hour. It looks like a metal coffin on wheels.
That's the way someone who understands computers thinks. We are not the majority of people who use computers anymore. The majority of people do NOT understand the way computers work, they just happily sign on to Facebook or their Email when they want to. The idea of being able to go to their friends house and access all their stuff there seems like something out of Sci-Fi to them. It's super cool, and nothing but convenient. I mean, why WOULDN'T you want to be able to do that?
Things like privacy issues aren't really a concern to them either. You ever tried to tell someone about the way Facebook operates, and had them say they don't care about any of that? Happens to me all the time. Also, as a general rule, a lot of people (especially in North America) see what is happening in Egypt, and say to themselves "But that could never happen here."
Finally, in closing, a lot of people do not WANT things in their immediate control. Having all your data on your computer means that it could break, or could get a virus, and then it's in danger of being lost unless Geek Squad can fix it. Many would rather trust it to Google than to themselves. Having worked previously in Geek Squad many moons ago, I have to say, for some of them, trusting their data to anyone but themselves was the wise thing to do.
We're not sure exactly what 'high' means but it is probably over 2GB [Citation Needed] of data per month.
Seriously, where does this 2GB a month guess come from? Why couldn't it be over 5 GB or over 20 GB to reach the top 5%? If it turns out the top 5% are actually downloading well over 100GB a month, or something like that, I don't really HAVE a problem with them being throttled!
That's a kind of silly question. It's not like a door that has been broken open and won't close. They'll probably take it home, install Linux on it, maybe change the MAC address on the NIC, and it's basically a new machine.
Can we call them "potentially habitable planets" instead of going all the way to "habitable" that quickly? I think I'd like to make sure of certain things before being so definite -- for instance: water, temperature, oxygen levels, lack of poisonous gases making the oxygen-level issue moot, edible flora and/or fauna, radiation levels ... hmmm, could be here awhile ...
I don't see how that would help Nasa get more funding.
What are Vegetarians going to do when this comes out? It'll throw the WHOLE damn system out of whack! "Sorry, is that a Vegetarian Friendly Steak? Great! Medium-Rare."
You're confusing "free" with "someone else is paying for it." In this case, your Electricity is not free, it is being paid for by some mysterious philanthropist. If you assume that this will continue forever, and are suddenly caught unaware when said philanthropist says "I can't afford to do this anymore," you don't really have my sympathies. If you then COMPLAIN that it was unfair it was taken away, I'd laugh and suggest that it was fortunate you ever got it paid for, for you, at all!
Seriously, I don't see what being communist has to do with embarrassing yourself. Capitalist nations embarrass themselves pretty damn often too.
People did live without electricity, gas and phone lines for several millennia. Does that mean they can cut them off? And if you were provided with free gas, heating, electricity and transportation for years and then quickly cut off for no reason, you'd be troubled as well.
City dwellers may need gas for heating and cooking more than people in rural areas, but those need their car more. And nerds need Internet access more than jocks. . Now, Facebook may not be the most life-critical utility to me, but the question should be "When does a nice-to-have utility become a must-have necessity and for whom and why?"
Yes, you can cut them off. Gas, Phone, Power, those things are not free, they are paid for by you, every month. Stop paying, stop receiving. Your suggestion, that because someone is receiving something for free, they should continue to receive it for free, because taking it away would trouble them is nothing short of baffling to me. Nothing is free, someone ELSE is just paying your way if you aren't, and they are probably getting something out of that too, or they likely wouldn't do it. If those people don't want to pay your way anymore, why should they be forced to? No one is going to force the Gas company to service you after you breach your contract and don't pay for months. Why should someone force Facebook to continue to service someone after they breached the contract they agreed to when they started using the service?
That is a really interesting way of looking at it that I never thought of before. I'm not sure that the Employee analogy really works, but very interesting nonetheless.
I'm pretty sure this is where the justice comes in.
They are not like almost any business in this regard. Most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for almost any reason. Maybe that in and of itself is injust as you are suggesting. But that's a much, much bigger discussion than just this little tiff about Facebook.
Do you have family thousands of miles away in a foreign country? 20 years ago instead of facebook keeping you close with your family and friends, you just didn't talk/see them. Going abroad meant saying goodbye. You didn't call them but for holidays if you could even afford it - it cost anywhere from $1-5 or more a minute to call overseas. I was in Petrozavodsk Russia in 1995, at that time it cost about $2.50 a minute to speak to my family in the US. For most people, facebook is a unique little addition to their everyday life and a way to see what Johnny from 3rd grade is doing these days. For others, it's a lifeline to their family and culture from vast distances away. I think we need to be aware of that when we consider just how much affect the internet and facebook has had on the world.
I'm 100% behind the idea that The Internet needs to be a protected right. I really do think everyone who wants access to the Internet, should be provided access, and that guaranteeing access of SOME kind should be mandatory. But we're not talking about the Internet, we're talking about facebook, which is a very small part of the Internet itself. I'm not saying it's not convenient, and I'm not saying it hasn't made a lot of people's lives much easier. I'm saying it's not a god given right, and suing because it was taken away is not going to accomplish anything.
This man still has many ways he can communicate with his family. He has Email, he has AIM/MSN/ICQ or whatever he chooses. He has Skype or any variation on these. He can start a Blog, etc. He is FAR from disconnected, and has many many ways to stay in touch. Facebook is just the one that requires the least amount of effort put forward to actually touch base with someone. It is easily the most convenient. The points you're making are all points that are valid to the Internet itself, not facebook specifically.
You still have Telephone, you still have Internet, you still have any number of ways that people can use to keep in touch. No more than 20 years ago, we didn't even have Internet as commonly as we do now. This is not a requirement for you to live. They didn't cut off your power unjustly, or even your phone line. When I read "More than just a hobby" I thought it was going to explain that he makes a living through facebook... maybe then I'd see where he's coming from. As it is, all I see is another facebook addict who feels that it's his god given right to keep up to date with his friends.
This looks like a pretty clear cut cash grab. He says it's for "Justice" but I call bullshit on that. Justice in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars maybe. Too bad for him, I'm pretty sure there is something in the EULA that would state Facebook reserves the right to cancel your account for whatever reason they want. I don't know what this guy is expecting to have happen. In the end, frankly, I hope they counter sue for legal costs. Suing for a ridiculous reason like this shouldn't go unpunished. It's an affront to the legal system to be wasting it's time like this.
So I've noticed something I consider an issue, and detrimental to the commenting process. Highly rated comments, even rating of 5, are not showing immediately if they are not a parent comment to the main story. Any time someone replies to a comment, unless you drill down into that comment, you can't find the replies. This is a major problem for a reason reasons.
First, as a reader, I am going to obviously be most interested in comments rated at 3, 4 or 5. I may not have time to read every comment rated at 1, so I may miss tons of highly rated comments because I didn't expand EVERY single comment on there. Why this is a problem should be self explanatory, not presenting readers with the best comments first and foremost is going to be bad for readership in general.
Second, as a commenter, knowing what I just stated, it makes me less likely to want to reply to a comment, rather than make a parent response to the topic itself. If other commenters believe the same thing, it will lead to a disorganization of ideas. If more and more people post comments in the hope of being notice and modded up as a parent and not a reply, we'll have a situation where no one wants to reply.
Finally, as a moderated, knowing what I mentioned above, I feel less inclined to moderate up replies, even if they are the best comment on the site. I feel less inclined, because despite a moderation of +5, many people may not see the comment for exactly the reasons I outlined, which would mean I basically wasted moderation points.
All in all, I hope that this can be changed in some way. A +5 moderated comment should always appear without needing to drill into other comments, IMHO.
I don't care much for Apple or it's products for exactly the reasons stated in TFA. The closed nature of the offerings usually locks me out of doing something I considered basic, that I wanted to do. Little or no reprieve from this is often offered. It's Apple's way, or the highway.
But the fact is, this attitude has been nothing but good for them from a business standpoint. Most consumers don't need or WANT options that they consider complex or confusing. Time and again it has been proven through sales that people want simple. People want 1 click, 1 button, no chance of screwing up. When people are more confident with their product right out of the box, they like it more. And Apple is great at giving people something they feel comfortable using the moment they turn it on.
Why would Apple change this? It feels like sour grapes to me. Developers have a hard time, but consumers are happy. In the end, Apple cares more about it's customers than it's partners, which is the right choice to make from a business standpoint. The only way Patrick Lo is going to be proven right, is if people stop buying Apple products. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Call me Paranoid, but an ISP based in France, that is Not for Profit, is offering Dial Up to anyone in Egypt? Is this out of the goodness of their hearts, or are they charging an arm and a leg? I mean, I know they're Not for Profit, but that doesn't always meant they offer all services free. If they ARE offering it for free... I can't help but wonder what their angle is. I mean, good on them but... why? Also, I wonder how this is going to affect relations between Egypt and France, if at all.
Anonymous cannot be destroyed by prosecuting its individual members. In order to charge someone, the prosecution must first de-anonymize that person, which immediately voids their membership in Anonymous.
That's nothing more than rhetoric, suggesting that the group doesn't exist to make it sound cooler/safer is pretty weak. I bet you got that from an Anon member, right? Being caught doesn't change the fact that you were, for a time, working in conjunction with the other members of Anon. That logic is nothing more than a way for people to make themselves feel better when they take part in these joint projects. In some ways, it's almost like a type of brainwashing designed to not let people feel fear for themselves when they see another get caught. "He isn't Anon" they'll say to themselves "He was de-anonymized, and is therefore no longer a member. We cut off the gangrenous limb, and now the body, which I am a part of, is safe." How juvenile. If you're going to break the law for a cause, and you're not ready for the consequences of doing that (one of which is prosecution, and possibly jail) don't fucking do it.
It's not a smartphone, nobody said it was.
Well ACTUALLY, Mr. Carmack decided he wanted to draw a comparison to Smartphones now didn't he? I was suggesting that comparing the NGP to Smartphones is pointless because the NGP lacks the very functionality that makes a Smartphone, a Smartphone. A better comparison would have been to the iPad itself. I have no idea how that got modded Offtopic. How dare I mention phones in a topic where TFA compares the NGP to Smartphones!
On the other hand, I wonder what the numbers would look like if the survey asked teachers if they were reluctant to teach creationism in class. Probably much higher, in public schools at least. (Given that trying to teach religion in public school is *illegal* for good reason). I'm not sure there is anything to worry about here. Unless you happen to be a creationist.
Yeah, it's not really fair that The Theory of Evolution gets it's own building. A building where people who are educated on the subject matter can teach it to a large number of pupils all at once; some of whom are there by choice, some of whom are there because their parents told them they had to be there. This clear example of inequality needs to stop now! Where is creationisms building, I ask you that!
Can someone other than the person I am conversing with, read this exchange? That is to say, is this conversation readable by more than just the people taking part in it? If the answer is yes, there is a good chance this is not private data. That's my way of looking at it at least.