Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. At 1:35 A.M. Eastern time it runs out of disk space and crashes horribly
Better yet, Skynet, in an attempt to gather all human-recorded data and understand our behaviour, visits 4chan and its circuits fry while they are trying to process and interpret the acquired data.
If every online death threat were investigated we'd run out of police in about 10seconds. How about every death threat made in a bar while we're at it?
However, if only one in thousand online death threats were investigated, the amount of online death threats would quickly drop by several factors of scale.
Why is it socially acceptable to demonize an entire demographic (gamers)?
That's being explained just few posts above yours - discrimination is apparently bad only if it's based on something people don't have a choice in. You can stop being a gamer just like you can stop being a Christian, or stop being an Apple fanboy. I guess that makes throwing all kinds of insults and other derogatory remarks at any of the above groups a fair game. However, I am also convinced that with today's advancements in the field of medicine you can even stop being gay or stop being a woman (even though a typical far-left atheist liberal will likely disagree)!
Therefore I don't think that the line where discrimination starts is defined by the target group, but rather by the attitude the potential discriminator has towards the said group.
So someone saying that gamers are vile trash is demonizing them, but saying that it's better to study sciences than to play video games is as much discrimination as saying that life can only be formed through contact of male and female cells is homophobia.
In the 20th century, people feared that Orwellian state will control people by supressing thinking and limiting information.
But the situation become even worse - we have people who don't want to think and instead rely on The Government to decide what's good for them, and information is so widely available that people became saturated with it and no longer desire it.
Many slashdotters have difficulty with reading comprehension and simple logic.
If you think that uneducated or trollish users are a problem on Slashdot, then you've probably never been to 4chan or reddit (I guess that Facebook deserved a mention too). Granted, trolls and haters actually exist on Slashdot (just like with any other site on the Internet), and sometimes they will crawl out and hit you with their ignorance hammer when you least expect them, but their number is remarkably low for a site that allows commenting without an account and I haven't seen them take over a topic in years.
And Slashdot isn't today exactly among the Internet's most popular sites so I think that most of them are just passerbys with sudden "rebruttal" urges.
I've not seen a more hateful comment on Slashdot in a long time. If Slashdot stuff doesn't give a fuck about people who spew hate at someone for mentioning something that's even confirmed by FUCKING X-MEN DIRECTOR HIMSELF, I can only hope that NSA does and will lock you away before you cause a school shooting.
Well except mutants aren't real and can't doom us all whereas unvaccinated people can.
In case if you haven't figured it out, X-Men is really about gay people, and of course, they can doom us all, since we'll just stop reproducing. So the analogy still says.
Of course I know that gay people won't ever become a majority and the above was just a sarcasm. But the same could probably be said about unvaccinated people.
But of course, *merely* having a registry of unvaccinated people is still way better than having mandatory vaccination like in my country. Until they refuse to give you a medical treatment because you haven't been vaccinated against leprosy, or you don't pass at job test because your parents thought it's not a good idea to let you take some vaccine that has so far been tested only on rats.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Wasn't there a case years ago where Yahoo helped Chinese authorities arrest a blogger? Even the "Don't be evil" company would happily turn you to authorities if you happen to use their search engine to find out how to construct a homemade bomb (their "autocomplete/suggestion" feature isn't really your best friend), and it doesn't matter if you live in a 3rd world country or not, since a suspicion of terrorism is enough to have you detained indefinitely even in a "land of the free".
So, what when someone uses an Internet to reveal their plans of a terrorist attack? How would the police get them if their IP cannot be traced?
This seems like a well-written law for a change, and Brazilian government wasn't very Internet-friendly in the past as they used to block YouTube and ban video games (even rather innocuous ones like CounterStrike).
There are quite a few rumors / gossip she is gay or in a lesbian relationship herself.
So, she could be both gay and lesbian? I thought you can be only one of the above, unless you're implying that she's both male and female. And I thought it was only a phrase when people said that she got balls.
I think that the GP is upset because Carter wasn't making such claims while he was the president. What if Obama says in 20 years how it was wrong to imprison Manning? Would it suprise you? Or it's just the type of hypocritical behaviour you would expect from a politician?
Science doesn't need to explain everything, it only needs dedication to facts.
That's a privilege that religion doesn't have. It's hard to win an argument against someone who thinks you're guilty until proven wrong.
That's one of the biggest differences between science and religion. A religious person will make up stories and outright lie. A scientist will say "I don't know. Let's find out.".
Everyone lies, not just religious people. I've been trolled by being called a creationist many times just because I defended religion, without even mentioning anything about creationism of course. Also, scientists tend to dismiss every natural phenomena that they are unable to explain as superstition, or even call some stuff that has little to do with science, and is not a threat to it (like conspiracy theories) as "dangerous pseudo-science".
Why? I am an atheist and I meditate regularly. It's my method of relaxing, clearing my mind of extraneous thoughts and focusing upon those that are foremost. It is a way of being able to think through life issues calmly and rationally. There is absolutely nothing religious or magical about it.
Can science explain mediation? If not, then it's magic. Of course you could simply say that you use meditation because "it works". But every religious person will also say that prayer works. As I said (and you failed to prove me wrong, instead you obviously replied as AC so you can mod my post as troll - of course I wouldn't expect better from the likes of you), it's much like prayer, even though the other person who replied to me pointed out one difference which I don't disagree with. Both things are still very spiritual, and spirituality - not "magic" as you call it - is what religion (any religion) is all about.
So there's some sort of rule that you either have to support all amendments to the Constitution, or none of them?
Yes, it's called leftist thinking. They apply the same logic to everyone they don't like.
So if you say that you're Christian, they'll automatically assume that you think The Earth is 4000 years old and God created fossils of dinosaurs to test our faith.
If you say that you're pro-life, they'll imply that you think that abortion should be illegal even when continued pregnancy will result in mother's death.
And If you say that you support gun rights, they'll imply that you have posters of Anders Breivik in your bedroom.
Kinda unbelievable that no comments (yet) on this page are based around mocking creationists (as if they visit Slashdot, lol)
Especially when you consider that even when Slashdot was in its better days, threads like this attracted trolls like shit attracted flies.
You're a moron. Amendments like the 1st and 4th and the 14th, which guarantee individual liberty, are categorically different from amendments like the 16th, which expand state power. Paul is entirely consistent in being in favor of individual liberty and against state power.
Yeah but OP is a fag who think state should have all power on the world and that we all should exist just to serve the state. He despises corporate capitalism yet his visions of The Gov't could be summed up as "One corpororation to rule them all".
Other primates, even chimpanzees and gorillas, cannot give informed consent, so marrying them would never be justifiable for the same reason marrying a four-year-old is not reasonable.
I'm gonna reveal a shocking truth to you - it is entirely legal to eat an animal without its consent. And yet somehow it's not legal to eat a four-year old.
Slashdot Mirror
Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. At 1:35 A.M. Eastern time it runs out of disk space and crashes horribly
Better yet, Skynet, in an attempt to gather all human-recorded data and understand our behaviour, visits 4chan and its circuits fry while they are trying to process and interpret the acquired data.
If every online death threat were investigated we'd run out of police in about 10seconds. How about every death threat made in a bar while we're at it?
However, if only one in thousand online death threats were investigated, the amount of online death threats would quickly drop by several factors of scale.
Why is it socially acceptable to demonize an entire demographic (gamers)?
That's being explained just few posts above yours - discrimination is apparently bad only if it's based on something people don't have a choice in. You can stop being a gamer just like you can stop being a Christian, or stop being an Apple fanboy. I guess that makes throwing all kinds of insults and other derogatory remarks at any of the above groups a fair game.
However, I am also convinced that with today's advancements in the field of medicine you can even stop being gay or stop being a woman (even though a typical far-left atheist liberal will likely disagree)!
Therefore I don't think that the line where discrimination starts is defined by the target group, but rather by the attitude the potential discriminator has towards the said group.
So someone saying that gamers are vile trash is demonizing them, but saying that it's better to study sciences than to play video games is as much discrimination as saying that life can only be formed through contact of male and female cells is homophobia.
In the 20th century, people feared that Orwellian state will control people by supressing thinking and limiting information.
But the situation become even worse - we have people who don't want to think and instead rely on The Government to decide what's good for them, and information is so widely available that people became saturated with it and no longer desire it.
Many slashdotters have difficulty with reading comprehension and simple logic.
If you think that uneducated or trollish users are a problem on Slashdot, then you've probably never been to 4chan or reddit (I guess that Facebook deserved a mention too). Granted, trolls and haters actually exist on Slashdot (just like with any other site on the Internet), and sometimes they will crawl out and hit you with their ignorance hammer when you least expect them, but their number is remarkably low for a site that allows commenting without an account and I haven't seen them take over a topic in years.
And Slashdot isn't today exactly among the Internet's most popular sites so I think that most of them are just passerbys with sudden "rebruttal" urges.
this is actually a link to an interesting article, not goatse.
What a shame, I would actually applaud a webmaster willing to pay for an SSL certificate just to trick more people to see goatse
I've not seen a more hateful comment on Slashdot in a long time. If Slashdot stuff doesn't give a fuck about people who spew hate at someone for mentioning something that's even confirmed by FUCKING X-MEN DIRECTOR HIMSELF, I can only hope that NSA does and will lock you away before you cause a school shooting.
Well except mutants aren't real and can't doom us all whereas unvaccinated people can.
In case if you haven't figured it out, X-Men is really about gay people, and of course, they can doom us all, since we'll just stop reproducing. So the analogy still says.
Of course I know that gay people won't ever become a majority and the above was just a sarcasm. But the same could probably be said about unvaccinated people.
But of course, *merely* having a registry of unvaccinated people is still way better than having mandatory vaccination like in my country. Until they refuse to give you a medical treatment because you haven't been vaccinated against leprosy, or you don't pass at job test because your parents thought it's not a good idea to let you take some vaccine that has so far been tested only on rats.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Wasn't there a case years ago where Yahoo helped Chinese authorities arrest a blogger?
Even the "Don't be evil" company would happily turn you to authorities if you happen to use their search engine to find out how to construct a homemade bomb (their "autocomplete/suggestion" feature isn't really your best friend), and it doesn't matter if you live in a 3rd world country or not, since a suspicion of terrorism is enough to have you detained indefinitely even in a "land of the free".
Can you shows us some proof?
I'm not your personal Google or Wikipedia.
So, what when someone uses an Internet to reveal their plans of a terrorist attack? How would the police get them if their IP cannot be traced?
This seems like a well-written law for a change, and Brazilian government wasn't very Internet-friendly in the past as they used to block YouTube and ban video games (even rather innocuous ones like CounterStrike).
Would you rather go to Russia and be Putin's tool, or stay in USA and end up being sentenced for 35 years of prison? I'd choose the former.
There are quite a few rumors / gossip she is gay or in a lesbian relationship herself.
So, she could be both gay and lesbian? I thought you can be only one of the above, unless you're implying that she's both male and female. And I thought it was only a phrase when people said that she got balls.
It doesn't make sense, but it also does make sense.
Sense = No sense, Schrödinger's cat must be sense!
I think that the GP is upset because Carter wasn't making such claims while he was the president. What if Obama says in 20 years how it was wrong to imprison Manning? Would it suprise you? Or it's just the type of hypocritical behaviour you would expect from a politician?
Science doesn't need to explain everything, it only needs dedication to facts.
That's a privilege that religion doesn't have. It's hard to win an argument against someone who thinks you're guilty until proven wrong.
That's one of the biggest differences between science and religion. A religious person will make up stories and outright lie. A scientist will say "I don't know. Let's find out.".
Everyone lies, not just religious people. I've been trolled by being called a creationist many times just because I defended religion, without even mentioning anything about creationism of course. Also, scientists tend to dismiss every natural phenomena that they are unable to explain as superstition, or even call some stuff that has little to do with science, and is not a threat to it (like conspiracy theories) as "dangerous pseudo-science".
Why? I am an atheist and I meditate regularly. It's my method of relaxing, clearing my mind of extraneous thoughts and focusing upon those that are foremost. It is a way of being able to think through life issues calmly and rationally. There is absolutely nothing religious or magical about it.
Can science explain mediation? If not, then it's magic. Of course you could simply say that you use meditation because "it works". But every religious person will also say that prayer works. As I said (and you failed to prove me wrong, instead you obviously replied as AC so you can mod my post as troll - of course I wouldn't expect better from the likes of you), it's much like prayer, even though the other person who replied to me pointed out one difference which I don't disagree with. Both things are still very spiritual, and spirituality - not "magic" as you call it - is what religion (any religion) is all about.
I hope you haven't run out of mod points.
Meditation and prayer are almost two same things. I don't expect for any atheist to believe in meditation.
They're a myth, I guess. Nobody cites Martin Luther King or Desmond Tutu as paragons of Christianity.
So there's some sort of rule that you either have to support all amendments to the Constitution, or none of them?
Yes, it's called leftist thinking. They apply the same logic to everyone they don't like.
So if you say that you're Christian, they'll automatically assume that you think The Earth is 4000 years old and God created fossils of dinosaurs to test our faith.
If you say that you're pro-life, they'll imply that you think that abortion should be illegal even when continued pregnancy will result in mother's death.
And If you say that you support gun rights, they'll imply that you have posters of Anders Breivik in your bedroom.
Kinda unbelievable that no comments (yet) on this page are based around mocking creationists (as if they visit Slashdot, lol)
Especially when you consider that even when Slashdot was in its better days, threads like this attracted trolls like shit attracted flies.
You're a moron. Amendments like the 1st and 4th and the 14th, which guarantee individual liberty, are categorically different from amendments like the 16th, which expand state power. Paul is entirely consistent in being in favor of individual liberty and against state power.
Yeah but OP is a fag who think state should have all power on the world and that we all should exist just to serve the state. He despises corporate capitalism yet his visions of The Gov't could be summed up as "One corpororation to rule them all".
But you might have a reason to reply to a post from a creationist. In this case, parent is just wasting everyone's viewport space.
Just ask NSA for your passwords, since they probably know them all.
Not sure if they will want to reveal them to you, though.
Other primates, even chimpanzees and gorillas, cannot give informed consent, so marrying them would never be justifiable for the same reason marrying a four-year-old is not reasonable.
I'm gonna reveal a shocking truth to you - it is entirely legal to eat an animal without its consent.
And yet somehow it's not legal to eat a four-year old.