Sodom and Gomorrah anyone? Why is the bible a good book? Double standards...
I'm no believer in the Bible, but just for the record, and despite what the modern word "sodomy" means, whatever it was the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did, it was never made explicit in the Bible.
The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too.
That's your reason for bringing the troops home?!? Not because the war is wrong or anything, but because it's TOOOO HAAARDDD!!!!!
And you're not seriously pulling the whole "White Man's Burden" schtick there with that "civilize that mountain country" bullshit, are you? In the 21st Century?
Facebook's reputation with paranoid slashdotters, however, is quite different than what it is with your average iPhone-carrying Joe. Joe has no idea that Facebook could/would make his "private" information world-viewable---the thought's never crossed his mind.
A - Why did Darth Vader switch from an American to an English accent?
and
B - Why am I the only person ever to have noticed?
You're not. I've always chalked it up to being an American thing---villains always have non-rhotic accents (Darth Vader, the Cobra Commander and his minions), and the "good guys" always have rhotic accents. Thus Annakin (who was a "good guy") had a rhotic, but switched accents when he went over to the Dark Side.
Most of the information the government hoards has nothing to do with national security. Most of the information the Canadian government has would be pretty boring stuff to anyone who's not Canadian.
Had I said "Amazon was perfectly within its rights to discriminate", I would be forced to agree with you - my definition would not apply. But here's what I wrote (emphasis added):
Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination:
Cute, but you were responding to Anonymous Coward's post #34416076 in which s/he says
Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?
If it's not obvious to you what meaning of the word "discriminate" is intended there, there you have problems with communicating that I have no hope of fixing. I don't believe that, though. It's obvious you're just being bloody-minded.
Have you ever looked up the dictionary definition of the word "set"? There are (depending on the dictionary) between 40 and 80 of them.
You talk as if there is a twelve-year-old in the English-speaking world that hasn't already come across that factoid.
It must be nearly impossible for you to settle on the single correct definition, applicable for all usages.
There is no single, correct definition applicable for all usages! Who ever claimed that!? Maybe the strawman over there, but not me. Go grab your dictionary and look up the word "homonym".
When your mother tells you to set the table, do you tell her it's not in need of adjustment? Context disambiguates the meanings. If you are incapable of disambiguating the meanings from the context, then you are going to have serious problems communicating with people.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be +1 Funny, I was trying to make the point that you can't just put something into a contract if it breaks a country's laws--what may be perfectly legal to put into a contract in one country may be illegal in another.
To reiterate, you emphatically CANNOT put something into a contract that breaks the law, and each of the countries that Apple does business in has its own set of laws---just as "sexual assault" in Sweden doesn't mean what most Americans would assume (most would (and do) assume forceable violent rape).
Are Apple's policies for approval the same in all countries? It may not actually be legal for them to have an international blanket policy.
The sense of the word "discrimination" that you provided in no way involves taking action. "Noticing" is not taking action. Amazon took action. The definition of "discrimination" you are preferring to use is about as appropriate as saying they are "loitering", "disseminating", "interpolating" or "xvfigndlsding"---in other words, not at all.
Amazon is a business; this was a business decision...
...Read more. Talk less.
Advice you may want to take yourself. Nowhere did I ever dispute it being a business decision---legit or otherwise. I was disputing your ridiculous attempt to take a completely inappropriate definition of the word "discriminate" and force it on a situation that makes the use of it gibberish. One definition fits the context---yours doesn't.
Come now and show us how "Amazon noticed the difference between Wikileaks and their other customers BY DITCHING THEM" makes any sense whatsoever (again, I'm talking in terms of language here, not whether ditching them is right or wrong, so quit accusing me of that).
You are not Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland, and you don't get to make words mean what you'd "like" them to mean. Not if you have any intention of meaningfully communicating with people.
Swype-style software keyboards are awesome for English, but they completely blow for Japanese.
I was able to input Japanese far faster on my old flip-phone's keypad than on any of the (four!) software keypads I have on my HTC Desire. Not that I'm going back. I bought the Desire after my old phone broke. Still have a year and a half to pay it off!
Also, your definition of "discrimination" is not the only one:
No, but it's certainly the one that's appropriate for Amazon's actions. The one you provided is not.
Good God! Since when does "discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things" have anything to do with shutting them down? You just typed a whole mouthful of gibberish right there!
In this day and age, it's unusual to use the word "discrimination" in a sense other than the one I've provided. If you want to communicate with people today, you'd better start catching up on your vocab, Rip Van Winkle.
3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)
Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?
You do a fine job of twisting words . You know that amazon also disallows hosting of child porn - I suppose that's pretty discriminatory too. When you discard the emotionally-loaded context you're attempting to build, Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination: "a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things."
Wow! Talk about emotionally-loaded twisting of words! Child porn is outright illegal. It's not clear that what Wikileaks did is illegal (if it is, then why doesn't the US government go try proving it in court?).
Also, your definition of "discrimination" is not the only one:
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
(from Dictionary.com, one of four definitions provided by the first entry)
Which everyone else here knew was the correct definition for the context.
Assuming someone didn't care about something they didn't hear about was due to their worldview (rather than the fact that they just hadn't heard about it) is what I was referring to.
Sorry, should have been "two of the tallest buildings"...one of those things a spell checker will never catch.
It should have been obvious, though. How could a couple of planes take out all the tallest buildings in the world? And where would you draw the line as to which buildings counted as tallest and which didn't?
...consider, for instance, a bedouin, constantly on the move in the desert, who doesn't have access to any newspaper, TV, and pretty much doesn't know or give a fuck about anything outside his little world of camels and trading. For this guy, 9/11 was a completely ordinary day.
The fact that some bedouin didn't know about it doesn't mean it was uninteresting---it doesn't even mean it would have been uninteresting to the bedouin to the bedouin. Do you seriously mean to suggest he would have been bored to hear that the tallest buildings in the world were destroyed by a couple of planes?
First I've heard of someone equating ignorance with "worldviews".
Slashdot Mirror
Sodom and Gomorrah anyone? Why is the bible a good book? Double standards...
I'm no believer in the Bible, but just for the record, and despite what the modern word "sodomy" means, whatever it was the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did, it was never made explicit in the Bible.
The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too.
That's your reason for bringing the troops home?!? Not because the war is wrong or anything, but because it's TOOOO HAAARDDD!!!!!
And you're not seriously pulling the whole "White Man's Burden" schtick there with that "civilize that mountain country" bullshit, are you? In the 21st Century?
Facebook's reputation is well known.
Facebook's reputation with paranoid slashdotters, however, is quite different than what it is with your average iPhone-carrying Joe. Joe has no idea that Facebook could/would make his "private" information world-viewable---the thought's never crossed his mind.
What I want to know is:
A - Why did Darth Vader switch from an American to an English accent? and B - Why am I the only person ever to have noticed?
You're not. I've always chalked it up to being an American thing---villains always have non-rhotic accents (Darth Vader, the Cobra Commander and his minions), and the "good guys" always have rhotic accents. Thus Annakin (who was a "good guy") had a rhotic, but switched accents when he went over to the Dark Side.
I was going to force myself to watch all three prequels, but gave up after the second one. It was heartbreaking.
Now I have students and coworkers who tell me the third prequel is the best of the six. How long til I break down?
Most of the information the government hoards has nothing to do with national security. Most of the information the Canadian government has would be pretty boring stuff to anyone who's not Canadian.
chaise-lounge
It's chaise longue, bozo -- as in long chair.
You didn't get the memo. Larry's had the spelling changed. You're expected to have migrated already.
Had I said "Amazon was perfectly within its rights to discriminate", I would be forced to agree with you - my definition would not apply. But here's what I wrote (emphasis added):
Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination:
Cute, but you were responding to Anonymous Coward's post #34416076 in which s/he says
Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?
If it's not obvious to you what meaning of the word "discriminate" is intended there, there you have problems with communicating that I have no hope of fixing. I don't believe that, though. It's obvious you're just being bloody-minded.
Have you ever looked up the dictionary definition of the word "set"? There are (depending on the dictionary) between 40 and 80 of them.
You talk as if there is a twelve-year-old in the English-speaking world that hasn't already come across that factoid.
It must be nearly impossible for you to settle on the single correct definition, applicable for all usages.
There is no single, correct definition applicable for all usages! Who ever claimed that!? Maybe the strawman over there, but not me. Go grab your dictionary and look up the word "homonym".
When your mother tells you to set the table, do you tell her it's not in need of adjustment? Context disambiguates the meanings. If you are incapable of disambiguating the meanings from the context, then you are going to have serious problems communicating with people.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be +1 Funny, I was trying to make the point that you can't just put something into a contract if it breaks a country's laws--what may be perfectly legal to put into a contract in one country may be illegal in another.
To reiterate, you emphatically CANNOT put something into a contract that breaks the law, and each of the countries that Apple does business in has its own set of laws---just as "sexual assault" in Sweden doesn't mean what most Americans would assume (most would (and do) assume forceable violent rape).
Are Apple's policies for approval the same in all countries? It may not actually be legal for them to have an international blanket policy.
Amazon is a business; this was a business decision...
Advice you may want to take yourself. Nowhere did I ever dispute it being a business decision---legit or otherwise. I was disputing your ridiculous attempt to take a completely inappropriate definition of the word "discriminate" and force it on a situation that makes the use of it gibberish. One definition fits the context---yours doesn't.
Come now and show us how "Amazon noticed the difference between Wikileaks and their other customers BY DITCHING THEM" makes any sense whatsoever (again, I'm talking in terms of language here, not whether ditching them is right or wrong, so quit accusing me of that).
You are not Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland, and you don't get to make words mean what you'd "like" them to mean. Not if you have any intention of meaningfully communicating with people.
Ummm...I don't know what thread you read, but I see an awful lot of taking the piss out of the Nobel committee over that one.
Not that I would consider China "freer", but they haven't waged war with just about everything like the US.
You mean recently. China's not exactly known for their peaceful past.
It doesn't matter how well known a company's policies are if it turns out they're against the law.
Do you think it's legal to sue a hitman for failing to follow through on the terms of his contract?
Are you familiar with the legislation regarding censorship in Denmark? It may be like "sexual assault" in Sweden.
Swype-style software keyboards are awesome for English, but they completely blow for Japanese.
I was able to input Japanese far faster on my old flip-phone's keypad than on any of the (four!) software keypads I have on my HTC Desire. Not that I'm going back. I bought the Desire after my old phone broke. Still have a year and a half to pay it off!
Also, your definition of "discrimination" is not the only one:
No, but it's certainly the one that's appropriate for Amazon's actions. The one you provided is not.
Good God! Since when does "discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things" have anything to do with shutting them down? You just typed a whole mouthful of gibberish right there!
In this day and age, it's unusual to use the word "discrimination" in a sense other than the one I've provided. If you want to communicate with people today, you'd better start catching up on your vocab, Rip Van Winkle.
A clear message is to CANCEL your already placed order and then them WHY in the cancel reason.
How do you tell them why? Amazon's customer service is notoriously hard to get a hold of.
3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)
Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?
You do a fine job of twisting words . You know that amazon also disallows hosting of child porn - I suppose that's pretty discriminatory too. When you discard the emotionally-loaded context you're attempting to build, Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination: "a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things."
Wow! Talk about emotionally-loaded twisting of words! Child porn is outright illegal. It's not clear that what Wikileaks did is illegal (if it is, then why doesn't the US government go try proving it in court?).
Also, your definition of "discrimination" is not the only one:
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
(from Dictionary.com, one of four definitions provided by the first entry)
Which everyone else here knew was the correct definition for the context.
An ignorance-based worldview is one thing.
Assuming someone didn't care about something they didn't hear about was due to their worldview (rather than the fact that they just hadn't heard about it) is what I was referring to.
Sorry, should have been "two of the tallest buildings"...one of those things a spell checker will never catch.
It should have been obvious, though. How could a couple of planes take out all the tallest buildings in the world? And where would you draw the line as to which buildings counted as tallest and which didn't?
Well, man, I guess you're just too kool for skool.
I hope I never grow up to be as cool as you.
(And somehow I doubt the bedouin would be).
...consider, for instance, a bedouin, constantly on the move in the desert, who doesn't have access to any newspaper, TV, and pretty much doesn't know or give a fuck about anything outside his little world of camels and trading. For this guy, 9/11 was a completely ordinary day.
The fact that some bedouin didn't know about it doesn't mean it was uninteresting---it doesn't even mean it would have been uninteresting to the bedouin to the bedouin. Do you seriously mean to suggest he would have been bored to hear that the tallest buildings in the world were destroyed by a couple of planes?
First I've heard of someone equating ignorance with "worldviews".
Yeah---"We won World War One! Pierre Burton told us so!"
Like sex and violence, adding Canadians to the mix makes the story more interesting.
You'll have to rename it then. I suggest "Arse"
I'm afraid ArseTechnica beat him to it.
I wouldn't assume many people know that.