Ummm... what? Mac OSX is just as locked down as Windows. As for Linux/BSD tech support... I am pretty sure that if there were tech support for Ubuntu, you would hear the same sorts of things.
Oohhhh... I see... you're that guy -- you know, the one who always yells OMFG HAXXXX every time they get killed. Aim bots are notoriously difficult to spot as there are a lot of people out there who are just ridiculously good -- I have a feeling most of the "hackers" you have seen are just people who are way better than you and consistently snipe you in the face from across the map. Is this annoying? Sure. Is it something that they should be banned for? No.
Even the beliefs of the Young Earthers are more "realistic" than that of Scientology.
Could you please explain how? Christianity is at least as absurd as scientology. The entire premise of the whole thing is absurd beyond words -- the God who created the entire Universe is looking down at us and cares who we fuck? This same god (who apparently loves you) will send you to be tortured for all eternity for the grievous sin of not believing in him? And then he has the balls to pre-program us to sin? After all this, he decides he needs to save us, so he sends himself down to be ritualistically sacrificed in an unimaginably horrific way. Why not just, you know, forgive us? He is all-powerful and all.
You even go so far as to mention Young-Earthers -- the same folks who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that we co-existed with dinosaurs. I am not defending scientology in any way, but it is simply not possible to get more retarded than this. They honestly take the word of a guy who herded goats in the desert 4,000 years ago more seriously than the whole of modern science. To put this in perspective -- if you had never heard of Christianity before, and you just happened to pick up a copy of the Bible, would you really look at it and say "Wow, this sounds legit, it must be the word of God and I should start living my life by it"? I think you (and any other reasonable person) would see it for the load of garbage that it is and throw it in the nearest trash receptacle, lamenting the hours you wasted reading such nonsense. Again, I could blast scientology for the useless drivel that it is as well, but I don't feel that it is at all necessary since everyone here is well aware how silly it is. Christianity, however, is a different story. We need to put all of our thoughts and belief systems under the same microscope. Anything less is intellectual bankruptcy.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic, but at the risk of being hit with the WHOOSH hammer, I will bite and say that all of these things that you mentioned are absolutely true of all 3 Abrahamic faiths. I experienced all of these personally growing up in a Christian family:
People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
--I was told as a child that I would burn in Hell for all eternity if I was bad. It is obscene that parents would put such vile, crippling nonsense into their childrens' minds. This is psychological abuse, plain and simple.
Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
--I was told that the Bible is the perfect word of God and that everything I need to know is in there. This is clearly retarded, but the covered for this by saying that questioning this would constitute a sin. Referring back to my previous point, it is easy to see why I took so long to see this.
They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader;
--Yep
They get a new identity based on the group;
--Two words: "Born again"
They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.
--I was repeatedly encouraged to hang out with Christians and to avoid the godless people around us. I was even told that not only should I avoid anti-Christian influence, I was even told to avoid secular music altogether! I was told that evolution is a lie. It was just bullshit piled on bullshit, supported by fear and enforced ignorance.
Again, I realize that you were most likely being ironic, but there are many people that this would be lost on, as they are too brainwashed in their own ideology to realize that their faith is just as stupid and every bit as odious as any cult out there.
Forget this whole debate about whether or not scientology is a legit religion -- we should instead use this absurdity as a jumping off point in the debate over religion in our society. Is there any particular reason that religion ought to have the protected status that it does? Why are religions even tax exempt in the first place? Why do we feel that it is okay to label children with their parents' religion? These are the sorts of questions we should be asking. I honestly can't see how the dark lord Xenu is any more absurd than a talking snake in a tree, but I do see it as a good sign that people everywhere fully recognize the absurdity of scientology. We simply need to take it one step further.
I disagree -- Scientology is a religion in the truest sense of the word -- it is based on a book of poorly written fiction with no basis in reality and serves only to inhibit the thoughts and emotions of followers, while bilking them out of their hard earned income and simultaneously using its status as a religion to demand respect that it doesn't deserve. What more could you ask of an organized religion?
No, not really. We have created a mechanism by which the government can prevent people from using malware to hijack millions of computers without the consent of the users to plug up the series of tubes we call the Intarwebz with unsolicited bulk e-mail. Just by restricting these folks to using their own resources to send the crap mail seriously reduces the harm that they can do -- the real tube-clogging power comes from the huge zombie bot nets.
I don't think that anyone here is going to say that we ought to be able to unashamedly express ourselves in whatever crude and crass manner without fear of consequences. That is not what this discussion, or this controversy is about at all. The conversation is about the grotesque overreaction by Kurt Greenbaum. It is the violation of trust, as well as the violation of the site's terms of service. It is about Kurt Greenbaum GLOATING that he got a man fired from his job for saying a dirty word. If we are going to talk about morality, then we must bring this sociopath's apparent total lack of empathy into question. Our society can't properly function if we are overrun with trolls, but we will be equally doomed if we become a nation of thin-skinned tattle-tales like this whiny little scumbag, Kurt Greenbaum.
It doesn't matter. Read that section from the privacy policy again --
We will not share individual user information with third parties unless the user has specifically approved the release of that information.
It does not say that they will not share equipment owner's user information with third party -- it says INDIVIDUAL USER INFORMATION. That makes the school undeniably a third party, and that means that Greenbaum's actions were absolutely in violation of the privacy policy.
I mean, I can see taking this action if he was getting repeatedly spammed by some of the trolls we see out there today. But someone saying 'pussy'? Twice? That is so mild by Internet troll standards that it's not even funny. It's not like he was getting buried by the 'N-word guy', or the violence against women guy. Hell, he wasn't even really getting spammed. The dude was wrong to be using school computers inappropriately, but this Kurt Greenbaum dude has to be one of the most uptight prudes you could ever hope to not meet. If he can't handle those comments he should not be on the Internet at all.
It is certainly true that this wallpaper would not prevent structural collapse, but just because it does not solve every problem associated with a bomb blast does not mean that it isn't worthwhile! For starters, many of the walls in a given building are NOT load bearing in any way -- they could go away completed and the structure would be fine. Secondly, even load bearing walls will be able to sustain a certain amount of damage before caving completely. Even if this reduced the damage long enough for people to get outside before the building collapsed, we would be saving lives. Thirdly, one of the biggest dangers from a bomb blast comes not from the actual concussive force of the blast but from the huge amounts of shrapnel. This would effectively render the shrapnel a non-issue for the inhabitants of the room. So yes, this is not a perfect solution. If you put this up in a room, a bomb could still kill you. It will, however, drastically increase your odds in most scenarios.
Well -- I would guess that they would have to go in and remove the wallpaper beforehand. I am sure the stuff is valuable enough to make it worth the effort.
...human society can't have too much longer when there is an appreciable number of people stupid enough to be driven to suicide by a Roland Emmerich movie.
The problem here is that the information is being transferred to a totally unrelated vendor. It is stated in the fine print that this will be the case, but this is not something that most people would be looking out for. I would fully support legislation making the transfer of payment information between vendors illegal -- there is no reason for this other than to rip off the customer.
What are you talking about? The post is about how vendors should not be able to supply your CC info to a DIFFERENT vendor. The whole point is that if you are going to be buying from SOMEWHERE else that you would not expect to be buying from, you will be prompted for CC info again, making you aware of the fact that you are buying something. Amazon's One-Click 'scam' is all within the same site. I personally choose not to use it, as I have a distinct lack of self control and having to re-enter my payment info slows me down and forces me to think about the purchase, but for those with better self control, it is a great idea.
The publicly stated intentions of the owners are entirely MEANINGLESS if it cannot be shown that they violated the law. I am not well versed enough in Swedish law/the underlying mechanics of TPB to be able to determine whether or not they have violated the law, they very well may have. All I am saying is that it is nowhere near as simple as many here make it out to be, and the fact that the site has the word Pirate in the name, while not helpful, is certainly not enough to convict them on.
Hold on there, hoss. It's not that simple -- if we were to define our terms that simply, then ski mask manufacturers would be facilitating the illegal procurement of liquor store cash register contents. The law needs to operate on very black and white terms, and things like the Pirate Bay are operating in very new, and very gray, legal territory. I am nowhere near enough of an expert to comment on how this will specifically affect the legal standing of the Pirate Bay, but I will say that such sites operate on a knife edge of legality -- and any case the legal system can possibly raise against them will depend on an extremely specific set of conditions. If not, Google would be every bit as guilty as the Pirate Bay (as would every single ISP on the planet). What this means is that if the Pirate Bay sufficiently distances itself from the actual illegal activity, then there is no way they can be legitimately prosecuted. We saw the same thing happen with Kazaa (where the industry types decided to go after individual users instead).
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... really? The manuscript has still yet to be decoded at all -- how would we go about determining that it is fiction?
Ummm... what? Mac OSX is just as locked down as Windows. As for Linux/BSD tech support... I am pretty sure that if there were tech support for Ubuntu, you would hear the same sorts of things.
Oohhhh... I see... you're that guy -- you know, the one who always yells OMFG HAXXXX every time they get killed. Aim bots are notoriously difficult to spot as there are a lot of people out there who are just ridiculously good -- I have a feeling most of the "hackers" you have seen are just people who are way better than you and consistently snipe you in the face from across the map. Is this annoying? Sure. Is it something that they should be banned for? No.
Even the beliefs of the Young Earthers are more "realistic" than that of Scientology.
Could you please explain how? Christianity is at least as absurd as scientology. The entire premise of the whole thing is absurd beyond words -- the God who created the entire Universe is looking down at us and cares who we fuck? This same god (who apparently loves you) will send you to be tortured for all eternity for the grievous sin of not believing in him? And then he has the balls to pre-program us to sin? After all this, he decides he needs to save us, so he sends himself down to be ritualistically sacrificed in an unimaginably horrific way. Why not just, you know, forgive us? He is all-powerful and all.
You even go so far as to mention Young-Earthers -- the same folks who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that we co-existed with dinosaurs. I am not defending scientology in any way, but it is simply not possible to get more retarded than this. They honestly take the word of a guy who herded goats in the desert 4,000 years ago more seriously than the whole of modern science. To put this in perspective -- if you had never heard of Christianity before, and you just happened to pick up a copy of the Bible, would you really look at it and say "Wow, this sounds legit, it must be the word of God and I should start living my life by it"? I think you (and any other reasonable person) would see it for the load of garbage that it is and throw it in the nearest trash receptacle, lamenting the hours you wasted reading such nonsense. Again, I could blast scientology for the useless drivel that it is as well, but I don't feel that it is at all necessary since everyone here is well aware how silly it is. Christianity, however, is a different story. We need to put all of our thoughts and belief systems under the same microscope. Anything less is intellectual bankruptcy.
That's not funny
People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
--I was told as a child that I would burn in Hell for all eternity if I was bad. It is obscene that parents would put such vile, crippling nonsense into their childrens' minds. This is psychological abuse, plain and simple.
Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
--I was told that the Bible is the perfect word of God and that everything I need to know is in there. This is clearly retarded, but the covered for this by saying that questioning this would constitute a sin. Referring back to my previous point, it is easy to see why I took so long to see this.
They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader;
--Yep
They get a new identity based on the group;
--Two words: "Born again"
They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.
--I was repeatedly encouraged to hang out with Christians and to avoid the godless people around us. I was even told that not only should I avoid anti-Christian influence, I was even told to avoid secular music altogether! I was told that evolution is a lie. It was just bullshit piled on bullshit, supported by fear and enforced ignorance.
Again, I realize that you were most likely being ironic, but there are many people that this would be lost on, as they are too brainwashed in their own ideology to realize that their faith is just as stupid and every bit as odious as any cult out there.
Forget this whole debate about whether or not scientology is a legit religion -- we should instead use this absurdity as a jumping off point in the debate over religion in our society. Is there any particular reason that religion ought to have the protected status that it does? Why are religions even tax exempt in the first place? Why do we feel that it is okay to label children with their parents' religion? These are the sorts of questions we should be asking. I honestly can't see how the dark lord Xenu is any more absurd than a talking snake in a tree, but I do see it as a good sign that people everywhere fully recognize the absurdity of scientology. We simply need to take it one step further.
I disagree -- Scientology is a religion in the truest sense of the word -- it is based on a book of poorly written fiction with no basis in reality and serves only to inhibit the thoughts and emotions of followers, while bilking them out of their hard earned income and simultaneously using its status as a religion to demand respect that it doesn't deserve. What more could you ask of an organized religion?
No, not really. We have created a mechanism by which the government can prevent people from using malware to hijack millions of computers without the consent of the users to plug up the series of tubes we call the Intarwebz with unsolicited bulk e-mail. Just by restricting these folks to using their own resources to send the crap mail seriously reduces the harm that they can do -- the real tube-clogging power comes from the huge zombie bot nets.
...Never gonna give you up!
Unfortunately someone has to -- if we can't control the flow of noise a bit the Internet will be totally unusable.
I don't think that anyone here is going to say that we ought to be able to unashamedly express ourselves in whatever crude and crass manner without fear of consequences. That is not what this discussion, or this controversy is about at all. The conversation is about the grotesque overreaction by Kurt Greenbaum. It is the violation of trust, as well as the violation of the site's terms of service. It is about Kurt Greenbaum GLOATING that he got a man fired from his job for saying a dirty word. If we are going to talk about morality, then we must bring this sociopath's apparent total lack of empathy into question. Our society can't properly function if we are overrun with trolls, but we will be equally doomed if we become a nation of thin-skinned tattle-tales like this whiny little scumbag, Kurt Greenbaum.
We will not share individual user information with third parties unless the user has specifically approved the release of that information.
It does not say that they will not share equipment owner's user information with third party -- it says INDIVIDUAL USER INFORMATION. That makes the school undeniably a third party, and that means that Greenbaum's actions were absolutely in violation of the privacy policy.
Why is eating a cat worse than eating a cow, a pig, or a chicken? You are biased as our society happens to keep cats as pets, that is the only reason.
I mean, I can see taking this action if he was getting repeatedly spammed by some of the trolls we see out there today. But someone saying 'pussy'? Twice? That is so mild by Internet troll standards that it's not even funny. It's not like he was getting buried by the 'N-word guy', or the violence against women guy. Hell, he wasn't even really getting spammed. The dude was wrong to be using school computers inappropriately, but this Kurt Greenbaum dude has to be one of the most uptight prudes you could ever hope to not meet. If he can't handle those comments he should not be on the Internet at all.
Mod parent up -- this is an extremely relevant point and I am surprised that nobody else has mentioned it yet.
It is certainly true that this wallpaper would not prevent structural collapse, but just because it does not solve every problem associated with a bomb blast does not mean that it isn't worthwhile! For starters, many of the walls in a given building are NOT load bearing in any way -- they could go away completed and the structure would be fine. Secondly, even load bearing walls will be able to sustain a certain amount of damage before caving completely. Even if this reduced the damage long enough for people to get outside before the building collapsed, we would be saving lives. Thirdly, one of the biggest dangers from a bomb blast comes not from the actual concussive force of the blast but from the huge amounts of shrapnel. This would effectively render the shrapnel a non-issue for the inhabitants of the room. So yes, this is not a perfect solution. If you put this up in a room, a bomb could still kill you. It will, however, drastically increase your odds in most scenarios.
Well -- I would guess that they would have to go in and remove the wallpaper beforehand. I am sure the stuff is valuable enough to make it worth the effort.
Kabob eats you!
Jesus Christ, dude, it was a joke. Of course there have been retarded people through all of civilization. I mean, we still have Christianity, right?
...human society can't have too much longer when there is an appreciable number of people stupid enough to be driven to suicide by a Roland Emmerich movie.
The problem here is that the information is being transferred to a totally unrelated vendor. It is stated in the fine print that this will be the case, but this is not something that most people would be looking out for. I would fully support legislation making the transfer of payment information between vendors illegal -- there is no reason for this other than to rip off the customer.
What are you talking about? The post is about how vendors should not be able to supply your CC info to a DIFFERENT vendor. The whole point is that if you are going to be buying from SOMEWHERE else that you would not expect to be buying from, you will be prompted for CC info again, making you aware of the fact that you are buying something. Amazon's One-Click 'scam' is all within the same site. I personally choose not to use it, as I have a distinct lack of self control and having to re-enter my payment info slows me down and forces me to think about the purchase, but for those with better self control, it is a great idea.
The publicly stated intentions of the owners are entirely MEANINGLESS if it cannot be shown that they violated the law. I am not well versed enough in Swedish law/the underlying mechanics of TPB to be able to determine whether or not they have violated the law, they very well may have. All I am saying is that it is nowhere near as simple as many here make it out to be, and the fact that the site has the word Pirate in the name, while not helpful, is certainly not enough to convict them on.
Hold on there, hoss. It's not that simple -- if we were to define our terms that simply, then ski mask manufacturers would be facilitating the illegal procurement of liquor store cash register contents. The law needs to operate on very black and white terms, and things like the Pirate Bay are operating in very new, and very gray, legal territory. I am nowhere near enough of an expert to comment on how this will specifically affect the legal standing of the Pirate Bay, but I will say that such sites operate on a knife edge of legality -- and any case the legal system can possibly raise against them will depend on an extremely specific set of conditions. If not, Google would be every bit as guilty as the Pirate Bay (as would every single ISP on the planet). What this means is that if the Pirate Bay sufficiently distances itself from the actual illegal activity, then there is no way they can be legitimately prosecuted. We saw the same thing happen with Kazaa (where the industry types decided to go after individual users instead).