Some people are intrinsically good; and some issues are not sins [...] The idea that all are born with/into sin is a superstitious notion with absolutely no root in reality.
You believe in sin but original sin is a superstition? I would think those would kind of be in the same belief space.
I'm also under the impression that if you don't believe in salvation, you don't call it sin.
Yeah, I realized after I posted that those 2 sentences were rather at odds with each other. I meant, non-animated ones are already criminalized for possession so I really don't see why they need to filter/track/snoop at the ISP level as well.
You may wonder why the president needs to declare a state of emergency to deal with what appears to be fairly routine instances of corruption in far-flung corners of the world. Korte notes that Congress provides little oversight on emergency declarations, even through it's mandated to do so by law. In an era when tussles over executive power are a near-daily occurrence, this is a strange incongruity.
"What the National Emergencies Act does is like a toggle switch, and when the president flips it, he gets new powers. It's like a magic wand. and there are very few constraints about how he turns it on," said Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton professor interviewed by Korte.
Oh, so it's like Chancellor Palpatine back in the Star Wars prequels. Only this is IRL. Nice.
It seems like a number of politicians these days have this strategy of boldly saying things that don't stand up to scrutiny, but as long as they say them confidently enough and call you a traitor for disagreeing, it mostly works.
He demanded that internet companies live up to their social responsibilities
I would argue that the "social responsibility" he proposes does not exist. Why do ISPs supposedly have to manage access to content hosted in other countries? Why can't they just be "pipes"? If people want to see offensive things, I say fucking let them. (And see also the multitudinous posts above about how anything can be used for evil.)
to report potential terror threats
Oh, so of course they need to be reading our communications all the time looking for sarcastic comments they can nail us to the wall over. Great.
and said there was no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combatting terrorism.
Oh look, when we* fold for one thing we get called traitors for not supporting, they immediately snowball it into another thing and feed us the same line. I assume by "child abuse" he actually means "child porn," even the kind that is animated and in no way hurts any actual children. And that, y'know, are already covered under non-invasive laws anyway.
The greater threat to democracy these days is our own politicians, rather than anything the terrorists can do to us. Seems like half our own fucking representatives don't even believe in democracy as anything other than a vehicle to get themselves more power and money.
*Okay, yes, it's the U.K. but I'm sure the U.S. government would love to do the same thing.
We can't believe you think this is a serious issue. It's mind-boggling. There are 7 billion people right here right now and 200,000 more every day.
Yeah. Let me get all mathy on you for a second here...
A) There are 7 billion people we could help now and ignore the long-term. Alleviating human suffering should be our goal, right? B) If there is no ELE there's more or less an infinite number of humans in the future (less because the universe will presumably end). C) If there IS an ELE and we prevent/avoid it, see B. D) If there is an ELE and we DON'T do anything about it, and we're all still on Earth, the number of humans comes to a dead halt.
It's all about debating the values of A and D.
Because doomsday nutters like you rarely actually believe your own crap
A) Thanks for the insult that doesn't add anything to the conversation. B) You're the one who's labeling me a "doomsday nutter" to begin with so there's no reason for me to defend the position. I'm not; I'm just talking probability space.
You say "there's absolutely no point in spending money on space." I say, "We don't know enough about the universe yet to make a definitive statement on the matter." (For my next trick, I'll debate religion vs. agnosticism vs. atheism!)
In the entire history of mankind only 18 people have gone further than Low Earth orbit. For three days.
Kind of fits into my point, funnily enough. What we need the money for is to get further. Is "cutting our losses" at this point winning? I can see the argument for that.
And again, another programmer with completely batshit beliefs about space unmasked!
Well, you got one thing right, at least--I am a programmer. Hey, I'm arguing probabilities, so big surprise, right?
Oh wow, do you fellate yourself too when you "figure this out"? Oh you're SO smart!!
Aaaand more ad hominem insults. Good day, sir.
P.S: After skimming the first bit of that extremely long article, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with it. The guy actually comes down as a supporter of the space program. Or are you taking the "it's hard therefore we should give up" line? s/hard/expensive/g
If you are going to bum around Europe raping women, it is best not to piss off the world's most powerful governments
I would state that in an if-and-only-if form. It's also a bad idea to piss off the world's most powerful governments and then go bum around Europe raping women.
And, y'know, raping people in and of itself is bad.
Maybe internally, but Mozilla labels the categories separately as plugins, add-ons, search engines, etc. I'm talking about things actually found under the menu option labelled "Add-Ons."
Then there's also the question of, how many wars have there been lately where both sides were clearly identifying themselves? Those fighting have gotten the hint that it's a dumb idea to engage bigger powers in anything other than asymmetric/guerrilla/whatever warfare.
I just find this whole conversation so bizarre. You criticize me for a position I don't hold, and when I tell you so, you insist that you know better than me what my opinion is.
Yeah, we're capitalists here--where we take your money away and then eloquently explain how you didn't deserve it in the first place because you're poor.
So much better than just taking your money just because (fascism) or taking your money while telling you it's for the greater good (communism). At least with the last, there's a philosophical argument involved rather than just "I want yours."
Slashdot Mirror
How is that any different? It still probably uses the copy-paste buffer.
Yeah, how the heck are they going to make it one click if everything must get rammed into the Hamburger of Awesome Apple/Chrome Imitation?
Ctrl+K to get to the searchbar
Ctrl+Up/Ctrl+Down to select the search site
Type
Enter
Admittedly I had a hard time finding out that Ctrl+Up/Down would change the search.
He's schizophrenic.
He's a programmer.
He wrote an OS that he says is for talking to God.
Which one of these is nonfactual or biased?
Some people are intrinsically good; and some issues are not sins [...] The idea that all are born with/into sin is a superstitious notion with absolutely no root in reality.
You believe in sin but original sin is a superstition? I would think those would kind of be in the same belief space.
I'm also under the impression that if you don't believe in salvation, you don't call it sin.
I love how "racist" is up there with "terrorist" and "pedophile" on the list of words that we're supposed to instantly fly into a rage about.
Except one of those 3 doesn't get heckled on Slashdot. Hmm...
Who would bother writing malware for this?
Yeah, I realized after I posted that those 2 sentences were rather at odds with each other. I meant, non-animated ones are already criminalized for possession so I really don't see why they need to filter/track/snoop at the ISP level as well.
He's complaining that they won't censor anti-Semitic media and that makes him an anti-Semite?
You may wonder why the president needs to declare a state of emergency to deal with what appears to be fairly routine instances of corruption in far-flung corners of the world. Korte notes that Congress provides little oversight on emergency declarations, even through it's mandated to do so by law. In an era when tussles over executive power are a near-daily occurrence, this is a strange incongruity.
"What the National Emergencies Act does is like a toggle switch, and when the president flips it, he gets new powers. It's like a magic wand. and there are very few constraints about how he turns it on," said Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton professor interviewed by Korte.
Oh, so it's like Chancellor Palpatine back in the Star Wars prequels. Only this is IRL. Nice.
Like how the Boston bombers got charged with using a "weapon of mass destruction."
It seems like a number of politicians these days have this strategy of boldly saying things that don't stand up to scrutiny, but as long as they say them confidently enough and call you a traitor for disagreeing, it mostly works.
He demanded that internet companies live up to their social responsibilities
I would argue that the "social responsibility" he proposes does not exist. Why do ISPs supposedly have to manage access to content hosted in other countries? Why can't they just be "pipes"? If people want to see offensive things, I say fucking let them. (And see also the multitudinous posts above about how anything can be used for evil.)
to report potential terror threats
Oh, so of course they need to be reading our communications all the time looking for sarcastic comments they can nail us to the wall over. Great.
and said there was no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combatting terrorism.
Oh look, when we* fold for one thing we get called traitors for not supporting, they immediately snowball it into another thing and feed us the same line. I assume by "child abuse" he actually means "child porn," even the kind that is animated and in no way hurts any actual children. And that, y'know, are already covered under non-invasive laws anyway.
The greater threat to democracy these days is our own politicians, rather than anything the terrorists can do to us. Seems like half our own fucking representatives don't even believe in democracy as anything other than a vehicle to get themselves more power and money.
*Okay, yes, it's the U.K. but I'm sure the U.S. government would love to do the same thing.
As for Assange, that guy is obviously a complete sociopath and misogynist. Which makes him being a rapist a lot more likely than not.
"obviously"
Geez, I hope you never get called for jury duty.
Rotating the eyes wildly, especially in a way regarded as indicative of frenzy:
Huh. My guess was it was some sort of ethnic slur directed at Asians. Never heard that term before.
Beg pardon?
We can't believe you think this is a serious issue. It's mind-boggling. There are 7 billion people right here right now and 200,000 more every day.
Yeah. Let me get all mathy on you for a second here...
A) There are 7 billion people we could help now and ignore the long-term. Alleviating human suffering should be our goal, right?
B) If there is no ELE there's more or less an infinite number of humans in the future (less because the universe will presumably end).
C) If there IS an ELE and we prevent/avoid it, see B.
D) If there is an ELE and we DON'T do anything about it, and we're all still on Earth, the number of humans comes to a dead halt.
It's all about debating the values of A and D.
Because doomsday nutters like you rarely actually believe your own crap
A) Thanks for the insult that doesn't add anything to the conversation.
B) You're the one who's labeling me a "doomsday nutter" to begin with so there's no reason for me to defend the position. I'm not; I'm just talking probability space.
You say "there's absolutely no point in spending money on space." I say, "We don't know enough about the universe yet to make a definitive statement on the matter." (For my next trick, I'll debate religion vs. agnosticism vs. atheism!)
In the entire history of mankind only 18 people have gone further than Low Earth orbit. For three days.
Kind of fits into my point, funnily enough. What we need the money for is to get further. Is "cutting our losses" at this point winning? I can see the argument for that.
And again, another programmer with completely batshit beliefs about space unmasked!
Well, you got one thing right, at least--I am a programmer. Hey, I'm arguing probabilities, so big surprise, right?
Oh wow, do you fellate yourself too when you "figure this out"? Oh you're SO smart!!
Aaaand more ad hominem insults. Good day, sir.
P.S: After skimming the first bit of that extremely long article, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with it. The guy actually comes down as a supporter of the space program. Or are you taking the "it's hard therefore we should give up" line? s/hard/expensive/g
If you are going to bum around Europe raping women, it is best not to piss off the world's most powerful governments
I would state that in an if-and-only-if form. It's also a bad idea to piss off the world's most powerful governments and then go bum around Europe raping women.
And, y'know, raping people in and of itself is bad.
Ha ha, seconded.
Maybe internally, but Mozilla labels the categories separately as plugins, add-ons, search engines, etc. I'm talking about things actually found under the menu option labelled "Add-Ons."
Thanks for the infodump.
Then there's also the question of, how many wars have there been lately where both sides were clearly identifying themselves? Those fighting have gotten the hint that it's a dumb idea to engage bigger powers in anything other than asymmetric/guerrilla/whatever warfare.
I just find this whole conversation so bizarre. You criticize me for a position I don't hold, and when I tell you so, you insist that you know better than me what my opinion is.
I'm done.
Or, as it turns out, you. And you still haven't answered the question.
Hey, he's the one who said, "No, I don't have a cell phone, I have a mobile phone." If that wasn't the meaning, I have no idea.
Is that what we're currently getting? Then hell yes.
Are you saying 1000 spam and 100 worthwhile things is worse than 100* spam and 10 worthwhile things?
*because no filtering will ever be perfect
Yeah, we're capitalists here--where we take your money away and then eloquently explain how you didn't deserve it in the first place because you're poor.
So much better than just taking your money just because (fascism) or taking your money while telling you it's for the greater good (communism). At least with the last, there's a philosophical argument involved rather than just "I want yours."