The burden of proof is on those who would claim something is harmful. No one has demonstrated any harm, and we've actually observed decreases in sexual assults when pornography is liberalized.
I might believe correlation, but I'm really suspicious of any claims of causation. Erectile disfunction is comorbid with depression. So is lonliness. If people treat their lonliness with porn, that's reason to expect a correlation between ED and porn without there being any causative influence.
When all you have is a minority voting third party, R&D will never lose an election.
You misunderstand. Suppose Republican voters this election split on Romney and a third party candidate. They will lose to Obama. That loss to Obama is incentive for Republican legislators to implement some form of preference voting, so that the extreme right wing can vote for the Christian Jihad party without throwing elections in the future.
Essentially, we need a Ralph Nader in every election until they abolish plurality voting.
America is simply too divided to expect everyone to agree on a single third party candidate. You're not going to get the tea partiers and the occupiers to vote for the same guy. However, you may be able to convince both of them that neither D nor R has their best interests at heart.
You don't actually need a single viable third party in order to get the two major parties to pay attention. You just need them to start losing elections regularly because of third party spoliers. That will be the incentive they need to implement some sort of preference voting.
If you continue to vote for either D or R, you are throwing your vote away. Either way you vote, you are voting to continue with the status quo. Choosing the good cop over the bad cop doesn't help anyone but the cops. Vote third party or stay home.
I hate these media "rags to riches" stories. They make it sound like the guy went to Radio Shack (when it was for hobbyists), locked himself in his garage, and popped out a millionaire.
Well, that was a long time ago, and analog amplification isn't exactly rocket science.
Who is more evil here? I'm going to say the FFA and FRC, but I don't think they're evil enough to get me to buy an EA product just to spite them.
If this were any other company than EA (well also Ubisoft and Sony), I'd write them a kind letter and buy the product. I hope the normalization of homosexuality isn't impeded because no one is willing to defend EA.
It still makes it sound like we're "just a bunch of freeloaders".
No, it doesn't. It only makes it sound that way if you're so pro-copyright that you're ignorant of the reasons that someone would be anti-copyright. To us anti-copyright folks the people who want to get paid in perpetuity for a days work are the freeloaders.
You may be right that the majority of/. isn't as strongly anti-copyright as they are often portrayed. But you're absolutely wrong when you state that being anti-copyright has anything to do with freeloading.
Heck, your bit about crony capitalists? When that comes from somebody who I know supported George W. Bush, I know that's completely dishonest hypocrisy. In fact that turn of phrase is a clear indicator of somebody who has been listening way too much to Fox News.
Fuck you. The closest I get to watching Fox News is what I get on the Daily Show. You don't think Obama hires crony capitalists? Explain Geithner. You're exactly the kind of blinded sheep that's going to reelect Obama.
Vote third party. I don't care if it's Libertarian, Green, Socialist, or Pirate. Just break the fucking corporatist hegemony.
This is not actually the case. The right way to state this is that most of what is passed off as news is not actually news at all. Repeating a press release is not reporting.
/. tends to be a pretty strongly anti-copyright place. Yet I've had better discussions with pro-copyright individuals here than anywhere else. What exactly is the problem?
Most if not all of the people are probably quite disillusioned with the campaign Obama at this point, and have come to the realization that the Obama in office wasn't strong enough to make the change.
This is not actually the case. Have you actually tried talking to an Obama supporter about Obama? They're convinced he's doing a good job, even though he's barely better than Bush on some issues, and far far worse than Bush on others. Anything you care to bring up, they blame on a Republican Congress, even things that are wholly the domain of the executive (e.g. packing his cabinet with crony capitalists, the behavior of the DOJ, blatant violation of the War Powers Act etc.).
Anyone who was stupid enough to belive that Obama was actually going to try and change anything significant is too stupid to realise they've been conned.
Is it carefully calibrated propaganda, or just irrelevant chewing gum for the mind?
Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Even what you call "chewing gum" contains the message "this is what you should be concerned about". That's a vector for propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
Full text available here.
If CSIRO has a legitimate claim to the technology, why did they wait for a decade to come forward?
If religious people were able to accept reality, they wouldn't need faith.
What some people are demanding, however, is that the churches should change for them, accepting things that the Bible teaches against
The church no longer teaches that crab cakes are sinful. Why should it continue to teach that homosexuality is sinful?
I'd be more sympathetic to the argument from religious dogma if you didn't already choose which parts of that dogma you apply.
The burden of proof is on those who would claim something is harmful. No one has demonstrated any harm, and we've actually observed decreases in sexual assults when pornography is liberalized.
I might believe correlation, but I'm really suspicious of any claims of causation. Erectile disfunction is comorbid with depression. So is lonliness. If people treat their lonliness with porn, that's reason to expect a correlation between ED and porn without there being any causative influence.
These people are depraved, just like all conservatives.
I doubt it will happen either. But of all the potential strategies, it's most likely to happen.
Kudos for stepping into the fray here. We are cynical bastards, but this helps a lot.
When all you have is a minority voting third party, R&D will never lose an election.
You misunderstand. Suppose Republican voters this election split on Romney and a third party candidate. They will lose to Obama. That loss to Obama is incentive for Republican legislators to implement some form of preference voting, so that the extreme right wing can vote for the Christian Jihad party without throwing elections in the future.
Essentially, we need a Ralph Nader in every election until they abolish plurality voting.
America is simply too divided to expect everyone to agree on a single third party candidate. You're not going to get the tea partiers and the occupiers to vote for the same guy. However, you may be able to convince both of them that neither D nor R has their best interests at heart.
You don't actually need a single viable third party in order to get the two major parties to pay attention. You just need them to start losing elections regularly because of third party spoliers. That will be the incentive they need to implement some sort of preference voting.
If you continue to vote for either D or R, you are throwing your vote away. Either way you vote, you are voting to continue with the status quo. Choosing the good cop over the bad cop doesn't help anyone but the cops. Vote third party or stay home.
I hate these media "rags to riches" stories. They make it sound like the guy went to Radio Shack (when it was for hobbyists), locked himself in his garage, and popped out a millionaire.
Well, that was a long time ago, and analog amplification isn't exactly rocket science.
Who is more evil here? I'm going to say the FFA and FRC, but I don't think they're evil enough to get me to buy an EA product just to spite them.
If this were any other company than EA (well also Ubisoft and Sony), I'd write them a kind letter and buy the product. I hope the normalization of homosexuality isn't impeded because no one is willing to defend EA.
It still makes it sound like we're "just a bunch of freeloaders".
No, it doesn't. It only makes it sound that way if you're so pro-copyright that you're ignorant of the reasons that someone would be anti-copyright. To us anti-copyright folks the people who want to get paid in perpetuity for a days work are the freeloaders.
You may be right that the majority of /. isn't as strongly anti-copyright as they are often portrayed. But you're absolutely wrong when you state that being anti-copyright has anything to do with freeloading.
Heck, your bit about crony capitalists? When that comes from somebody who I know supported George W. Bush, I know that's completely dishonest hypocrisy. In fact that turn of phrase is a clear indicator of somebody who has been listening way too much to Fox News.
Fuck you. The closest I get to watching Fox News is what I get on the Daily Show. You don't think Obama hires crony capitalists? Explain Geithner. You're exactly the kind of blinded sheep that's going to reelect Obama.
Vote third party. I don't care if it's Libertarian, Green, Socialist, or Pirate. Just break the fucking corporatist hegemony.
Slashdot isn't full of underhanded thieves
I never said it was. I said it was anti-copyright. There's a big difference.
Why would people advance technology when they can seek rent on existing technology?
This is not actually the case. The right way to state this is that most of what is passed off as news is not actually news at all. Repeating a press release is not reporting.
Good, maybe I'll stop hearing about it.
/. tends to be a pretty strongly anti-copyright place. Yet I've had better discussions with pro-copyright individuals here than anywhere else. What exactly is the problem?
The right thing to do is to drop the cable news entirely. Same with talk radio. They're bad for you, and bad for the country.
Most if not all of the people are probably quite disillusioned with the campaign Obama at this point, and have come to the realization that the Obama in office wasn't strong enough to make the change.
This is not actually the case. Have you actually tried talking to an Obama supporter about Obama? They're convinced he's doing a good job, even though he's barely better than Bush on some issues, and far far worse than Bush on others. Anything you care to bring up, they blame on a Republican Congress, even things that are wholly the domain of the executive (e.g. packing his cabinet with crony capitalists, the behavior of the DOJ, blatant violation of the War Powers Act etc.).
Anyone who was stupid enough to belive that Obama was actually going to try and change anything significant is too stupid to realise they've been conned.
Even today, with follow-ups, if a stitch breaks and needs pulled it totally freaks me out.
You accidentally the infinitive.
Is it carefully calibrated propaganda, or just irrelevant chewing gum for the mind?
Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Even what you call "chewing gum" contains the message "this is what you should be concerned about". That's a vector for propaganda.
There is no evidence that #3 occured.