I don't think it's right to blame others for not being willing to stand up and go to jail.
Do you also think that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate defense for inhuman acts? After all, maybe some of those Auschwitz guards might not have pushed 'undesirables' into the gas chamber if they had not been afraid of prison, so we shouldn't hold them responsible, right?
These companies have little choice but to advocate this new information release as a huge step forward for transparency.
Ah, bullshit - they very much could release the full details, but are afraid of government retaliation.
Given that releasing details could be construed as treason, and almost certainly would be construed as criminal behavior by specific individual decisionmakers (no corporate shield), I don't blame them for being afraid.
Funny, considering the juxtaposition of that statement against your sig.
FWIW, I'm sure Revere, Franklin, General Washington, et. al. had a fair amount of fear when they decided to commit treason and rebel against the British Empire; difference being, those men felt that the protection of Liberty was more important than their own, individual wants or needs.
I don't blame Google et. al. for being afraid; I blame them for defacto supporting an authoritarian, unconstitutional regime by virtue of their cowardice.
These companies have little choice but to advocate this new information release as a huge step forward for transparency.
Ah, bullshit - they very much could release the full details, but are afraid of government retaliation. That's not the same thing as "having little choice" but to engage an alternative.
You know why Paul Revere was awesome? Not because he rode a horse yelling some stuff, but because he risked his life and livelihood as a silversmith in the name of Liberty.
I do not understand what they're attempting to fix and how they think this new version resolves those issues.
For the same reason TV execs will change the format of a successful show - they think that unless they're "innovating" every season, they're losing ground.
Of course, it's a ridiculous assumption - the reason The Tonight Show has lasted for 60 years is because it gives the audience something they want, in a format they're accustomed to.
Dear Slashdot Decision-Makers - Be like The Tonight Show, not like Survivor.
I don't give a damn what parents teach their kids (well, within limits, I wouldn't want parents teaching their kids eating their fellow humans is fine). The issue isn't about that, it is about Creationists attempting to have their long debunked nonsense taught as science in classrooms.
I don't argue with that - religious studies should stay in the religious studies/humanities classroom, where they belong.
My issue is with people who say things to the effect of, "Well, you have no clue how to raise your own children, because your ideology differs from mine, so I should be allowed to force my ideology (which is obviously superior because it's what I believe) down your kids' throats."
But the only way to keep dumb people out of power is to educate the voters.
Ignoring, of course, that "dumb" is an entirely subjective, emotional term, and should not be the basis for education or legislation.
If you aren't teaching your kids critical thinking then you're part the problem and somebody else needs to step in.
Supposedly, that's what public schools are for; however, considering the stories I've been hearing coming out of public schools lately, I wouldn't trust them to get it right, either.
But to say, "I believe you're raising your kids wrong, you must let the state take over?" Fuck. That. Bullshit. You wouldn't agree with someone else demanding your kid be taught something against your beliefs, so what makes you think you have the right to do the same to others?
Either that or you have to pass a "voters exam" full of basic science questions before you get to vote on anything important.
Replace "science" with "relevant to the topic being legislated," and you've got my support 100%.
Consequence of freedom. And, presuming that's a video of G.W. Bush (I don't bother with video links), I doubt you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of Democratic Presidents doing/saying stupid shit - Obama's almost as bad as Gee-Dub when it comes to "open-mouth-insert-foot" moments.
Nope. Sarah Palin talking at a religious university, telling the kids how the founding fathers were Christians and a long list of other stuff that's completely wrong. Even Obama and Gee Dub can't hold a candle to her.
OK, so teach your kids, "that bitch is dumb as hell, and you should probably fact-check anything she tells you," not "She shouldn't be allowed to say stuff I disagree with to people." Because in the case of the latter, you'd be a hypocrite, which in my book means you're not worth listening to, either.
PS: When did this become "Democrats vs. Republicans"? My problem is that an Atheist president is unthinkable in the USA. It simply couldn't happen. Nuh-uh.
Aw, c'mon dude - we both know it's always and R vs D issue, even when it's not. 'Murica, right?
Riiiiight, because kids raised by "progressive" parents definitely don't think they have a right to dictate what kind of cars others can drive, or what weapons they can own, or what they can do with their own property...
Where did any of that come into it? This is about religion.
Making a point - you claim to want to have control over what religious people can teach their kids, because "Those kids will very definitely go around telling other people what they can/can't do (eg. gay marriage)."
I was merely pointing out that the inverse is true as well - the kids of non-religious, "progressive" types will be taught to go around and tell other people what they can/cannot do, albeit about different topics. You're just trading one brand of oppression for another.
My ultimate point being, how other people raise their kids is as much your business, as how you raise your kids is theirs. You don't want religious nutjobs influencing your kids? That's fair, but don't demand, in the next breath, the right to influence theirs.
Yes, that is indeed exactly the point being made. Anyone with any religious belief whatsoever is part of a global conspiracy to take over the world. I'm glad your reading comprehension is good enough to pick up on that.
Hey - if you don't want people to think you're generalizing, don't fucking generalize.
Otherwise you just come off as a holier-than-thou asshole, and most rational people will, at that point, start ignoring you.
Please explain why "extemporaneous expression" is a mark of being correct.
Please explain how you expect me to hit goalposts when you keep moving them around.
You said verbal debates were a stunt; I explained that they probably seem that way to people who aren't good at extemporaneous speech. I further explained that experts, i.e. people who already know their shit and don't need "bonus time" to formulate a decent argument, are pretty good at verbal debates.
Upon actually bothering to read the summary (I figured it was a new, low-end Chromebook), I now see that it's not a laptop, but looks more like a set-top box.
So, new question... would it make a cost-effective Scrypt-based cryptocurrency miner?
It would be nice to have something I could use to write up blog posts and the like, without having to resort to touchscreen keyboards or breaking out the 5 lb, 17" powerhouse I use for *real* work.
Its depressing to see how many people automatically think that if a Democrat authors a bill its automatically good for the people. Have you learned nothing in the last 8 years?
Well sure! We've learned how to be even more divisive and vitriolic, we've learned how to subjugate others via insults and marginalization, and we've learned that, right or wrong, we must defend the party line to a T.
Oh, you meant "have we learned anything useful in the last 8 years..."
umm, the GOP handles "tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy" as well, just look at NC, our GOP overlords want to drop the corporate tax rate to like 3%,less than individual tax by almost 50%.
If you think that sort of behavior is exclusive to the GOP, you don't pay attention to campaign finances. Obama's top donors were almost identical to Romney's, with few exceptions.
Judging by that metric, Goldman Sachs runs America, regardless of who gets elected.
Slashdot Mirror
Flashing your lights at someone is more like telling someone: "the cops are outside, flush the drugs down the toilet now!"
No.
It's directly analogous to saying, "Up ahead, there is a reason you should slow down."
Speed traps aren't the only reason people flash lights, you know. Accidents around blind corners, for example.
I don't think it's right to blame others for not being willing to stand up and go to jail.
Do you also think that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate defense for inhuman acts? After all, maybe some of those Auschwitz guards might not have pushed 'undesirables' into the gas chamber if they had not been afraid of prison, so we shouldn't hold them responsible, right?
These companies have little choice but to advocate this new information release as a huge step forward for transparency.
Ah, bullshit - they very much could release the full details, but are afraid of government retaliation.
Given that releasing details could be construed as treason, and almost certainly would be construed as criminal behavior by specific individual decisionmakers (no corporate shield), I don't blame them for being afraid.
Funny, considering the juxtaposition of that statement against your sig.
FWIW, I'm sure Revere, Franklin, General Washington, et. al. had a fair amount of fear when they decided to commit treason and rebel against the British Empire; difference being, those men felt that the protection of Liberty was more important than their own, individual wants or needs.
I don't blame Google et. al. for being afraid; I blame them for defacto supporting an authoritarian, unconstitutional regime by virtue of their cowardice.
These companies have little choice but to advocate this new information release as a huge step forward for transparency.
Ah, bullshit - they very much could release the full details, but are afraid of government retaliation. That's not the same thing as "having little choice" but to engage an alternative.
You know why Paul Revere was awesome? Not because he rode a horse yelling some stuff, but because he risked his life and livelihood as a silversmith in the name of Liberty.
I do not understand what they're attempting to fix and how they think this new version resolves those issues.
For the same reason TV execs will change the format of a successful show - they think that unless they're "innovating" every season, they're losing ground.
Of course, it's a ridiculous assumption - the reason The Tonight Show has lasted for 60 years is because it gives the audience something they want, in a format they're accustomed to.
Dear Slashdot Decision-Makers - Be like The Tonight Show, not like Survivor.
I don't give a damn what parents teach their kids (well, within limits, I wouldn't want parents teaching their kids eating their fellow humans is fine). The issue isn't about that, it is about Creationists attempting to have their long debunked nonsense taught as science in classrooms.
I don't argue with that - religious studies should stay in the religious studies/humanities classroom, where they belong.
My issue is with people who say things to the effect of, "Well, you have no clue how to raise your own children, because your ideology differs from mine, so I should be allowed to force my ideology (which is obviously superior because it's what I believe) down your kids' throats."
Seems a pedantic difference to me, at least in reference to this particular conversation.
Part of it is a "tyranny of the majority" problem, part of it is the result of rampant corruption allowed by complacent voters.
The question I suppose is one of how to impede authoritarianism without violating the human rights of individual authoritarians.
Eternal vigilance. Liberty is a pain in the ass, but it's worth the effort.
"Mainly, because I wouldn't want someone else dictating what I can teach my kids."
Just becasue you wouldn't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be so.
So just because you don't like the fact they teach Creationism in some schools, doesn't mean they shouldn't, right?
On whet premise do you think parents are the best teacher for there kids?
You answered it yourself, albeit using the incorrect form of "their."
On what premise do you think parents are not the best teachers for their children?
Who generalized? Where in any of the posts preceding yours is a generalisation?
...religion isn't just a harmless social thing... They're in government... They're trying to... They get...
If that's not a generalization, I've somehow ended up in an alternate dimension where words have different definitions.
Maybe, but you said GOP, not Dems, so it seemed to question me, not him.
Let's just call it as "they're all self-interested dickheads," eh?
mining scrypt is a huge focking waste of time, it is worthless and will always be worthless
Tell that to the Litecoin that was worth $2 when I mined it 6 months ago.
Telco monopolies in these areas are why people in rural areas even have phone service, let alone internet.
No, that's the Universal Service Fund you're thinking of.
Of course, it would help if the telcos would actually use that money for expanding access, and not lobbying Congress/increasing shareholder profits.
Source: I deal with those shady fuckers (telcos) all day, every day.
Right.
But the only way to keep dumb people out of power is to educate the voters.
Ignoring, of course, that "dumb" is an entirely subjective, emotional term, and should not be the basis for education or legislation.
If you aren't teaching your kids critical thinking then you're part the problem and somebody else needs to step in.
Supposedly, that's what public schools are for; however, considering the stories I've been hearing coming out of public schools lately, I wouldn't trust them to get it right, either.
But to say, "I believe you're raising your kids wrong, you must let the state take over?" Fuck. That. Bullshit. You wouldn't agree with someone else demanding your kid be taught something against your beliefs, so what makes you think you have the right to do the same to others?
Either that or you have to pass a "voters exam" full of basic science questions before you get to vote on anything important.
Replace "science" with "relevant to the topic being legislated," and you've got my support 100%.
Consequence of freedom. And, presuming that's a video of G.W. Bush (I don't bother with video links), I doubt you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of Democratic Presidents doing/saying stupid shit - Obama's almost as bad as Gee-Dub when it comes to "open-mouth-insert-foot" moments.
Nope. Sarah Palin talking at a religious university, telling the kids how the founding fathers were Christians and a long list of other stuff that's completely wrong. Even Obama and Gee Dub can't hold a candle to her.
OK, so teach your kids, "that bitch is dumb as hell, and you should probably fact-check anything she tells you," not "She shouldn't be allowed to say stuff I disagree with to people." Because in the case of the latter, you'd be a hypocrite, which in my book means you're not worth listening to, either.
PS: When did this become "Democrats vs. Republicans"? My problem is that an Atheist president is unthinkable in the USA. It simply couldn't happen. Nuh-uh.
Aw, c'mon dude - we both know it's always and R vs D issue, even when it's not. 'Murica, right?
Riiiiight, because kids raised by "progressive" parents definitely don't think they have a right to dictate what kind of cars others can drive, or what weapons they can own, or what they can do with their own property...
Where did any of that come into it? This is about religion.
Making a point - you claim to want to have control over what religious people can teach their kids, because "Those kids will very definitely go around telling other people what they can/can't do (eg. gay marriage)."
I was merely pointing out that the inverse is true as well - the kids of non-religious, "progressive" types will be taught to go around and tell other people what they can/cannot do, albeit about different topics. You're just trading one brand of oppression for another.
My ultimate point being, how other people raise their kids is as much your business, as how you raise your kids is theirs. You don't want religious nutjobs influencing your kids? That's fair, but don't demand, in the next breath, the right to influence theirs.
Yea... pretty sure I clicked the wrong "Reply to This" button when I posted that one.
Mea Culpa.
Fair enough.
Sometimes I forget that there are people who inject bias into everything, which makes it really hard to have an objective discussion about anything.
Yes, that is indeed exactly the point being made. Anyone with any religious belief whatsoever is part of a global conspiracy to take over the world. I'm glad your reading comprehension is good enough to pick up on that.
Hey - if you don't want people to think you're generalizing, don't fucking generalize.
Otherwise you just come off as a holier-than-thou asshole, and most rational people will, at that point, start ignoring you.
Please explain why "extemporaneous expression" is a mark of being correct.
Please explain how you expect me to hit goalposts when you keep moving them around.
You said verbal debates were a stunt; I explained that they probably seem that way to people who aren't good at extemporaneous speech. I further explained that experts, i.e. people who already know their shit and don't need "bonus time" to formulate a decent argument, are pretty good at verbal debates.
"Correct" did not enter the conversation.
Upon actually bothering to read the summary (I figured it was a new, low-end Chromebook), I now see that it's not a laptop, but looks more like a set-top box.
So, new question... would it make a cost-effective Scrypt-based cryptocurrency miner?
Can you put Linux on the thing?
It would be nice to have something I could use to write up blog posts and the like, without having to resort to touchscreen keyboards or breaking out the 5 lb, 17" powerhouse I use for *real* work.
Append a rider to an existing bill that modifies the Telecommunications Act and redefines a data provider as a common carrier.
I think that's the best idea posited so far, one that ensures neutrality and access to most if not all Americans.
Which means that it's against the interests of someone who can afford to bribe Congresscritters, both D and R, which means it's not going to happen.
The GOP was instrumental in killing SOPA. So... there's that.
Perhaps, but with apologies to Yakov, "In Soviet America, the other party is always wrong, even when they're right."
Its depressing to see how many people automatically think that if a Democrat authors a bill its automatically good for the people. Have you learned nothing in the last 8 years?
Well sure! We've learned how to be even more divisive and vitriolic, we've learned how to subjugate others via insults and marginalization, and we've learned that, right or wrong, we must defend the party line to a T.
Oh, you meant "have we learned anything useful in the last 8 years..."
Debatable.
umm, the GOP handles "tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy" as well, just look at NC, our GOP overlords want to drop the corporate tax rate to like 3%,less than individual tax by almost 50%.
If you think that sort of behavior is exclusive to the GOP, you don't pay attention to campaign finances. Obama's top donors were almost identical to Romney's, with few exceptions.
Judging by that metric, Goldman Sachs runs America, regardless of who gets elected.