Big corporations are afraid of better-quality competition being produced by the open source community. The open source community never would have existed without PCs. This is a democratizing process and nobody worth mentioning is harmed by that. Everyone who predicts the death of the PC era is a shill. QED.
Please. Oh, PLEASE do your best to back up the claim that there are not more people creating things with computers nowadays, than there were in the 70s. Please oh please oh please.
Please do attempt to show that there were more digital musicians. Please back up the claim that there were more writers and citizen journalists. I want to see your evidence that there are fewer visual artists, now that cost isn't a factor per piece. Please itemize the outnumbering ratio of Freedom Box-like projects taking place in the good old days. Even in the indie gaming category, your argument doesn't stand a chance.
I know my tone in this post sucks, but You. Are. A. Shill. Either that or you breathe Kool Aid.
It's easy to talk about consuming the infinite amount of other peoples' content via these receiver-only slabs, and worry about them pushing out full-blown PCs......but who will be those "other people" producing content, if they don't have the capacity to create?
Necessity is the mother of industry, sometimes. Can't wait to buy a computer with the EFF's "produced with open hardware standards" stamp on every component.
IANAL, but here are my problems with this chain of logic.
Afghanistan and Iraq are "extended military operations authorized by Congress," not wars. As they say, what one generation accepts, the next generation embraces. I do not recognize the legitimacy or authority for this style of military action. These actions are invasions with a PR spin on them, in my opinion, nothing more. While I accept that the Geneva Convention was altered to allow your logic to be true (now applying in any armed international conflict that has the characteristics of war and which involves a signatory nation), I refuse to characterize our military actions on foreign soil as being a situation which allows any semblance of innocence for any of our actions. Unfortunately, only history will have the final say as to which of us is right on that point.
It's my bias to turn the tables on these questions. If it would be wrong for this to happen to us, it is wrong for us to do it to them. There is no other metric I've ever heard of that I'd entertain with respect.
This "Anonymous" is 4Chan and the crowd. They helped to participate in Todd's suffering.
Citation needed.
Anonymous is not a bunch of do-gooders. They simply select "worthy targets" and try to make their lives hell. It's never about justice. But what's a worthy target? Anyone they feel is stupid.
What if somebody catches you daydreaming on a freeway overpass someday, puts a megaphone in your ear from behind, and screams "HOLY CRAP LOOK OUT" into your ear when you aren't expecting it, causing you to fall in front of a hauler going 80 miles an hour?
"Unfortunately it looks like she couldn't live with the results of her bad decision. I feel zero sympathy for this girl."
The things I want to say to you in response to the above, aren't illegal. They're not immoral. They're not even wrong.
The fact that I wish I knew your identity and the identities of your coworkers, family and friends so that I could publish the above statements under your name, definitely is not illegal. Nor, since you have shared the opinions online, would publishing them and breaking your anonymity through investigative work, be illegal.
Devoting 10 hours a day to broadcasting your comments, identity, likeness, and name to the most torment-sympathetic, off-kilter people the Internet has to offer, preferably targeting an audience within 50 miles of you, just to inform them of the nature of your personality, would not be illegal.
And hey. I wouldn't be responsible for what happened when they got ahold of you.
And I really. REALLY would not feel any sympathy after they got ahold of you.
"So the theory is, in herding cultures the different clans will sometimes attack and steal other's animals property, or commit other acts against them, and when insulted in such a way..."
Are you talking about insults or attacks? Pick one. Your pulled a switcheroo with the above.
Don't you love/hate it when you go to the trouble to answer someone's question or continue a debate, and they puss out because you're out of their league and they're as wrong as bestiality?:)
Flag as troll. Unless there's some value to comparing residential apartment dwellers with uniformed and armed soldiers on the front line of a continent-invading army.
The general doctrine of the U.S.: if they can ever become wealthy enough to challenge us militarily or economically, they are a war enemy.
Your reasoning: If we can't take the targets to court in an efficient fashion, and we can't predict the degree to which their intentions are hostile, then they should be killed.
The result of your logic: We should preemptively kill every human being on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Insightful if I had points.
This is not science. Bad editor. Bad.
Goodbye, France. Goodbye, Brazil. Congratulations on your decision to cease to exist.
Big corporations are afraid of better-quality competition being produced by the open source community.
The open source community never would have existed without PCs.
This is a democratizing process and nobody worth mentioning is harmed by that.
Everyone who predicts the death of the PC era is a shill. QED.
Please. Oh, PLEASE do your best to back up the claim that there are not more people creating things with computers nowadays, than there were in the 70s. Please oh please oh please.
Please do attempt to show that there were more digital musicians.
Please back up the claim that there were more writers and citizen journalists.
I want to see your evidence that there are fewer visual artists, now that cost isn't a factor per piece.
Please itemize the outnumbering ratio of Freedom Box-like projects taking place in the good old days.
Even in the indie gaming category, your argument doesn't stand a chance.
I know my tone in this post sucks, but You. Are. A. Shill. Either that or you breathe Kool Aid.
It's easy to talk about consuming the infinite amount of other peoples' content via these receiver-only slabs, and worry about them pushing out full-blown PCs... ...but who will be those "other people" producing content, if they don't have the capacity to create?
Necessity is the mother of industry, sometimes. Can't wait to buy a computer with the EFF's "produced with open hardware standards" stamp on every component.
...and it only took 20 years.
Aaaaaoooohhhhhhh. I didn't realize the italicized part of your post was a parent quote.
Also I should note that I thought you were comparing drone attack collateral victims with WWII Axis soldiers. My bad for that misreading.
IANAL, but here are my problems with this chain of logic.
Afghanistan and Iraq are "extended military operations authorized by Congress," not wars. As they say, what one generation accepts, the next generation embraces. I do not recognize the legitimacy or authority for this style of military action. These actions are invasions with a PR spin on them, in my opinion, nothing more. While I accept that the Geneva Convention was altered to allow your logic to be true (now applying in any armed international conflict that has the characteristics of war and which involves a signatory nation), I refuse to characterize our military actions on foreign soil as being a situation which allows any semblance of innocence for any of our actions. Unfortunately, only history will have the final say as to which of us is right on that point.
It's my bias to turn the tables on these questions. If it would be wrong for this to happen to us, it is wrong for us to do it to them. There is no other metric I've ever heard of that I'd entertain with respect.
Poetically stated. +0 Insightful because I don't have mod points today (and would have commented /way/ too much to give any out anyway.)
This "Anonymous" is 4Chan and the crowd. They helped to participate in Todd's suffering.
Citation needed.
Anonymous is not a bunch of do-gooders. They simply select "worthy targets" and try to make their lives hell. It's never about justice. But what's a worthy target? Anyone they feel is stupid.
Citation needed.
Also.
What if somebody catches you daydreaming on a freeway overpass someday, puts a megaphone in your ear from behind, and screams "HOLY CRAP LOOK OUT" into your ear when you aren't expecting it, causing you to fall in front of a hauler going 80 miles an hour?
How's your argument sound then?
"Unfortunately it looks like she couldn't live with the results of her bad decision. I feel zero sympathy for this girl."
The things I want to say to you in response to the above, aren't illegal. They're not immoral. They're not even wrong.
The fact that I wish I knew your identity and the identities of your coworkers, family and friends so that I could publish the above statements under your name, definitely is not illegal. Nor, since you have shared the opinions online, would publishing them and breaking your anonymity through investigative work, be illegal.
Devoting 10 hours a day to broadcasting your comments, identity, likeness, and name to the most torment-sympathetic, off-kilter people the Internet has to offer, preferably targeting an audience within 50 miles of you, just to inform them of the nature of your personality, would not be illegal.
And hey. I wouldn't be responsible for what happened when they got ahold of you.
And I really. REALLY would not feel any sympathy after they got ahold of you.
"So the theory is, in herding cultures the different clans will sometimes attack and steal other's animals property, or commit other acts against them, and when insulted in such a way..."
Are you talking about insults or attacks? Pick one. Your pulled a switcheroo with the above.
Serial killers are individuals, too. You can't throw "individualism" at a behavior and call that a defense.
Not that I disagree that George would find our culture spooky or familiar.
Like you!
Flamebait. There is no -1 for Asshat. Oh wait, yes there is. Flamebait.
That is, unless you just didn't read the post you were quoting. Way to go all Fox News on people, guy.
Don't you love/hate it when you go to the trouble to answer someone's question or continue a debate, and they puss out because you're out of their league and they're as wrong as bestiality? :)
The website linked in your sig needs spell-checking.
Oh no, invading murderers might become frustrated or stressed out!
Meant to say "flamebait" and "equating," not "troll" and "comparing."
Flag as troll. Unless there's some value to comparing residential apartment dwellers with uniformed and armed soldiers on the front line of a continent-invading army.
The general doctrine of the U.S.: if they can ever become wealthy enough to challenge us militarily or economically, they are a war enemy.
Your reasoning: If we can't take the targets to court in an efficient fashion, and we can't predict the degree to which their intentions are hostile, then they should be killed.
The result of your logic: We should preemptively kill every human being on earth.
In San Diego.