Wanted to != did. Keep in mind that every government starting with the Liberals has wanted to log everyone on the internet. Or that the Liberals are continuing the same policy that won't let public servants talk? Or that it was the same thing back in the days under Chretien? Oops you forgot that one huh? That the previous Liberal government did the same with crown research? How is this news again? You mean the same policies that the Liberals used for various policy meetings? What, you don't like that either right. Oh right...wrong party.
Everyone here was also exposed to lead, but we didn't have the level of racia violence the US had, or continues to have, so yes, of course, it's in American culture.
No, it's not in "American culture." Being that I live in Canada, was born there, was raised there. We see similar things with our native populations. We're now also seeing it happen within the black communities that were imported from the Caribbean in the 80's and 90's. There are part of Toronto/GTA that are like Detroit of the 1980's with crime issues.
It has nothing to do with racism. In both cases here in Canada it's down to a few things: Poor and poor people believing that they can get no where, so they do what their friends are doing. Even though the government literally throws millions if not billions of dollars a year at it.
But Palmer Luckey is bankrolling an entity which is dedicated to (making money from) derailing intelligent discourse. Even if it's legal to be a dick, it's still being a dick.
And Clinton has an entire Super PAC which does nothing but, but you're worried about a single individual who dropped $10k? Yes, you really are stupid.
Oh come on now, just because they push bullshit social justice outrage culture bullshit doesn't mean they're bad right? Oh who am I kidding. It's that type of bullshit, along with the click-bait bullshit against people like Tim Hunt(note that in this case, she was a shitty person who created controversy to bolster her name), Brendan Eich(engaging in wrong-think), etc., that let's these shitty organizations keep functioning. We're also seeing it with Palmer Luckey as well, and the SJW media going after his girlfriend for daring to have opinions and views that don't adhere to the groupthink that these shitty people support.
And yes, if you support this type of SJW-witch-hunting bullshit mentality, you are a shitty person. No, you are not on the right side of history.
The "political message" was spamming social media via bots to upload and upvote images. It's not the contents so much as the delivery method that's a proble.m
This is about ethics and transparency in tech news reporting, so of course there will be outrage all around.
Welcome to gamergate? Maybe welcome to techgate? With that, I'm sure that people will be coming out of the wood work to label you a harasser of women, a sexist/misogynist/rapist/racist and a few other things now. Can't have accountability after all, that clique needs to be protected.
What's the story? Shitty person engaged in unethical conduct with no disclosure. Also Vox Media investigates self, finds no conflict of interest or did anything wrong. And legally, they're required to now add disclaimers stating as such.
Gotta remember this is/., where RTFA is difficult...
Then I'm sure you're lining right up to stop using any gizmodo(univision) products right? After their open attacks against his GF for daring to have a different opinion, which has resulted in open harassment(by the social justice clique) and by the idealistic supporters who's viewpoints you espouse on a regular basis.
If you actually are intolerant of intolerance then I'm sure that works fine. Oddly, you seem to be perfectly tolerant of people being attacked when it's a view point that is 180deg., from your own. You've shown that over the last two years.
Why do you support people who use paid trolling to push their goals? Would you be ok if every other post on Slashdot was a non-disclosed ad because that's the type of thing you just said you'd support.
I'm sure you're lining right up to not vote for Clinton then. After all the super pac that supports her, the "correct the record" bunch, which has her support as well. And has paid millions for trolls in order to push her goals and attack people.
There's been a rise in the term "regressive left" for a while. And for good reason, the left(especially progressives and the social justice clique) have been at the forefront of anti-democratic beliefs for quite a while(see the big push on free speech zones, safe spaces, no-platforming, violent protests against individuals, anti-individualist choices, etc). And unlike the right, that cast and purged their crazies out, the left is still embracing theirs and parroting their views. In many cases, I'm going to guess that it's because they're afraid of being labeled "racists/sexists/homophobes/misogynists/etc" that the regressive left has been using to attack anyone who doesn't share their insular worldview.
Anyone who's been paying attention to tech culture or gaming culture will notice it. The regressive left is against free expression, they only want their view points, their ideals, and their versions of vidya. And are willing to throw hissyfits over any of this. They have no qualms about actually harassing people, they'll run ops to do it(see conleaks), and all the rest of the nasty shit that they claim those on the right do. Which some people have figured out is pure projection on their part.
Twitter has a tainted brand already. When they decided to implement the 1984ish named "safety and trust council" which is made up of all left-wing groups, some of which hold extremist views(other groups which engage in harassment of wrong-think targets) and then started banning or suspending people for wrong think, they started driving people to competing services.
Guess there's a reason why when you're an ideologue you believe all the shit put before you as fact. Remember Hillary's "pepe the frog is a symbol of white supremacy" bit that you swallowed hook line and sinker? Yeah, published by the same rag that claims this to be fact, and has yet to publish a correction stating that they were trolled into believing that. If you're trusting the daily beast to be factual, then you likely trust media matters not to take things out of context to create political talking points and carry agendas.
The law has decided not to charge Hillary, yet you still maintain she's a criminal and needs to be stopped? So the rule of law applies only when it's convenient, then?
You mean besides for anyone who actually looks at what she's done and is actually criminal? Or that she has so many connections in the beltway that it's suicidal to charge her with criminal charges and live to tell the tale at the end of the week. Or that various investigative agents under oath stated that her actions were criminal, but were told how to peruse the investigation. Or that in a couple of cases, her actions were criminal but she was apparently too incompetent to know that? Remember that old saw of "the ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Are you saying that Trump University wasn't a scam designed to take people's money? He claims he personally vetted all the teaching staff.
Don't know, it hasn't been through the courts. And unless you're one of those assholes that believes everything laid out in front of you, then you'd give it, it's day and court and we can all agree on what happens in the end.
Then again, you've shown in the past that you really like social justice aka mob rule. Fuck courts with that right?
This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started, the gaslighting asshole.
Clinton did start it. Even far-leftmagazines and newspaperswho aren't in the tank for Clinton can trace how Clinton ops in 2008, told investigative reporters that they should look into it. And many actually did, going as far as sending investigative teams to look into it. It was one of her campaign strategies.
Yeah. You've got no idea what you're talking about, what Clinton did was nothing short of criminal. What the people around here did, was nothing short of criminal. Going as far as pleading the 5th. What Trump has done is by far be a businessman and run with his mouth and actually listen to voters. Something that some politicians in the UK have done(which is why the brexit succeeded despite the politicians, the media, the political elite all saying "it's in the bag for us." In other cases, they decided to trot out the police and engage in police-state like activities like "paying visits" to people who post wrong think, and threatening them with hate speech if the police don't like what they're posting.
Between the two, I'm personally enjoying the absolute and complete clusterfuck known as the Clinton campaign. If they're not trying to declare a war on memes, they have incompetent IT people who are trying to break the law or actually breaking the law.
Of course you do, this is what the free speech zealots seem to not understand. Just like you can't run into a theatre screaming fire when there isn't one, or yell bomb at an airport, or masturbate in front of kids, there are some restrictions on personal expression that are critical to a functioning society. Once you accept that some things have to be restricted you are in the same boat as the rest of us.
The point, you missed it. Or do I need to use small words and explain it?
Keep in mind AC. That up until the Harper Government revoked S.13 of the HRC, you could be arrested fined, thrown in jail and your life ruined for unpopular speech. People like to rail against him, but he's done more to protect and defend speech then any previous government in Canada. While the Liberals have done the most to restrict it, that includes passing the CHRC, pushing provinces to implement their own version of it. The OHRC and AHRC's(Ontario and Alberta) had a 100% conviction rate until Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant successfully challenged them. Yeah, you read that right 100% conviction rate. Their crimes? Unpopular but factual speech against muslims.
HRC's are bad news. Here in Canada, the federal HRC aka CHRC was involved in multiple cases of going on fishing expeditions and creating hate speech against targets they don't like, in order to silence them permanently by either removing them from society(pushing for jail time) or bankrupting them. What else can you expect from a kangaroo court. This is the exact same thing people in the US can expect if it happens there.
As a Canadian I'm wholly against any form of "hate speech" laws. If you live in Canada, you can very quickly see who's favored by systems like this. You can also very quickly see if you're the "wrong type of person" just how little protection from that speech or discrimination you actually receive from it.
You need to stop reading the Internet and get out more. There more to life then not being allowed to call black people niggers. And I'm sure Canada an Australia are much better places for it.
You need to get out into real life, or perhaps come and visit us in Canada. The current government has pulled the same stuff as in the EU, criticizing Islam is bad. Very bad. You can't do that! I'm waiting for the RCMP to start doing early morning raids on peoples houses, just like they did in Germany for people who posted things which went against what the government believed in.
Let's get this clear, you don't create a good society by banning speech. You create a good society by having an open society that can challenge bad ideas, and shine a light on very shitty ones. When you live in a country like Canada which doesn't have free speech(and we don't, we have speech which is permitted under S.1 of the Charter), you learn very quickly who is more favored under a system like that. Right now it's Muslims and Indians(natives). It's the same reason why a Muslim can be standing on the corner and spouting actual hate speech and screaming "gas the Jews!" But if you said it, you can bet you'd be detained for a couple of hours while given a promise to appear notice for court.
You're right -- many of these are ridiculous. But, the onus is on you to show how the US is more restrictive than "just about any other western country on earth". I don't see it.
That's because you're right. All you need to do is look at us up here in Canada, and you'll quickly find out what restricted speech is like. Here we do not have protected speech, or freedom of speech. We have speech as permitted under S.1 of the Charter. We have hate speech laws too. An American can go stand on the corner and scream "gas the *insert group,* race war now!" if they wanted. In Canada, that's hate speech, incitement to cause harm to an identifiable group, and so on. Most Canadians would be looking at time or fines for that. I say most, because we do have a two tier justice system too.
Been known since the 1970's. All your international counter-terrorism stuff has covered it. It's even covered in the basic stuff they teach you at police colleges and has been since the 90's here in Canada along with domestic terrorism, there's something similar in larger police force colleges in the US. If anything the problem has gotten worse because there is simply so much traffic now. At the two busiest ports in Canada, we scan like 3% of containers using gamma ray radiography. I'd expect at ports in the US or China? Probably closer to 1%
Slashdot Mirror
Wanted to != did. Keep in mind that every government starting with the Liberals has wanted to log everyone on the internet. Or that the Liberals are continuing the same policy that won't let public servants talk? Or that it was the same thing back in the days under Chretien? Oops you forgot that one huh? That the previous Liberal government did the same with crown research? How is this news again? You mean the same policies that the Liberals used for various policy meetings? What, you don't like that either right. Oh right...wrong party.
Everyone here was also exposed to lead, but we didn't have the level of racia violence the US had, or continues to have, so yes, of course, it's in American culture.
No, it's not in "American culture." Being that I live in Canada, was born there, was raised there. We see similar things with our native populations. We're now also seeing it happen within the black communities that were imported from the Caribbean in the 80's and 90's. There are part of Toronto/GTA that are like Detroit of the 1980's with crime issues.
It has nothing to do with racism. In both cases here in Canada it's down to a few things: Poor and poor people believing that they can get no where, so they do what their friends are doing. Even though the government literally throws millions if not billions of dollars a year at it.
But Palmer Luckey is bankrolling an entity which is dedicated to (making money from) derailing intelligent discourse. Even if it's legal to be a dick, it's still being a dick.
And Clinton has an entire Super PAC which does nothing but, but you're worried about a single individual who dropped $10k? Yes, you really are stupid.
Oh come on now, just because they push bullshit social justice outrage culture bullshit doesn't mean they're bad right? Oh who am I kidding. It's that type of bullshit, along with the click-bait bullshit against people like Tim Hunt(note that in this case, she was a shitty person who created controversy to bolster her name), Brendan Eich(engaging in wrong-think), etc., that let's these shitty organizations keep functioning. We're also seeing it with Palmer Luckey as well, and the SJW media going after his girlfriend for daring to have opinions and views that don't adhere to the groupthink that these shitty people support.
And yes, if you support this type of SJW-witch-hunting bullshit mentality, you are a shitty person. No, you are not on the right side of history.
The "political message" was spamming social media via bots to upload and upvote images. It's not the contents so much as the delivery method that's a proble.m
Keep in mind that the media has been planning to do this to the guy for the last 6mo. If you believe the shit in this article, then you're simply falling for the narrative that they're painting for you. And your critical thinking skills are terribly lacking.
This is about ethics and transparency in tech news reporting, so of course there will be outrage all around.
Welcome to gamergate? Maybe welcome to techgate? With that, I'm sure that people will be coming out of the wood work to label you a harasser of women, a sexist/misogynist/rapist/racist and a few other things now. Can't have accountability after all, that clique needs to be protected.
What's the story? Shitty person engaged in unethical conduct with no disclosure. Also Vox Media investigates self, finds no conflict of interest or did anything wrong. And legally, they're required to now add disclaimers stating as such.
Gotta remember this is /., where RTFA is difficult...
Then I'm sure you're lining right up to stop using any gizmodo(univision) products right? After their open attacks against his GF for daring to have a different opinion, which has resulted in open harassment(by the social justice clique) and by the idealistic supporters who's viewpoints you espouse on a regular basis.
If you actually are intolerant of intolerance then I'm sure that works fine. Oddly, you seem to be perfectly tolerant of people being attacked when it's a view point that is 180deg., from your own. You've shown that over the last two years.
Why do you support people who use paid trolling to push their goals? Would you be ok if every other post on Slashdot was a non-disclosed ad because that's the type of thing you just said you'd support.
I'm sure you're lining right up to not vote for Clinton then. After all the super pac that supports her, the "correct the record" bunch, which has her support as well. And has paid millions for trolls in order to push her goals and attack people.
There's been a rise in the term "regressive left" for a while. And for good reason, the left(especially progressives and the social justice clique) have been at the forefront of anti-democratic beliefs for quite a while(see the big push on free speech zones, safe spaces, no-platforming, violent protests against individuals, anti-individualist choices, etc). And unlike the right, that cast and purged their crazies out, the left is still embracing theirs and parroting their views. In many cases, I'm going to guess that it's because they're afraid of being labeled "racists/sexists/homophobes/misogynists/etc" that the regressive left has been using to attack anyone who doesn't share their insular worldview.
Anyone who's been paying attention to tech culture or gaming culture will notice it. The regressive left is against free expression, they only want their view points, their ideals, and their versions of vidya. And are willing to throw hissyfits over any of this. They have no qualms about actually harassing people, they'll run ops to do it(see con leaks), and all the rest of the nasty shit that they claim those on the right do. Which some people have figured out is pure projection on their part.
Twitter has a tainted brand already. When they decided to implement the 1984ish named "safety and trust council" which is made up of all left-wing groups, some of which hold extremist views(other groups which engage in harassment of wrong-think targets) and then started banning or suspending people for wrong think, they started driving people to competing services.
Guess there's a reason why when you're an ideologue you believe all the shit put before you as fact. Remember Hillary's "pepe the frog is a symbol of white supremacy" bit that you swallowed hook line and sinker? Yeah, published by the same rag that claims this to be fact, and has yet to publish a correction stating that they were trolled into believing that. If you're trusting the daily beast to be factual, then you likely trust media matters not to take things out of context to create political talking points and carry agendas.
The law has decided not to charge Hillary, yet you still maintain she's a criminal and needs to be stopped? So the rule of law applies only when it's convenient, then?
You mean besides for anyone who actually looks at what she's done and is actually criminal? Or that she has so many connections in the beltway that it's suicidal to charge her with criminal charges and live to tell the tale at the end of the week. Or that various investigative agents under oath stated that her actions were criminal, but were told how to peruse the investigation. Or that in a couple of cases, her actions were criminal but she was apparently too incompetent to know that? Remember that old saw of "the ignorance of the law is no excuse."
None of these links say anything about Clinton starting anything of the sort.
Proving once again that in /. land not RTFA is just a suggestion.
Are you saying that Trump University wasn't a scam designed to take people's money? He claims he personally vetted all the teaching staff.
Don't know, it hasn't been through the courts. And unless you're one of those assholes that believes everything laid out in front of you, then you'd give it, it's day and court and we can all agree on what happens in the end.
Then again, you've shown in the past that you really like social justice aka mob rule. Fuck courts with that right?
Can confirm. They're trying to change browser settings in the installer. It wasn't there last week when I did an install on my work machines.
This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started, the gaslighting asshole.
Clinton did start it. Even far-left magazines and newspapers who aren't in the tank for Clinton can trace how Clinton ops in 2008, told investigative reporters that they should look into it. And many actually did, going as far as sending investigative teams to look into it. It was one of her campaign strategies.
Yeah. You've got no idea what you're talking about, what Clinton did was nothing short of criminal. What the people around here did, was nothing short of criminal. Going as far as pleading the 5th. What Trump has done is by far be a businessman and run with his mouth and actually listen to voters. Something that some politicians in the UK have done(which is why the brexit succeeded despite the politicians, the media, the political elite all saying "it's in the bag for us." In other cases, they decided to trot out the police and engage in police-state like activities like "paying visits" to people who post wrong think, and threatening them with hate speech if the police don't like what they're posting.
Don't worry, I'm sure he'll end up dead in a botched robbery, with two bullets to the back of his head and all of his possessions still on him.
Between the two, I'm personally enjoying the absolute and complete clusterfuck known as the Clinton campaign. If they're not trying to declare a war on memes, they have incompetent IT people who are trying to break the law or actually breaking the law.
Of course you do, this is what the free speech zealots seem to not understand. Just like you can't run into a theatre screaming fire when there isn't one, or yell bomb at an airport, or masturbate in front of kids, there are some restrictions on personal expression that are critical to a functioning society.
Once you accept that some things have to be restricted you are in the same boat as the rest of us.
The point, you missed it. Or do I need to use small words and explain it?
Keep in mind AC. That up until the Harper Government revoked S.13 of the HRC, you could be arrested fined, thrown in jail and your life ruined for unpopular speech. People like to rail against him, but he's done more to protect and defend speech then any previous government in Canada. While the Liberals have done the most to restrict it, that includes passing the CHRC, pushing provinces to implement their own version of it. The OHRC and AHRC's(Ontario and Alberta) had a 100% conviction rate until Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant successfully challenged them. Yeah, you read that right 100% conviction rate. Their crimes? Unpopular but factual speech against muslims.
HRC's are bad news. Here in Canada, the federal HRC aka CHRC was involved in multiple cases of going on fishing expeditions and creating hate speech against targets they don't like, in order to silence them permanently by either removing them from society(pushing for jail time) or bankrupting them. What else can you expect from a kangaroo court. This is the exact same thing people in the US can expect if it happens there.
As a Canadian I'm wholly against any form of "hate speech" laws. If you live in Canada, you can very quickly see who's favored by systems like this. You can also very quickly see if you're the "wrong type of person" just how little protection from that speech or discrimination you actually receive from it.
You need to stop reading the Internet and get out more. There more to life then not being allowed to call black people niggers. And I'm sure Canada an Australia are much better places for it.
You need to get out into real life, or perhaps come and visit us in Canada. The current government has pulled the same stuff as in the EU, criticizing Islam is bad. Very bad. You can't do that! I'm waiting for the RCMP to start doing early morning raids on peoples houses, just like they did in Germany for people who posted things which went against what the government believed in.
Let's get this clear, you don't create a good society by banning speech. You create a good society by having an open society that can challenge bad ideas, and shine a light on very shitty ones. When you live in a country like Canada which doesn't have free speech(and we don't, we have speech which is permitted under S.1 of the Charter), you learn very quickly who is more favored under a system like that. Right now it's Muslims and Indians(natives). It's the same reason why a Muslim can be standing on the corner and spouting actual hate speech and screaming "gas the Jews!" But if you said it, you can bet you'd be detained for a couple of hours while given a promise to appear notice for court.
You're right -- many of these are ridiculous. But, the onus is on you to show how the US is more restrictive than "just about any other western country on earth". I don't see it.
That's because you're right. All you need to do is look at us up here in Canada, and you'll quickly find out what restricted speech is like. Here we do not have protected speech, or freedom of speech. We have speech as permitted under S.1 of the Charter. We have hate speech laws too. An American can go stand on the corner and scream "gas the *insert group,* race war now!" if they wanted. In Canada, that's hate speech, incitement to cause harm to an identifiable group, and so on. Most Canadians would be looking at time or fines for that. I say most, because we do have a two tier justice system too.
Been known since the 1970's. All your international counter-terrorism stuff has covered it. It's even covered in the basic stuff they teach you at police colleges and has been since the 90's here in Canada along with domestic terrorism, there's something similar in larger police force colleges in the US. If anything the problem has gotten worse because there is simply so much traffic now. At the two busiest ports in Canada, we scan like 3% of containers using gamma ray radiography. I'd expect at ports in the US or China? Probably closer to 1%