How do I know, because if you did you would know what it's like to almost be taken out by some complete dingbat talking on the phone and not watching where he's bloody well driving.
He doesn't share your opinion so therefore he must not have a license? Or, perhaps, he has a license but doesn't share your opinion.
And a "couple of morons with bad habits"? OK, hardly anyone -- statistically speaking -- commits murder. Just a few n'er-do-wells. Really don't need a law for such an unlikely thing. Right?
I'd say go after the people who hurt others. I don't think you should ban things just because a few people abuse them.
To me anyway the term nanny state should be reserved for use in cases where innocent bystanders are not dying.
I disagree. I don't believe in perfect solutions, and I don't believe in banning something simply because a few people abuse it (even if a few innocent bystanders die). I won't claim to know how many people really do die from using a cell phone while driving, but I was speaking in general. I'd say it's a nanny state if they ban something just because a few people use it and get hurt/hurt other people.
Silence. Here's how it is: I don't believe that version numbers are important. I mean, sure, importance is subjective, but my opinion overrides yours for some reason. Therefore, we should remove version numbers for absolutely no reason so that people with certain circumstances won't know which version is which. It's a good idea, and if you believe that it is not, then your opinion is wrong!
I don't think locking a wall will do much good. They have plenty of other places on the internet to post "baseless accusations and speculation." Really, they're just penalizing everyone because they believe that a few people are idiots.
That's too bad. I'd rather have them be more difficult to remove than let them take the easy way out. And I doubt that there would be a time when they needed removal, anyway. But, if there was, then getting the necessary amount of support would be required. I don't think there's anything bad about that.
Although some may feel you should be able to say whatever you want, you would be wrong.
To me, that appears as if he's saying that if someone believes that people should be able to say whatever they want without consequence, they would be wrong for thinking that. He mentions feelings and opinions, and then mentions that they're wrong.
since he's talking specifically about society in his post, so I can't imagine why you'd miss
But he didn't specifically mention that, so I just interpreted it as he wrote it. The fact that he mentioned society doesn't necessarily mean that that is what he meant.
I don't know about that. Letting them make exceptions as they please (instead of creating an amendment or going through the proper procedures) isn't wise, in my opinion.
Freedom of Speech typically does not permit incitement to violence.
Actually, if the law simply said that citizens had "freedom of speech" and listed no exceptions, I'd say that would mean absolute freedom of speech. The sole statement "freedom of speech," to me, implies absolutely free speech (but the law can just list exceptions).
Actually, look at it as if they don't charge you more for features you didn't want or need?
Yes, but the features were already made and there before they locked them down, correct? Some people may be against such practices (and believe that the only thing is helps do is artificially lower the price).
Actually, no. The only way to enforce code sharing is via the GPL, and thus copyright. Without copyright, nobody would be forced to share their code, even if they took it from someone else.
Technically, that's probably true, but if copyright was truly gone, there probably wouldn't be much point in not sharing the code to begin with.
Well, someone that finds the idea of crippling the product (because everything is already done, including the extra features that you have to pay for) just to make them pay more later for something that's already done but locked away could find it "wrong." Or did I misunderstand something?
Having to constantly add new conditions to your invented scenario is generally a good sign that not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, but you're unwilling to listen to anyone else's arguments
Do you have proof that one leads to the other (that adding new conditions to a scenario not only means that you have no idea what you're talking about, but it also means that you're unwilling to listen to anyone else's arguments)? Not only that, but I change my scenario as needed so that it looks like it could possibly happen in a case where they didn't have any choice but to use a gun. Unlikely, but probably not impossible (unless you want to prove that it is). That was my goal all along.
despite the fact that there are a number of people pointing out why what you're saying runs contrary to what any expert on self defense would tell you
A lot of people saying something doesn't make it true. Not only that, but for some reason, people have been unable to see that I intended this to be nothing more than an imaginary scenario that I felt was unlikely. As in, at the last moment, they decided not to kill the person (or, at least, they aimed the gun elsewhere to prevent themselves from shoot).
I did not intend state that this is something that I'd do. I intended to state that there are certain situations where I wouldn't really blame the person if they used a gun but decided not to kill the assailant. If they happened, that is. That's it.
What part of the obvious contradiction of attempting to use a lethal weapon for a non-lethal purpose is unclear to you?
That would be true if it were impossible to shoot someone with a gun and not kill them instantly, but, as far as I know, that isn't true.
Again someone assumes that because I've created an imaginary scenario, I must act or want to act like the person in the scenario. For what it's worth, I'd probably kill the assailant without feeling anything at all. I merely came up with a scenario to try to counter someone's claim that you're wrong for using a gun and not killing someone (even if, at the last moment, you just couldn't do it).
Slashdot Mirror
How do I know, because if you did you would know what it's like to almost be taken out by some complete dingbat talking on the phone and not watching where he's bloody well driving.
He doesn't share your opinion so therefore he must not have a license? Or, perhaps, he has a license but doesn't share your opinion.
And a "couple of morons with bad habits"? OK, hardly anyone -- statistically speaking -- commits murder. Just a few n'er-do-wells. Really don't need a law for such an unlikely thing. Right?
I'd say go after the people who hurt others. I don't think you should ban things just because a few people abuse them.
To me anyway the term nanny state should be reserved for use in cases where innocent bystanders are not dying.
I disagree. I don't believe in perfect solutions, and I don't believe in banning something simply because a few people abuse it (even if a few innocent bystanders die). I won't claim to know how many people really do die from using a cell phone while driving, but I was speaking in general. I'd say it's a nanny state if they ban something just because a few people use it and get hurt/hurt other people.
This is a state, not the US congress.
That's true, but what of the 14th amendment?
That happened to me as well (I use Opera). I just reset the layout and everything seemed to return.
Silence. Here's how it is: I don't believe that version numbers are important. I mean, sure, importance is subjective, but my opinion overrides yours for some reason. Therefore, we should remove version numbers for absolutely no reason so that people with certain circumstances won't know which version is which. It's a good idea, and if you believe that it is not, then your opinion is wrong!
I don't think locking a wall will do much good. They have plenty of other places on the internet to post "baseless accusations and speculation." Really, they're just penalizing everyone because they believe that a few people are idiots.
That's too bad. I'd rather have them be more difficult to remove than let them take the easy way out. And I doubt that there would be a time when they needed removal, anyway. But, if there was, then getting the necessary amount of support would be required. I don't think there's anything bad about that.
Although some may feel you should be able to say whatever you want, you would be wrong.
To me, that appears as if he's saying that if someone believes that people should be able to say whatever they want without consequence, they would be wrong for thinking that. He mentions feelings and opinions, and then mentions that they're wrong.
since he's talking specifically about society in his post, so I can't imagine why you'd miss
But he didn't specifically mention that, so I just interpreted it as he wrote it. The fact that he mentioned society doesn't necessarily mean that that is what he meant.
Which probably is a good thing.
I don't know about that. Letting them make exceptions as they please (instead of creating an amendment or going through the proper procedures) isn't wise, in my opinion.
Although some may feel you should be able to say whatever you want, you would be wrong.
What? They'd be wrong for having a preference? How does that work?
Freedom of Speech typically does not permit incitement to violence.
Actually, if the law simply said that citizens had "freedom of speech" and listed no exceptions, I'd say that would mean absolute freedom of speech. The sole statement "freedom of speech," to me, implies absolutely free speech (but the law can just list exceptions).
Actually, look at it as if they don't charge you more for features you didn't want or need?
Yes, but the features were already made and there before they locked them down, correct? Some people may be against such practices (and believe that the only thing is helps do is artificially lower the price).
Oh, right. I guess I was just assuming that if copyright was abolished, we probably wouldn't be using money anymore.
Actually, no. The only way to enforce code sharing is via the GPL, and thus copyright. Without copyright, nobody would be forced to share their code, even if they took it from someone else.
Technically, that's probably true, but if copyright was truly gone, there probably wouldn't be much point in not sharing the code to begin with.
And everyone here thinks the exact same way.
I wonder how much code the original authors had stolen from them? It's gone forever unless they make Hamstersoft give it back!
Well, someone that finds the idea of crippling the product (because everything is already done, including the extra features that you have to pay for) just to make them pay more later for something that's already done but locked away could find it "wrong." Or did I misunderstand something?
Your choice who you do business with or work for.
Which doesn't exempt them from criticism.
Having to constantly add new conditions to your invented scenario is generally a good sign that not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, but you're unwilling to listen to anyone else's arguments
Do you have proof that one leads to the other (that adding new conditions to a scenario not only means that you have no idea what you're talking about, but it also means that you're unwilling to listen to anyone else's arguments)? Not only that, but I change my scenario as needed so that it looks like it could possibly happen in a case where they didn't have any choice but to use a gun. Unlikely, but probably not impossible (unless you want to prove that it is). That was my goal all along.
despite the fact that there are a number of people pointing out why what you're saying runs contrary to what any expert on self defense would tell you
A lot of people saying something doesn't make it true. Not only that, but for some reason, people have been unable to see that I intended this to be nothing more than an imaginary scenario that I felt was unlikely. As in, at the last moment, they decided not to kill the person (or, at least, they aimed the gun elsewhere to prevent themselves from shoot).
I did not intend state that this is something that I'd do. I intended to state that there are certain situations where I wouldn't really blame the person if they used a gun but decided not to kill the assailant. If they happened, that is. That's it.
What part of the obvious contradiction of attempting to use a lethal weapon for a non-lethal purpose is unclear to you?
That would be true if it were impossible to shoot someone with a gun and not kill them instantly, but, as far as I know, that isn't true.
Yes. It doesn't exist because we currently can't detect it! I know this because I said so.
Since "evil" is (in my opinion) subjective to begin with, corporations can indeed seem "evil" to certain people. And they're not necessarily wrong.
And, really, if you're sent to prison because of that, then I think something is terribly wrong.
Again someone assumes that because I've created an imaginary scenario, I must act or want to act like the person in the scenario. For what it's worth, I'd probably kill the assailant without feeling anything at all. I merely came up with a scenario to try to counter someone's claim that you're wrong for using a gun and not killing someone (even if, at the last moment, you just couldn't do it).
I'd say it's more of a potential loss of potential profit than anything else.