This is the point where the conversation gets boring for me, so I'll just head on out now. I do thank you for providing much entertainment while I've been at my new contract waiting for somebody to give me work.
Doing the kind of mental damage to a girl that explaining sex to her in a very warped, vicious way could do is not imaginary. I'm not a "somebody think of the children" person and I'm not much a "mental anguish" person either, but blindly refusing to see any line no matter how ridiculous I go with it really illustrates what I think a lot of people have against Ron Paul's base, which is a shame because I really like that guy, but this kind of head-up-you-assery idealogical purity is just not rational. Free speech is very important, harrassment is easy to define and can be verbal.
If your argument is that the constitution doesn't allow it but you would support a harrassment/credible threat amendment of some kind I could get behind that line of thinking. This is just idiocy of the highest order though.
Right, because frankly what we need is a brewery to finally crack that case, but all of their engineers are locked up in zero-g refreshment projects instead of in medical school where they belong.
I'm not being naive, stop arguing what I'm not saying and fucking read.
IT IS A PROBLEM. But guess what? LIFE IS PROBLEMS! People can always say things about you that aren't true, dickshit shit eater who eats shit. Either address that point or shut the fuck up. What if its a job reference and your previous employer wants you back and hasn't told you yet? I'll tell you what, you miss the opportunity. Same thing on the internet, somebody finds something they don't like, they pass on you. Thats going to happen whether or fucking not after the fact somebody investigates. So you tell me why as a culture we should all just agree researching online through personal, anonymous blogs is stupid? If we try to police it, we give an implied validity to the bullshit that is out there. But please do go on about an adoption agency's practices, thats the real meat of this conversation.
And that applies to the "Scream loudly at little girls" scenario? Ok, thats fine, I just wanted you to fully illustrate and accept the conclusion of your logic so others will be able to see how hilariously retarded you are.
You can't protect everybody from every possible bad thing that can happen. What if the adoption agency interviews your friends and your ex-girlfriend who has hopes of getting back together says you split up because you hit her? What if you have sex and a girl says it was rape? What if? What if? What if?
I'm not saying its not a problem, but its an old problem ON THE INTERNET! and guess what? The answer is to teach people that the internet is full of information you can't trust. What if an anonymous poster says you're terrible in bed or have ED? Those aren't slander and can still happen. Govenrment isn't there to save you from every bad thing that can happen. If they were, then we would all be locked in rooms with food and shit tubes hooked up to us, and a pucket to aim our piss at to pass the time.
was the wrong word, but these cutesy URLs annoy me in the same way starting a comment in the subject annoys me. Use fields (or ccTLDs) the way they are supposed to be used.
And if you think so because you're reading the constitution very strictly, do you think that is the way it should be?
How is walking beside somebody screaming in their ear not free speech and the right to assemble peacefully? You didn't address my question, you just claimed me doing that was forcing somebody to (listen which isn't in the constitution anywhere so not applicable), but limiting my right to speak where you will hear it is making a law limiting free speech in your very, very literal interpretation.
I'm not even trying to debate the constitution, I want to know what you think is right. I'm a constitutionalist myself and I really struggle with fitting threats in to the framework. Slander is a prety straight forward case of "grow up, people say what they want, you can't control it". I've said so in a lower thread. You seem to be irrationally screaming "GET OFF MY FREE SPEECH!" without any thought in to the implications of all communication is protected communication, just "Its a right! I read that!"
That was intense. I'm glad you use a bunch of different IDEs, and clearly establishing your dev-wang length is important to you. I stand by the fact that Microsoft got to the party late even though new Android activations are happening every day. People use Android because thats what other people are using, the way people use iPhones because thats what people are using, the way people used iPods because thats what people were using. Its not ever feature based or we would have all been on Betamax and Facebook wouldn't be a household name.
The development community around Android, the recognition of "oh my friend has one of those!" and the same thing with iPhones plays a huge part in this. Xbox Live integration is pretty sweet, a lot of people like it and the achievement system and it integrates another communication protocol, specifically from my console to somebody else's phone. It gets in on the social aspect of stuff. Marketing should have seen the need for WP7 earlier and pushed hard for it, thats why its a marketing failure.
Have you seen or used a windows phone? Have you experienced the integration Microsoft has developed between all of their products? Its getting to be really awesome. I just wish WP7 came out a year and a half ago. Maybe then people would have bought it, there would be a market and dev community, people would use the integration with Xbox Live, new and expanded features would come out.. but it won't. We both agree on that, I dont' know why you decided I had to be talked down to about it like I have a dog in this fight because I develop with Visual Studio.
I'm sure its because you've got big fat dick and a lot of ladies' numbers in your android based phone.
I'm not on that bandwagon, in fact I just posted in a thread a little higher up indicating my feelings on it. I'm saying obviously there is a limit to free speech. Anonymous internet comments, as in comments here or in a forum, shouldn't be taken seriously. Its an overstep. The amount of people saying what they don't mean is too high. The internet is a place full of misinformation because its the equivalent of being able to search through all the bar conversations in America. 99% of what you're hearing is not at all true.
Now, if somebody is running a website of their own and has dedicated it to a threat that is different. But internet comments? Come on, that's dumb. Its not even about free speech, its about not lending validation to comments by policing them, because you will never police them well enough.
Everybody with a brain. The old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" thing. Threats are widely recognized to be a crime even though they may just be speech in the same way drawing a gun and chasing after somebody is a crime even though running with a gun isn't a crime. Harrassment is a crime. Its not illegal for me to call your house, but if I keep doing it in the middle of the night, maliciously invading your life that is a crime. Do you really think that all oratory noises are considered speech? And if you think so because you're reading the constitution very strictly, do you think that is the way it should be? I should be able to follow your daughter everywhere she goes, screaming profanity in her ear and telling her I'm going to split her vag in half?
You're right, thats why every hacker in the past 10 years has been caught and is now in prison. That's why we all got rid of public/insecure/WEP WiFi, proxies and large corporate subnets, and your IP changes based on the person touching the mouse.
WP7 is a flop, but not because its bad. In fact, its really good. The thing is everybody just bought their smartphones. They just got there late. From a development standpoint, its pretty fucking awesome. If I didn't already have a Motorola Droid, I would probably pick one of these up just to write software for it. Visual Studio remote debugging with the same codebase across Windows, Xbox360 and WP7 using C#.... what more could you want?
I said this right after a demo/preview of the platform "It'd be really sweet if anybody wanted it." That doesn't make it bad at all. And for the record, the reason the phone would be awesome is because of their non-monopoly products. XBox Live and Visual Studio which stand really well on their own merits. Face it, Microsoft has gone from a company of bad development to a company of bad marketing. If you didn't blindly hate them you would see that.
Thats unfortunate, and I understand the potential for that to happen. However, astroturfing is something people need to get familiar with because it extends way past slander. Product reviews, etc. I don't think the answer is to look at who's posting stuff after the fact, we should educate people on astroturfing and how to get reliable information online. Rumors existed before the internet, he-said-she-said conversations will never go out of style. People need to understand the nature of the internet and the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. The more we try to fight it, the more it will get in our way.
Slander should not apply to anonymous posters. The standard for what counts as slander ought to be the person is backing their statement with their own name. Anybody who believes the anonymous writings (not anonymous as in AC, but as in smelch, you have no idea who I am) of somebody online without going to some kind of official reference is a moron. We've all learned not to trust wikipedia, but you think anonymous postings can count as slandering somebody? No, if what is written online about you that way damages you that just falls under "people are stupid", and you don't want to work for stupid people anyway.
Extrapolate your own opinion.... do we search for people leaving threatening anonymous letters in somebody's mailbox, or is that protected free and anonymous speech?
Obviously internet comments are not the place to take any threat seriously though. They're like rap lyrics but less reliable.
Did you read my post? Do you understand "boo hoo collective bargaining rights" and "oh no, we're not allowing unfettered access to our country" and "privacy violations!" is not the same as "holy shit, did you see them weld that woman's pussy shut" or "They dragged that guy through the street throwing rocks at him because he spoke unfavorably about Allah!" You are just like the person I was responding to, living in your own world where since we have some flaws we're the same as every other country except Canada and Sweden.
And mugging people in the street, oh wait thats blacks.
What people don't seem to understand is that muslims control countries and rule them according to their laws, and those laws are contrary to basic human rights. If the pope was allowing people in Vatican City to shoot homosexuals, that would be equivalent to what people mean when they talk about the horrible things muslims do. Its hard to say "those are just the radicals" when its the people in government and people of that religion overwhelmingly support those parts of government. With christianity, as with anything, you get some crazies. However, those crazies are not in control of the government getting their crazy rules passed. This is because their belief is not widespread.
There are states that treat women and people in general like shit. Many of these governments are muslim and supported by muslims. That kind of government is vile and there is a sizable movement within the religion to spread their ways, as we would like to spread our ways to them. Now, just because two people disagree doesn't mean they're both right. We live in a world with a lot of different perspectives, but that doesn't mean there is no right and no wrong. Just because we have some flaws doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they want and we can't call them on it. Equating abortion clinic bombings to the kind of sick, twisted stuff that happens in muslim states, condoned and supported by the religion is just stupid. You are stupid. A person such as you should never open their mouth because every time you do it will betray just how idiotic your view of the world is and how extremely small your capacity for reasoning is.
Who even gives a shit about those kinds of things anyway? "Here are a bazillion pictures I took because everything has a camera on it and I want to KEEP THEM ALL!".... no, pictures aren't for that anymore. They're for isntant "here's what I did that you don't care about." Wanting to keep your facebook photos as an analog to classic photo albums is like equating your status updates to a diary. If she wants to keep them forever, she needs to make hard copies of them, duh.
1 out of every 1000 people will die from terrorist attacks? Thats just not true, but lets go with an extremely generous estimate of 1 out of every 10,000. As a UK male there is a 1.8 in 10,000 chance you will kill yourself. You're absolutely right, the threat of terrorism is just silly to handle with random spot-checks.
If you want to improve peoples lives with them big terrorism places aren't where you want them, you want them to prevent domestic, run-of-the-mill crimes in subway tunnels or something. Even then its still stupid, but at least you're fighting a real problem that way. "Oh no! Our big ass bomb didn't make it all the way inside the stadium!" probably isn't going to stop the boogey-man from blowing it up from the outside if he actually exists.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the point where the conversation gets boring for me, so I'll just head on out now. I do thank you for providing much entertainment while I've been at my new contract waiting for somebody to give me work.
If it starts at 500MB/s reads, how long does it stay that way before performance may begin to degrade (possibly, in some cases... maybe)?
Doing the kind of mental damage to a girl that explaining sex to her in a very warped, vicious way could do is not imaginary. I'm not a "somebody think of the children" person and I'm not much a "mental anguish" person either, but blindly refusing to see any line no matter how ridiculous I go with it really illustrates what I think a lot of people have against Ron Paul's base, which is a shame because I really like that guy, but this kind of head-up-you-assery idealogical purity is just not rational. Free speech is very important, harrassment is easy to define and can be verbal.
If your argument is that the constitution doesn't allow it but you would support a harrassment/credible threat amendment of some kind I could get behind that line of thinking. This is just idiocy of the highest order though.
Right, because frankly what we need is a brewery to finally crack that case, but all of their engineers are locked up in zero-g refreshment projects instead of in medical school where they belong.
Gross, you should take slabs of Java with you.... or pretty much anything other than VB.
I'm not being naive, stop arguing what I'm not saying and fucking read.
IT IS A PROBLEM. But guess what? LIFE IS PROBLEMS! People can always say things about you that aren't true, dickshit shit eater who eats shit. Either address that point or shut the fuck up. What if its a job reference and your previous employer wants you back and hasn't told you yet? I'll tell you what, you miss the opportunity. Same thing on the internet, somebody finds something they don't like, they pass on you. Thats going to happen whether or fucking not after the fact somebody investigates. So you tell me why as a culture we should all just agree researching online through personal, anonymous blogs is stupid? If we try to police it, we give an implied validity to the bullshit that is out there. But please do go on about an adoption agency's practices, thats the real meat of this conversation.
And that applies to the "Scream loudly at little girls" scenario? Ok, thats fine, I just wanted you to fully illustrate and accept the conclusion of your logic so others will be able to see how hilariously retarded you are.
You can't protect everybody from every possible bad thing that can happen. What if the adoption agency interviews your friends and your ex-girlfriend who has hopes of getting back together says you split up because you hit her? What if you have sex and a girl says it was rape? What if? What if? What if?
I'm not saying its not a problem, but its an old problem ON THE INTERNET! and guess what? The answer is to teach people that the internet is full of information you can't trust. What if an anonymous poster says you're terrible in bed or have ED? Those aren't slander and can still happen. Govenrment isn't there to save you from every bad thing that can happen. If they were, then we would all be locked in rooms with food and shit tubes hooked up to us, and a pucket to aim our piss at to pass the time.
was the wrong word, but these cutesy URLs annoy me in the same way starting a comment in the subject annoys me. Use fields (or ccTLDs) the way they are supposed to be used.
And if you think so because you're reading the constitution very strictly, do you think that is the way it should be?
How is walking beside somebody screaming in their ear not free speech and the right to assemble peacefully? You didn't address my question, you just claimed me doing that was forcing somebody to (listen which isn't in the constitution anywhere so not applicable), but limiting my right to speak where you will hear it is making a law limiting free speech in your very, very literal interpretation.
I'm not even trying to debate the constitution, I want to know what you think is right. I'm a constitutionalist myself and I really struggle with fitting threats in to the framework. Slander is a prety straight forward case of "grow up, people say what they want, you can't control it". I've said so in a lower thread. You seem to be irrationally screaming "GET OFF MY FREE SPEECH!" without any thought in to the implications of all communication is protected communication, just "Its a right! I read that!"
Dude, woah....
That was intense. I'm glad you use a bunch of different IDEs, and clearly establishing your dev-wang length is important to you. I stand by the fact that Microsoft got to the party late even though new Android activations are happening every day. People use Android because thats what other people are using, the way people use iPhones because thats what people are using, the way people used iPods because thats what people were using. Its not ever feature based or we would have all been on Betamax and Facebook wouldn't be a household name.
The development community around Android, the recognition of "oh my friend has one of those!" and the same thing with iPhones plays a huge part in this. Xbox Live integration is pretty sweet, a lot of people like it and the achievement system and it integrates another communication protocol, specifically from my console to somebody else's phone. It gets in on the social aspect of stuff. Marketing should have seen the need for WP7 earlier and pushed hard for it, thats why its a marketing failure.
Have you seen or used a windows phone? Have you experienced the integration Microsoft has developed between all of their products? Its getting to be really awesome. I just wish WP7 came out a year and a half ago. Maybe then people would have bought it, there would be a market and dev community, people would use the integration with Xbox Live, new and expanded features would come out.. but it won't. We both agree on that, I dont' know why you decided I had to be talked down to about it like I have a dog in this fight because I develop with Visual Studio.
I'm sure its because you've got big fat dick and a lot of ladies' numbers in your android based phone.
Sucks for the Libyans, but at least maybe these stupid US based companies using the Libyan TLD will get what's coming to them for abusing DNS.
I'm not on that bandwagon, in fact I just posted in a thread a little higher up indicating my feelings on it. I'm saying obviously there is a limit to free speech. Anonymous internet comments, as in comments here or in a forum, shouldn't be taken seriously. Its an overstep. The amount of people saying what they don't mean is too high. The internet is a place full of misinformation because its the equivalent of being able to search through all the bar conversations in America. 99% of what you're hearing is not at all true. Now, if somebody is running a website of their own and has dedicated it to a threat that is different. But internet comments? Come on, that's dumb. Its not even about free speech, its about not lending validation to comments by policing them, because you will never police them well enough.
Everybody with a brain. The old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" thing. Threats are widely recognized to be a crime even though they may just be speech in the same way drawing a gun and chasing after somebody is a crime even though running with a gun isn't a crime. Harrassment is a crime. Its not illegal for me to call your house, but if I keep doing it in the middle of the night, maliciously invading your life that is a crime. Do you really think that all oratory noises are considered speech? And if you think so because you're reading the constitution very strictly, do you think that is the way it should be? I should be able to follow your daughter everywhere she goes, screaming profanity in her ear and telling her I'm going to split her vag in half?
You're right, thats why every hacker in the past 10 years has been caught and is now in prison. That's why we all got rid of public/insecure/WEP WiFi, proxies and large corporate subnets, and your IP changes based on the person touching the mouse.
WP7 is a flop, but not because its bad. In fact, its really good. The thing is everybody just bought their smartphones. They just got there late. From a development standpoint, its pretty fucking awesome. If I didn't already have a Motorola Droid, I would probably pick one of these up just to write software for it. Visual Studio remote debugging with the same codebase across Windows, Xbox360 and WP7 using C#.... what more could you want?
I said this right after a demo/preview of the platform "It'd be really sweet if anybody wanted it." That doesn't make it bad at all. And for the record, the reason the phone would be awesome is because of their non-monopoly products. XBox Live and Visual Studio which stand really well on their own merits. Face it, Microsoft has gone from a company of bad development to a company of bad marketing. If you didn't blindly hate them you would see that.
Thats unfortunate, and I understand the potential for that to happen. However, astroturfing is something people need to get familiar with because it extends way past slander. Product reviews, etc. I don't think the answer is to look at who's posting stuff after the fact, we should educate people on astroturfing and how to get reliable information online. Rumors existed before the internet, he-said-she-said conversations will never go out of style. People need to understand the nature of the internet and the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. The more we try to fight it, the more it will get in our way.
Slander should not apply to anonymous posters. The standard for what counts as slander ought to be the person is backing their statement with their own name. Anybody who believes the anonymous writings (not anonymous as in AC, but as in smelch, you have no idea who I am) of somebody online without going to some kind of official reference is a moron. We've all learned not to trust wikipedia, but you think anonymous postings can count as slandering somebody? No, if what is written online about you that way damages you that just falls under "people are stupid", and you don't want to work for stupid people anyway.
Extrapolate your own opinion.... do we search for people leaving threatening anonymous letters in somebody's mailbox, or is that protected free and anonymous speech?
Obviously internet comments are not the place to take any threat seriously though. They're like rap lyrics but less reliable.
Did you read my post? Do you understand "boo hoo collective bargaining rights" and "oh no, we're not allowing unfettered access to our country" and "privacy violations!" is not the same as "holy shit, did you see them weld that woman's pussy shut" or "They dragged that guy through the street throwing rocks at him because he spoke unfavorably about Allah!" You are just like the person I was responding to, living in your own world where since we have some flaws we're the same as every other country except Canada and Sweden.
And mugging people in the street, oh wait thats blacks.
What people don't seem to understand is that muslims control countries and rule them according to their laws, and those laws are contrary to basic human rights. If the pope was allowing people in Vatican City to shoot homosexuals, that would be equivalent to what people mean when they talk about the horrible things muslims do. Its hard to say "those are just the radicals" when its the people in government and people of that religion overwhelmingly support those parts of government. With christianity, as with anything, you get some crazies. However, those crazies are not in control of the government getting their crazy rules passed. This is because their belief is not widespread.
There are states that treat women and people in general like shit. Many of these governments are muslim and supported by muslims. That kind of government is vile and there is a sizable movement within the religion to spread their ways, as we would like to spread our ways to them. Now, just because two people disagree doesn't mean they're both right. We live in a world with a lot of different perspectives, but that doesn't mean there is no right and no wrong. Just because we have some flaws doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they want and we can't call them on it. Equating abortion clinic bombings to the kind of sick, twisted stuff that happens in muslim states, condoned and supported by the religion is just stupid. You are stupid. A person such as you should never open their mouth because every time you do it will betray just how idiotic your view of the world is and how extremely small your capacity for reasoning is.
Who even gives a shit about those kinds of things anyway? "Here are a bazillion pictures I took because everything has a camera on it and I want to KEEP THEM ALL!".... no, pictures aren't for that anymore. They're for isntant "here's what I did that you don't care about." Wanting to keep your facebook photos as an analog to classic photo albums is like equating your status updates to a diary. If she wants to keep them forever, she needs to make hard copies of them, duh.
1 out of every 1000 people will die from terrorist attacks? Thats just not true, but lets go with an extremely generous estimate of 1 out of every 10,000. As a UK male there is a 1.8 in 10,000 chance you will kill yourself. You're absolutely right, the threat of terrorism is just silly to handle with random spot-checks.
If you want to improve peoples lives with them big terrorism places aren't where you want them, you want them to prevent domestic, run-of-the-mill crimes in subway tunnels or something. Even then its still stupid, but at least you're fighting a real problem that way. "Oh no! Our big ass bomb didn't make it all the way inside the stadium!" probably isn't going to stop the boogey-man from blowing it up from the outside if he actually exists.
Really? The joke of me using 95 far too long was that hard to grasp?
... perhaps... oh god no.... I'm just not funny. :-(
Project establish 16 years of nerd history has failed. Damn you and your tireless attention to detail.