Could somebody explain this? I'm guessing there's probably some kind of libertarian (maybe he's not libertarian, it's just that the smugness there screams libertarian) thing against unions, but I can't quite empathize enough to figure out what it is.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Honestly. So the international doctor conspiracy would've killed your friend if she'd checked off some boxes? Did they tell you that after the surgery? That's a pretty crappy fucking conspiracy.
I never get this. Why the fuck would a doctor do that? Do you think cops go around shooting guys that are on the donor list? Do you think firemen make sure to break your neck pulling you out the window if they get a look at the back of your driver's license? Fuck, are you going to start stalking the streets with a straight-razor if your kid brother needs a kidney?
Maybe doctors should stop the "hey, you died! heheh!" thing. Your friend never died, her heart stopped beating. This was probably caused by the doctors zapping her with electric spoons. Then her heart started beating again, probably with little, if any, help from the doctors. "Died on the table" is like going to Niagra Falls so you can say you visited another country. Technically true, but nobody but you cares.
The idea is that in his, the only people who get to download are shareholders in the company that bought the CD. Mp3.com was letting people who didn't buy anything listen to songs that mp3.com had bought. If you are mp3.com (as in a shareholder), then you did buy the CD. I still doubt it'll last long, but it's something nobody's tried yet.
What is interesting here is how if you play it right, you might get the RIAA to shoot down corporate personhood along with you. It's your best argument at least. They'd be trying to keep a company from copying mp3s for itself. Since [my non-lawyerly interpretation of] modern equal protection means you can't discriminate between corporations and individuals in the law, the only way for them to get you would be overturning Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific or just abolishing fair use rights for everybody. You just have to hope that fair use is a stronger precedent than some random contract dispute case from the 1800s. Even if they do find a nutty enough judge (or a big enough sack of Cash MoneyTM) to kill copying for personal use, I think you'll have a big enough freak-out to bring down some serious hurt down on the RIAA.
Good lord that's a crappy site. They manage to make flash fonts more eye-grating than KDE 2, but seriously, the fuck?
"Movies aren't the only form of Entertainment widely available on the Internet. Did you know that you can download the latest songs, play games online with a worldwide community, purchase books, the latest software and much, much more?"
I think somebody needs to remind these people what the point of that page was supposed to be. Maybe I'll give them a call after I use this here "Internet" (as seen on TV) to go pirate me some books, games, curly fries, cole slaw, and much, much more!!!
I think the best summary of their case is the fact that both of their examples of The Magic of Movies!!! are from the '70s. Why yes, I do remember the chills I got from Jaws. That's probably why I got so depressed after you people made a third goddamn Mummy movie. Wait, no, you put the head of a wrestler onto a giant flying scorpion. That'd reduce me to a blubbering wreck even if my viewing experience were limited to The Cable Guy, and for that matter, every goddamn movie since 1989.
Re:Good start, but not useful yet
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
Unless VMWare's taken up emulating nonexistant graphics servers since I last checked, I don't think it's going to be much help in this case.
It actually means "by your lady". By your lady... byourlady... bylady... blady... bloody. The British have a lot of speech impediments. Now, whatever the fuck "by your lady" means I don't have a clue. Apparently it's religious. It does fill the same hole as "fucking" though, since you can't say "wanking hell". That's just stupid.
*Crappy Madonna James Bond song loops around 60 times* "What hi what!" "NO!" "NO!" "Yesno!" "No what!" "Really NO!" "NO REALLY NO YEAH! "NOO!" "Oh-em-gee!" "Oh-em-gee no!" "NO!" "WAIT!!! Lemmie set off my ringtone and we can sing along to it oh-em-gee!" "Oh-em-gee I heard you in the row right in front of me just now! NO! We're on the same plane YESNO!! OH-EM-GEE LET'S SWITCH TO WALKIE-TALKIE MODE!" "OH-EM-GEE WALKIE-TALKIE MODE INTERFERES WITH THE COLLISION AVOIDANCE RADAR IT'S SO CUTE NOWHATOH-EM-GEE WE'RE GONNA DIE EL-OH-EL!"
The party in general hates Dean's guts. I'm not really sure if that's anything beyond that the party had just decided they wanted a Lieberman/Edwards kind of Republican-lite months ago. Dean is working from a fundamentally different place than the rest of the party. He's against gun control, which everybody's afraid is going to kill the soccer-mom vote for the party, even though Gore lost them to Bush in 2k. His campaign guys are mostly people that the higher-ups have been holding back for years. It'd be interesting if he manages to get nominated. He's not exactly jumping to shoot down the DMCA, but he's honestly your best chance at an anti-RIAA candidate. If you think Bush or Kerry or whoever is going to even recognize the acronym, you're deluding yourself.
Any other pro-gun people here that really, really hate these pro-2nd ammendment people? Every time I hear one of these nutcase tirades I wanna go out and ban something just to spite them.
I like guns, not as much as big, steel, phallic, non-chemically-assisted weapons, but I like them. I just hate people who think the second ammendment means something today. It's there to let us have a revolution. That's it. You don't see any "self-defense" ammendment. There's no hunting ammendment. There's no "shooting the cops when they break into your house by mistake is OK" ammendment. There's just a appropriately subtle protection of the ability to revolt. They don't wanna explicitly mention rebellion in the fucking constitution, just make sure it's not to tough.
Then we invented technology and now you can't have a violent revolution here. We have nuclear weapons sitting around and no strategy to deal with them in the event that we kill everybody in charge. Even if you don't worry about that, one AFB can still take down a few hundred thousand people armed with the largest weapons operable by a single person. Unless your neighborhood watch practices with satillite surveilence and directing fighter-bomber assaults on a regular basis, your revolution ain't never goin' nowhere. Give it up, for fuck's sake. We invented Ghandi to compensate for that problem years ago. If it ever gets bad enough that the gun nuts finally get inspired to start something, anything you do will just screw up the bargaining position the smart people were working on.
I think it's even easier than you say. This UN thingy looks like it's saying the world only uses 133,127 hectares for crops total, and the US (not even North America, just the USA) has 176,950 hectares of unused arable land. It certaintly seems like some random exodus from the rest of the world is possible, you'd just have to abolish golf for the motherfucking waste of space it is.
It's Freenet, for fuck's sake. It's so completely unreleated to roads in so many goddamn ways that the both of you are fucking idiots for even having the mental short-circuit that caused you to connect the two. Lay off the acid and come back to the real world where verbs and nouns are different and where people don't compare the action of using an automated switching system to a hammer on a regular basis.
You're right, but your concern isn't a idealistic one, it's a practical one. Freenet isn't practical. (If you've ever used it you'd know that) It's pure idealism. It's saying that free, anonymous speech is absolute. In the ideology Freenet comes from, responsibility doesn't come into the equation. If you can't subscribe to that, then there's no reason why you should be running Freenet. If you don't believe in the Freenet ideology, then you can't counter the risk you mention with the perverse pleasure of fighting The Man when you're right.
Why can there not be the option to censor yourself?
Because that defeats the whole purpose. If you can censor the kiddie porn, then the big Mao poster outside your window can pretty reasonably ask why you're not censoring the dissidents too. Half the point of Freenet is the unified front. If you force people have the option of accessing dissident propoganda and kiddie porn if they want the Debian ISOs and Matrix rips, then the dissidents and pedophiles are protected from anyone who believes that you should be able to upgrade or watch mad-crazy fight scenes in a country the MPAA hates too much to sell DVDs to.
If you dissagree with that, then you probably shouldn't use Freenet.
Once it's old news, (I think a few months, maybe it's sooner) the NYT makes you pay for the article. The NYT is complaining about Google caching those. You can access recent articles with the free reg, and the NYT doesn't care if Google caches those, but they want to stop people from going to the Google cache when they follow a year-old/. link and see the "purchase this article" page.
So... environmentalism is difficult to chew and bitter, while communism is sweet and delicious, so long as you spit out the anarchists, who otherwise cause bowel iritation?
I don't know how in the name of god you managed to get Bush and Kucinich within 10 points of each other, but I am awed and terribly, horribly frightened of you.
Slashdot Mirror
Could somebody explain this? I'm guessing there's probably some kind of libertarian (maybe he's not libertarian, it's just that the smugness there screams libertarian) thing against unions, but I can't quite empathize enough to figure out what it is.
I just feel this irrational need to try and counterbalance your random taunting of the 2nd biggest army on the planet.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Honestly. So the international doctor conspiracy would've killed your friend if she'd checked off some boxes? Did they tell you that after the surgery? That's a pretty crappy fucking conspiracy.
I never get this. Why the fuck would a doctor do that? Do you think cops go around shooting guys that are on the donor list? Do you think firemen make sure to break your neck pulling you out the window if they get a look at the back of your driver's license? Fuck, are you going to start stalking the streets with a straight-razor if your kid brother needs a kidney?
Maybe doctors should stop the "hey, you died! heheh!" thing. Your friend never died, her heart stopped beating. This was probably caused by the doctors zapping her with electric spoons. Then her heart started beating again, probably with little, if any, help from the doctors. "Died on the table" is like going to Niagra Falls so you can say you visited another country. Technically true, but nobody but you cares.
"Crafty" meaning "Hopeless", of course.
The idea is that in his, the only people who get to download are shareholders in the company that bought the CD. Mp3.com was letting people who didn't buy anything listen to songs that mp3.com had bought. If you are mp3.com (as in a shareholder), then you did buy the CD. I still doubt it'll last long, but it's something nobody's tried yet.
What is interesting here is how if you play it right, you might get the RIAA to shoot down corporate personhood along with you. It's your best argument at least. They'd be trying to keep a company from copying mp3s for itself. Since [my non-lawyerly interpretation of] modern equal protection means you can't discriminate between corporations and individuals in the law, the only way for them to get you would be overturning Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific or just abolishing fair use rights for everybody. You just have to hope that fair use is a stronger precedent than some random contract dispute case from the 1800s. Even if they do find a nutty enough judge (or a big enough sack of Cash MoneyTM) to kill copying for personal use, I think you'll have a big enough freak-out to bring down some serious hurt down on the RIAA.
In Soviet Russia, the announcement services the public.
Or else it's The People. Do communists have any public? Maybe there's a Public.
I think the best summary of their case is the fact that both of their examples of The Magic of Movies!!! are from the '70s. Why yes, I do remember the chills I got from Jaws. That's probably why I got so depressed after you people made a third goddamn Mummy movie. Wait, no, you put the head of a wrestler onto a giant flying scorpion. That'd reduce me to a blubbering wreck even if my viewing experience were limited to The Cable Guy, and for that matter, every goddamn movie since 1989.
Unless VMWare's taken up emulating nonexistant graphics servers since I last checked, I don't think it's going to be much help in this case.
It actually means "by your lady". By your lady... byourlady... bylady... blady... bloody. The British have a lot of speech impediments. Now, whatever the fuck "by your lady" means I don't have a clue. Apparently it's religious. It does fill the same hole as "fucking" though, since you can't say "wanking hell". That's just stupid.
I think it's a kind of test tube.
Do we have the necissary 2/3 majority of hatin' to hate him in addition to his game?
Too coherent, more like:
*Crappy Madonna James Bond song loops around 60 times*
"What hi what!"
"NO!"
"NO!"
"Yesno!"
"No what!"
"Really NO!"
"NO REALLY NO YEAH!
"NOO!"
"Oh-em-gee!"
"Oh-em-gee no!"
"NO!"
"WAIT!!! Lemmie set off my ringtone and we can sing along to it oh-em-gee!"
"Oh-em-gee I heard you in the row right in front of me just now! NO! We're on the same plane YESNO!! OH-EM-GEE LET'S SWITCH TO WALKIE-TALKIE MODE!"
"OH-EM-GEE WALKIE-TALKIE MODE INTERFERES WITH THE COLLISION AVOIDANCE RADAR IT'S SO CUTE NOWHATOH-EM-GEE WE'RE GONNA DIE EL-OH-EL!"
Hint: Dean!=Democrats.
The party in general hates Dean's guts. I'm not really sure if that's anything beyond that the party had just decided they wanted a Lieberman/Edwards kind of Republican-lite months ago. Dean is working from a fundamentally different place than the rest of the party. He's against gun control, which everybody's afraid is going to kill the soccer-mom vote for the party, even though Gore lost them to Bush in 2k. His campaign guys are mostly people that the higher-ups have been holding back for years. It'd be interesting if he manages to get nominated. He's not exactly jumping to shoot down the DMCA, but he's honestly your best chance at an anti-RIAA candidate. If you think Bush or Kerry or whoever is going to even recognize the acronym, you're deluding yourself.
Any other pro-gun people here that really, really hate these pro-2nd ammendment people? Every time I hear one of these nutcase tirades I wanna go out and ban something just to spite them.
I like guns, not as much as big, steel, phallic, non-chemically-assisted weapons, but I like them. I just hate people who think the second ammendment means something today. It's there to let us have a revolution. That's it. You don't see any "self-defense" ammendment. There's no hunting ammendment. There's no "shooting the cops when they break into your house by mistake is OK" ammendment. There's just a appropriately subtle protection of the ability to revolt. They don't wanna explicitly mention rebellion in the fucking constitution, just make sure it's not to tough.
Then we invented technology and now you can't have a violent revolution here. We have nuclear weapons sitting around and no strategy to deal with them in the event that we kill everybody in charge. Even if you don't worry about that, one AFB can still take down a few hundred thousand people armed with the largest weapons operable by a single person. Unless your neighborhood watch practices with satillite surveilence and directing fighter-bomber assaults on a regular basis, your revolution ain't never goin' nowhere. Give it up, for fuck's sake. We invented Ghandi to compensate for that problem years ago. If it ever gets bad enough that the gun nuts finally get inspired to start something, anything you do will just screw up the bargaining position the smart people were working on.
Because when these dogfight it looks cool. When these dogfight, it looks like squid fucking.
Just park your Hummer somewhere and live in that thing. The glove box of the motherfucker's bigger than my freshman-year dorm room.
I think it's even easier than you say. This UN thingy looks like it's saying the world only uses 133,127 hectares for crops total, and the US (not even North America, just the USA) has 176,950 hectares of unused arable land. It certaintly seems like some random exodus from the rest of the world is possible, you'd just have to abolish golf for the motherfucking waste of space it is.
Nice, an even worse analogy.
It's Freenet, for fuck's sake. It's so completely unreleated to roads in so many goddamn ways that the both of you are fucking idiots for even having the mental short-circuit that caused you to connect the two. Lay off the acid and come back to the real world where verbs and nouns are different and where people don't compare the action of using an automated switching system to a hammer on a regular basis.
You're right, but your concern isn't a idealistic one, it's a practical one. Freenet isn't practical. (If you've ever used it you'd know that) It's pure idealism. It's saying that free, anonymous speech is absolute. In the ideology Freenet comes from, responsibility doesn't come into the equation. If you can't subscribe to that, then there's no reason why you should be running Freenet. If you don't believe in the Freenet ideology, then you can't counter the risk you mention with the perverse pleasure of fighting The Man when you're right.
I can't say that I'm for that sort of an absolutist interpretation of the notion of "free speech".
Then I hate you. Sorry.
Why can there not be the option to censor yourself?
Because that defeats the whole purpose. If you can censor the kiddie porn, then the big Mao poster outside your window can pretty reasonably ask why you're not censoring the dissidents too. Half the point of Freenet is the unified front. If you force people have the option of accessing dissident propoganda and kiddie porn if they want the Debian ISOs and Matrix rips, then the dissidents and pedophiles are protected from anyone who believes that you should be able to upgrade or watch mad-crazy fight scenes in a country the MPAA hates too much to sell DVDs to.
If you dissagree with that, then you probably shouldn't use Freenet.
And some of us are sane.
Once it's old news, (I think a few months, maybe it's sooner) the NYT makes you pay for the article. The NYT is complaining about Google caching those. You can access recent articles with the free reg, and the NYT doesn't care if Google caches those, but they want to stop people from going to the Google cache when they follow a year-old /. link and see the "purchase this article" page.
So... environmentalism is difficult to chew and bitter, while communism is sweet and delicious, so long as you spit out the anarchists, who otherwise cause bowel iritation?
http://www.kucinich.us/
I don't know how in the name of god you managed to get Bush and Kucinich within 10 points of each other, but I am awed and terribly, horribly frightened of you.