To me, this doesn't quite make the level necessary to be called "conspiracy." It's, unfortunately, just business as usual in both politics and the business world.
You'll have to forgive me if you find my stance offensive...
I don't find your stance personally offensive, I just find it incredibly arrogant.
As I mentioned once, and I will reiterate here, I am not a reality TV fan. But to generalize like you have, to say that an intelligent person can't have mindless escapes like that, is just ridiculous. To generalize like that (which we are all guilty of at one time or another, of course) shows a complete lack of critical thought. Like that t-shirt sold by The Onion says, stereotypes are a real time saver, aren't they?
You also talk about the negative effect that reality TV has on a person's priorities... I find that statement interesting from someone who is so up in arms over this issue and wasting all this time bitching about it on Slashdot.
If you don't like reality TV, you don't have to watch it. If you dont like idle.slashdot.org, then you don't have to go to that section. If you don't like that Slashdot has idle, then you don't have to come here.
Reality TV [has its] place in the life of an intellectual.
Let me see. What's the best way to phrase this?
No, no it doesn't.
Wow, I'm sorry that not everyone's tastes line up with yours. I didn't know that to be considered an intellectual everyone has to fall into some narrow regime of likes and dislikes. And this is coming from someone who personally hates reality TV and the like.
Anyone who thinks this narrowly can't be taken seriously as the intellectual that they think they are. To sum up, get off your high horse.
The mods here just have a strict anti-"yo mama" jokes stance. Seriously, lighten up.
Also, declaring your post "insightful" automatically voids it as insightful. It's like a guy who goes around telling people he's cool. Don't be that guy.
How do you know if you have zero incentive to pay until you've seen it? "Oh, this movie might be shitty, so I sure as hell am not gonna pay for it."
If you have that little faith in movie quality then just don't bother in the first place. Or do some research and read some reviews before making your decision.
Normally, I would pirate a movie because it's free, has no DRM, and is available at any time (even while the movie is still playing in theaters).
And you think this is OK because...
Then when it came out on DVD or Blu-ray later, I would buy it and give the filmmaker their fair cut (I'm not not looking to rip them off, I just want a copy of the movie to play at home).
Ah, ok, well gee, that makes it all better. I suppose in the end, no harm, no foul, right? But how about all those people who just do step 1 of your process, but not step 2? Or how about the movies you pirate but decide, nahhhh, this one I'm not gonna buy...
This is one of those debates I find fun because pretty much everyone is wrong. If you're getting something for free that you normally have to pay for, how is that not illegal?
On the other hand, I don't really care for the *AA's "shock and awe" style of litigation, nor do I care for their questionably legal (to put it generously) tactics (e.g. Media Defender).
...that Tor is in and of itself not secure enough. Any traffic passing over it needs intermediary obfuscation of origination and destination of traffic as well as encryption of traffic by the origination and destination separate from the Tor network similar to anonymous remailer chains.
Tor does encrypt data passing through the network, and it does obfuscate the source and destination... That's kind of the whole point. But unless the traffic is inherently encrypted (e.g. SSL), the exit node has to spit out unencrypted data, otherwise the final destination would have no idea as to what it was receiving.
I love it when people declare things "dead" just because they want them to be. Just like you always see with MS or any other "big name" that's declined from their top spot. Sure, they're not what they used to be, and probably never will be again, but that doesn't mean they're disappearing anytime soon.
While I dislike the action, it gives Google (and ever other major corporation) a reason to care about my privacy rights. Hate the means; love the ends.
Well, it gives Google and companies like them reason to care about their privacy rights. If you're lucky "trade secrets" will be threatened and your privacy will be protected as a convenient side effect.
To me it felt more like the word "geek" was included just to justify it being on Slashdot and fend off some of the inevitable "WTF is this doing on Slashdot?" Posts. Both of which would be stupid, since this is science and technology related -- neither of which are off-topic here.
"Geek" is such a nebulous term anyway. Anyone with sufficient interest in something can be considered a geek. Of course, around here, the word does have a certain connotation.
If you don't love writing code so much that you want to do it when you get home, maybe you just shouldn't be writing code.
That's great when it works out that way for a person. Not everyone is so lucky, and many (probably most) have other interests and ways they want to spend their time outside of work, even when they like or love their jobs. I think if you're doing a job you enjoy, that's great. It doesn't have to be your hobby too. If it is, though, more power to ya.
What sucks is for the people who have jobs they truly hate. But in some cases they may be limited for some valid reason. Or they're willing to work a job they hate just for the money. Or some other reason. Everyone has different goals, different interests, different priorities, different reasons. And there are always compromises in life.
I stand at least partly corrected then... Although still not sure they would release code like what is running the Mars lander. On the other hand, what would anyone do with that code if it was available? I suppose there could be some homebrew interplanetary lander projects out there...:)
And for anyone else initially confused and unwilling to click links, the reference to SPICE in parent's post isn't about the circuit simulator!
Slashdot Mirror
To me, this doesn't quite make the level necessary to be called "conspiracy." It's, unfortunately, just business as usual in both politics and the business world.
You'll have to forgive me if you find my stance offensive...
I don't find your stance personally offensive, I just find it incredibly arrogant.
As I mentioned once, and I will reiterate here, I am not a reality TV fan. But to generalize like you have, to say that an intelligent person can't have mindless escapes like that, is just ridiculous. To generalize like that (which we are all guilty of at one time or another, of course) shows a complete lack of critical thought. Like that t-shirt sold by The Onion says, stereotypes are a real time saver, aren't they?
You also talk about the negative effect that reality TV has on a person's priorities... I find that statement interesting from someone who is so up in arms over this issue and wasting all this time bitching about it on Slashdot.
If you don't like reality TV, you don't have to watch it. If you dont like idle.slashdot.org, then you don't have to go to that section. If you don't like that Slashdot has idle, then you don't have to come here.
Let me see. What's the best way to phrase this?
No, no it doesn't.
Wow, I'm sorry that not everyone's tastes line up with yours. I didn't know that to be considered an intellectual everyone has to fall into some narrow regime of likes and dislikes. And this is coming from someone who personally hates reality TV and the like.
Anyone who thinks this narrowly can't be taken seriously as the intellectual that they think they are. To sum up, get off your high horse.
The mods here just have a strict anti-"yo mama" jokes stance. Seriously, lighten up.
Also, declaring your post "insightful" automatically voids it as insightful. It's like a guy who goes around telling people he's cool. Don't be that guy.
Our fine Italian friends can still access TPB at labaia.org.
Except for the people who read that as "labia.org" and end up someplace completely different, although maybe not entirely disappointing to them...
... in 25 years, your body-art will be as timely as the "Primos Rules" tattoo I have.
Is that because "Primus" was misspelled, or because you just aren't as big a fan of the band anymore? :)
When I see the look on his face, I'm pretty sure he knows he isn't tough, and that fact was just starting to sink in as that picture was taken!
I see your retarded old cliché and raise you a human right: punishment should be proportional to the crime. Did he kill anyone? Did he maim anyone? Did he steal anything? No, no and no, so why should he be punished more than someone who did?
Get off your high horse until he's actually been convicted and punished, if indeed he is.
How do you know if you have zero incentive to pay until you've seen it? "Oh, this movie might be shitty, so I sure as hell am not gonna pay for it."
If you have that little faith in movie quality then just don't bother in the first place. Or do some research and read some reviews before making your decision.
Normally, I would pirate a movie because it's free, has no DRM, and is available at any time (even while the movie is still playing in theaters).
And you think this is OK because...
Then when it came out on DVD or Blu-ray later, I would buy it and give the filmmaker their fair cut (I'm not not looking to rip them off, I just want a copy of the movie to play at home).
Ah, ok, well gee, that makes it all better. I suppose in the end, no harm, no foul, right? But how about all those people who just do step 1 of your process, but not step 2? Or how about the movies you pirate but decide, nahhhh, this one I'm not gonna buy...
This is one of those debates I find fun because pretty much everyone is wrong. If you're getting something for free that you normally have to pay for, how is that not illegal?
On the other hand, I don't really care for the *AA's "shock and awe" style of litigation, nor do I care for their questionably legal (to put it generously) tactics (e.g. Media Defender).
Fish taco?
Nah. Pink taco
I hate explaining the joke, but those two are redundant.
Considering that this is from the "pulling-out-doesn't-sound-manly dept." I think the editor was all too happy to play along.
Timothy may also be getting an email shortly from Taco.
So my response is: wait for an announcement elsewhere.
You mean like the announcement currently at the top of Apache's homepage?
... the rest of the country just focuses on the negative.
oh, and go wings!
Looks like you choose to just focus on the negative too ;)
Actually, one of my favorite t-shirts out there reads "Detroit: Where the weak are killed and eaten."
...that Tor is in and of itself not secure enough. Any traffic passing over it needs intermediary obfuscation of origination and destination of traffic as well as encryption of traffic by the origination and destination separate from the Tor network similar to anonymous remailer chains.
Tor does encrypt data passing through the network, and it does obfuscate the source and destination... That's kind of the whole point. But unless the traffic is inherently encrypted (e.g. SSL), the exit node has to spit out unencrypted data, otherwise the final destination would have no idea as to what it was receiving.
This law has been getting beaten down for years!
I love it when people declare things "dead" just because they want them to be. Just like you always see with MS or any other "big name" that's declined from their top spot. Sure, they're not what they used to be, and probably never will be again, but that doesn't mean they're disappearing anytime soon.
While I dislike the action, it gives Google (and ever other major corporation) a reason to care about my privacy rights. Hate the means; love the ends.
Well, it gives Google and companies like them reason to care about their privacy rights. If you're lucky "trade secrets" will be threatened and your privacy will be protected as a convenient side effect.
$ make dwarf_planet
make: *** No rule to make target `dwarf_planet'. Stop.
Alright, well, that doesn't help at all. Maybe this?
To me it felt more like the word "geek" was included just to justify it being on Slashdot and fend off some of the inevitable "WTF is this doing on Slashdot?" Posts. Both of which would be stupid, since this is science and technology related -- neither of which are off-topic here.
"Geek" is such a nebulous term anyway. Anyone with sufficient interest in something can be considered a geek. Of course, around here, the word does have a certain connotation.
If you don't love writing code so much that you want to do it when you get home, maybe you just shouldn't be writing code.
That's great when it works out that way for a person. Not everyone is so lucky, and many (probably most) have other interests and ways they want to spend their time outside of work, even when they like or love their jobs. I think if you're doing a job you enjoy, that's great. It doesn't have to be your hobby too. If it is, though, more power to ya.
What sucks is for the people who have jobs they truly hate. But in some cases they may be limited for some valid reason. Or they're willing to work a job they hate just for the money. Or some other reason. Everyone has different goals, different interests, different priorities, different reasons. And there are always compromises in life.
As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.
I stand at least partly corrected then... Although still not sure they would release code like what is running the Mars lander. On the other hand, what would anyone do with that code if it was available? I suppose there could be some homebrew interplanetary lander projects out there... :)
And for anyone else initially confused and unwilling to click links, the reference to SPICE in parent's post isn't about the circuit simulator!
Maybe because it's freaking NASA?
Wrong twitter... The twitter he's referring to is a fairly well known Slashole who uses multiple accounts to spread his mostly anti-MS agenda.
I was going to use a mod point here but there's no "+1 Probably True" option.