In terms of content, you can say whatever the fuck you like about me.
Cool, so I can put up a webpage alleging that you are a paedophile then?
Despite what some loudmouths on Internet may proclaim, there are forms of speech that are damaging and therefore infringing on other people's rights. A government does have a legitimate interest in having those forms of speech curtailed, as much as it has an interest in having harmful physical acts like assault and battery curtailed.
Harassment, slander and libel, direct incitement to violence? It is up to the Frea Speach advocates to defend why these should be allowed, not for the rest of us to why we shouldn't have to put up with this in a civilised society.
Naah. The poster is samzenpus, that ought to give you a hint: this is part of the ongoing neo-con rewrite of history to make them out to be the good guys, and to always have been the good guys.
And given that you just blindly repeated the misogynistic lies about Zoe Quinn, I think you just proved GP's point.
To stay with the observable facts: there is absolutely no proof that Zoe slept around to get good reviews. There has been no positive article on her work that can be directly attributed to her relationship.
And that Gamergate was born on this lie and acting as if they care about journalistic integrity, while staying mostly silent on 'Shadows of Mordor' tells a spectator exactly what the priorities of Gamergate are: shutting up the uppity women.
No. Once they invaded Poland, they were doomed from the start.
With the state of their Navy, Air Force and operational doctrine, they had nothing to force Britain to capitulate. Churchill put his finger on it when he said "Hitler knows he has to break us in this island or lose the war". Germany had no means to succesfully invade and conquer Britain. At best approximation they had the forces to force a small beachhead, and be thrown back.
Then there is the fact that the Molotov-von Ribbentrop pact was a marriage of convenience. While Stalin may have been complacent enough to disregard a German breaking of the pact, there is no way there would not eventually have been a war between two ideologies who were fundamentally opposed to each other. With Nazi Germany bleeding out in a campaign against Britain and the US (and a sustained push against Britain would have brought in the US), the temptation to open a second front and grab most of Eastern Europe would have been too great
Any way you look at it, unless you have Wehrmacht fanboi goggles, the strategic situation had always to have been in Germany's disfavour.
On the server side when admining hundreds or thousands of machines, troubleshooting a bloated needlessly complex system wastes precious time.
Yup. That's why the major distros are all switching away from SysV init to systemd. Because the alternative is to continue with a Rube Goldbergish mess of shell scripts with no proper event-based activation nor decent process monitoring.
I am most definitely not the only one fed up with chasing Heisenbugs in a maze of twisty little shell scripts, all alike.
Oh that poor Verizon, can't just exploit its customers like so many sheep to the slaughter, what is this world coming to.
Samzenpus is really trying to turn this place into FoxSlash, isn't he? This some of the most sycophantic corporate-asslicking prose I've seen here so far.
Rather raises the question of why we went from devomax from full-independence-or-nothing in the space of twenty-four months.
No it does not. For fucks sake, I'm a Dutchman, I don't follow the UK news daily, and even I know that it was the Unionists who insisted on a two-alternative referendum. Salmond as negotiator offered Devo-Max as a possibility and was shot down.
What is it with you guys? Is reading and checking facts for yourself really that sodding hard?
I don't who taught you to read, but even across the North Sea it's obvious that it is Better Together, not the Yes campaign, who are threatening a nasty vicious divorce.
And second, it's an entire Yes campaign. It's not just the SNP. If even I can get that from here in the Netherlands, what's your excuse?
Well, yes, they do. Just look at the popularity of various autocratic authoritarian political parties, from the US Republicans down to the Golden Dawn in Greece.
Certainly, in well-functioning democracies they do not form enough of a majority to actually overthrow the rule of law on its own, but the fact that they can poll up to 40% of the populace easily demonstrates that there is a streak of authoritarian followers in every population.
Christopher Hitchens in short: "Be an egocentric asshole". Which he certainly proved to be; whatever his faults, the man was at least consistent in his values.
As I already pointed out, Bruno was not burned for his scientific views, but his religious ones. And as it turns out, so was d'Ascoli.
The church, both the Catholic and the various Protestant ones, has done enough damage without needing to invent more. So far I haven't seen proof of scientists being burned for their scientific views. You'll have to do better than this.
You realize of course that there was a time about 500 years back, when scientists were actually burned at the stake for having the wrong theory?
Got any examples? The closest thing I can think of is Galileo, and he got in hot water more for playing politics the wrong way, not for his scientific insights per se. And all he got was house arrest in a luxurious villa.
And no, don't mention Giordano Bruno. He was not burned for adhering to Copernicanism, but for his religious views.
Slashdot Mirror
You've heard The Ickle Jones: he should just grow a thicker skin.
Which of course nicely demonstrates that our Ickle is just another teenager who should fuck off back to 4chan where he belongs.
The day you finally finish High School and move out of your parents' basement you may find out just how wrong you are.
Cool, so I can put up a webpage alleging that you are a paedophile then?
Despite what some loudmouths on Internet may proclaim, there are forms of speech that are damaging and therefore infringing on other people's rights. A government does have a legitimate interest in having those forms of speech curtailed, as much as it has an interest in having harmful physical acts like assault and battery curtailed.
Harassment, slander and libel, direct incitement to violence? It is up to the Frea Speach advocates to defend why these should be allowed, not for the rest of us to why we shouldn't have to put up with this in a civilised society.
And of course that would have to be " ... they mean A".
Fuck it. I'm out of this discussion, the stupidity is catching.
Literally every time anyone says "I don't A, but B", they mean B but are just too cowardly to come right out and say it.
So why don't you go and take your concern elsewhere and fuck off, you misogyny apologist.
Naah. The poster is samzenpus, that ought to give you a hint: this is part of the ongoing neo-con rewrite of history to make them out to be the good guys, and to always have been the good guys.
And given that you just blindly repeated the misogynistic lies about Zoe Quinn, I think you just proved GP's point.
To stay with the observable facts: there is absolutely no proof that Zoe slept around to get good reviews. There has been no positive article on her work that can be directly attributed to her relationship.
And that Gamergate was born on this lie and acting as if they care about journalistic integrity, while staying mostly silent on 'Shadows of Mordor' tells a spectator exactly what the priorities of Gamergate are: shutting up the uppity women.
No. Once they invaded Poland, they were doomed from the start.
With the state of their Navy, Air Force and operational doctrine, they had nothing to force Britain to capitulate. Churchill put his finger on it when he said "Hitler knows he has to break us in this island or lose the war". Germany had no means to succesfully invade and conquer Britain. At best approximation they had the forces to force a small beachhead, and be thrown back.
Then there is the fact that the Molotov-von Ribbentrop pact was a marriage of convenience. While Stalin may have been complacent enough to disregard a German breaking of the pact, there is no way there would not eventually have been a war between two ideologies who were fundamentally opposed to each other. With Nazi Germany bleeding out in a campaign against Britain and the US (and a sustained push against Britain would have brought in the US), the temptation to open a second front and grab most of Eastern Europe would have been too great
Any way you look at it, unless you have Wehrmacht fanboi goggles, the strategic situation had always to have been in Germany's disfavour.
Fuck off and die please. The world could do with less PVV voting scum.
No, they forgot Algol, which begot both Ada and Pascal.
Yup. That's why the major distros are all switching away from SysV init to systemd. Because the alternative is to continue with a Rube Goldbergish mess of shell scripts with no proper event-based activation nor decent process monitoring.
I am most definitely not the only one fed up with chasing Heisenbugs in a maze of twisty little shell scripts, all alike.
open("sense_of_humour",0) = ENOENT
Nope, in the gamer community this person would be hailed as a hero for outing people who act unethically by disregarding Facebook's rules.
Yeah, but you're the typical narcissistic basement-dwelling 'libertarian' who would say that, just to excuse his own lack of social graces.
Otherwise known as being considerate and polite. Old-fashioned, I know.
"Caves to FCC Pressure"? Really?
Oh that poor Verizon, can't just exploit its customers like so many sheep to the slaughter, what is this world coming to.
Samzenpus is really trying to turn this place into FoxSlash, isn't he? This some of the most sycophantic corporate-asslicking prose I've seen here so far.
Yup. That's called 'Verelendung'. Marx wasn't right on all counts, but he damn well got that one correct.
No it does not. For fucks sake, I'm a Dutchman, I don't follow the UK news daily, and even I know that it was the Unionists who insisted on a two-alternative referendum. Salmond as negotiator offered Devo-Max as a possibility and was shot down.
What is it with you guys? Is reading and checking facts for yourself really that sodding hard?
I don't who taught you to read, but even across the North Sea it's obvious that it is Better Together, not the Yes campaign, who are threatening a nasty vicious divorce.
And second, it's an entire Yes campaign. It's not just the SNP. If even I can get that from here in the Netherlands, what's your excuse?
Oh, those grapes are sour.
Well, yes, they do. Just look at the popularity of various autocratic authoritarian political parties, from the US Republicans down to the Golden Dawn in Greece.
Certainly, in well-functioning democracies they do not form enough of a majority to actually overthrow the rule of law on its own, but the fact that they can poll up to 40% of the populace easily demonstrates that there is a streak of authoritarian followers in every population.
Christopher Hitchens in short: "Be an egocentric asshole". Which he certainly proved to be; whatever his faults, the man was at least consistent in his values.
As I already pointed out, Bruno was not burned for his scientific views, but his religious ones. And as it turns out, so was d'Ascoli.
The church, both the Catholic and the various Protestant ones, has done enough damage without needing to invent more. So far I haven't seen proof of scientists being burned for their scientific views. You'll have to do better than this.
Examples? With the phrasing he uses? Hitler.
Got any examples? The closest thing I can think of is Galileo, and he got in hot water more for playing politics the wrong way, not for his scientific insights per se. And all he got was house arrest in a luxurious villa.
And no, don't mention Giordano Bruno. He was not burned for adhering to Copernicanism, but for his religious views.