I think if we taught more people the logic required to be able to program well, there would be less* thickos in the world.
I'm saying I don't think they're intelligent enough in the first place. I'm sure most people can learn the absolute basics, but I don't believe they're cut out to be good programmers (not just "code monkeys").
Doesn't mean it's not worth trying. I'd enjoy being proven wrong.
Well, I'm not sure of the exact numbers (of course), but looking at the current state of the world... I really don't think that most people would be able to wrap their heads around the logic required to be able to program well. Just my opinion.
Why not Gamemaker? Why not start with Gamemaker? Gamemaker offers such extreme degrees of inefficiency (pure unadulterated slowness) that it would be perfect for teaching kids patience.
What I find funny is that when it comes to learning things, some people say, "You can do anything with your mind! You may be physically disabled, but the sky's the limit with your mind!"
I just don't understand where this "you can do anything" mentality comes from. It doesn't apply to our bodies, so it wouldn't necessarily apply to our minds. If you tell me that I can learn how to draw, I'll tell you that I can't. I spent years trying, and I never did get better.
Some people have the aptitude to do something, others don't. There are common things that almost anyone can learn, but other things likely require an aptitude that some or many people simply don't have.
As for them being a national security threat, no more so than your average vandal or thief - but we toss them in jail, too.
It all depends on how much effort and resources we're putting into it. Spending billions of taxpayer dollars to catch jaywalkers would be a complete waste of time.
Of course, I don't think this situation is as bad as it is with piracy (so much time, effort, and draconian laws over people copying data).
I don't think that'll ever happen. There are simply too many of them, and I simply don't think they're worth the time and effort it would take to pay too much attention to them to try to send a message.
It'll get even worse if they learn what anonymity actually is.
so by saying we don't need more people, you're being racist.
Your argument sounds highly convincing and I wish to hear more about how saying things that are disadvantageous to people of a certain race automatically makes someone racist.
The word is a word, instantiating a word is an action, it doesn't just happen by itself. Sorry if that comes as news to you.
Yeah. And I was saying you could use your logic to completely circumvent the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech for any type of speech. All you need to do is say that words are actions.
It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want".
It doesn't say that that isn't the case, either. Words are never "actions."
It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want". If you know for sure there is a lethal dose of poison in a glass of water, and someone asks you if it's safe to drink, and you say "sure, go ahead", you're a murderer.
I disagree completely. You might be a liar, but they are the ones who drank it. You never forced them to.
If you can't understand that, just strap on a helmet and give up.
Yes. Your subjective opinion is 100% right and mine is 100% wrong.
Right. It's clearly the fault of a 4 year old if it believes you something you tell it, and you cannot be held accountable at all.
"It"? Heh. But yes, it is. Not that I'd expect much out of a 4 year old, but it is. You thought I'd change my mind because you mentioned children? My survival of the fittest mentality regarding speech remains.
Too often do people believe everything they hear. Perhaps this would help them think twice about doing so.
So it very much does matter who you are and who your victim is for all "regular" crimes, but when such discretion is coded into laws, bigots everywhere come out and defend their right to abuse whole subcultures violently based on their prejudices.
This has been held to be the case if you loan a car to someone who robs a store and an elderly patron has a heart attack at the robbery, the owner of the can can and will be found guilty of murder (that's not one that's happened yet, but an "innocent" car owner was charged with and convicted of robbery for loaning their car to someone who used if for that, and the rest of the chain has happened more than once).
Nobody is criminalizing words. Instead, the action of uttering some of them sometimes is a crime.
Wow. You could use this logic to ban any word ("It's an action, man!").
The fantasy that words and actions are two totally different and separate things is just that, a fantasy.
So what's the point of freedom of speech in the first amendment, then? If we used your logic, the government could ban whatever speech it wanted.
You can with words alone get someone to lose their job and friends and have them starve to death. But hey, it's just words!
Right. And they are just words. The words aren't sentient beings that force you to lose your job and friends. Do you know who does that? Idiotic people who believe everything they hear and consequently fire you and/or other such nonsense.
so how come people call him murderer for that?
No idea. At most, he commanded people and forced them to do his bidding with the threat of violence.
You say it's unacceptable to be "overly" offended by mere words, and I guess you're the judge what constitutes "overly".
That's pretty funny considering how subjective this entire case is (punishing someone because of someone else's suicide). I simply gave you my opinion. If you're looking for a precise explanation, then you won't even find that in the law.
But I'll try. "Overly," is, to me, getting offended at all.
Ask the people lynched for fun just for being in an oppressed minority. If the majority thinks casual abuse to people who are different is OK just because the target is different, then maybe the law has to be there to correct that idiotic smug thoughtlessness?
I fail to see how that's casual abuse.
And no, I don't believe in violating people's freedom of speech because some people are getting their feelings hurt (provided you meant speech). If you didn't mean speech, then prosecute people for whatever crime they committed regardless of the characteristics of the victim. I fail to see the problem here.
Everyone's different to their peers one way or another: you might think differently if suddenly you were on the wrong end of constant harassment for some random (and entirely legal) aspect of your life.
I hear this all the time. "If you were in another situation, you'd feel differently." So? That doesn't mean my current opinion is wrong (and indeed, I might very well be more biased if I was in their situation).
If you were in my situation, you'd agree with me (my assumption). I can literally apply that logic to anything and anyone.
or as a person willing to engage in false equivalencies in order to bolster a political position
Yeah, like hiring corporate shills to infest Slashdot, this will get me far. What a highly probable scenario this is.
I am guessing you are the second of those two, because nobody could equate bullying with talking.
Really? I have seen many, many people who have claimed that people are bullying based on comments they made. No physical contact is necessary, they said. Simple comments. Is that not talking? Speaking? If not, then what is it?
But they're actually "mean" words.
For instance, you can be convicted of murder if you hire a hitman to kill someone, even though you "merely exchanged words" with the hitman. In fact there are lots of laws like that.
Well, you might want to find a different example, because I disagree with that hitman law. Mainly based on the fact that I believe in absolute freedom of speech. Simply a preference.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to figure out what it is, and eliminate it.
I'm 99% sure there was nothing. I simply don't believe that I can draw even if I tried. No imagination at all.
I think if we taught more people the logic required to be able to program well, there would be less* thickos in the world.
I'm saying I don't think they're intelligent enough in the first place. I'm sure most people can learn the absolute basics, but I don't believe they're cut out to be good programmers (not just "code monkeys").
Doesn't mean it's not worth trying. I'd enjoy being proven wrong.
So? I don't think the fact that only some of their customers were harmed excuses the action. "First they came..." and all that.
Well, I'm not sure of the exact numbers (of course), but looking at the current state of the world... I really don't think that most people would be able to wrap their heads around the logic required to be able to program well. Just my opinion.
Why not Gamemaker? Why not start with Gamemaker? Gamemaker offers such extreme degrees of inefficiency (pure unadulterated slowness) that it would be perfect for teaching kids patience.
Every true professional uses Gamemaker.
What I find funny is that when it comes to learning things, some people say, "You can do anything with your mind! You may be physically disabled, but the sky's the limit with your mind!"
I just don't understand where this "you can do anything" mentality comes from. It doesn't apply to our bodies, so it wouldn't necessarily apply to our minds. If you tell me that I can learn how to draw, I'll tell you that I can't. I spent years trying, and I never did get better.
Some people have the aptitude to do something, others don't. There are common things that almost anyone can learn, but other things likely require an aptitude that some or many people simply don't have.
Imagine if, even if just for a month
Preferably even longer than that. And I'd extend that to companies like Sony that use DRM and remove features from their products out of paranoia.
I think it's time to switch to Gamemaker. Have to face the music some day, yes?
As for them being a national security threat, no more so than your average vandal or thief - but we toss them in jail, too.
It all depends on how much effort and resources we're putting into it. Spending billions of taxpayer dollars to catch jaywalkers would be a complete waste of time.
Of course, I don't think this situation is as bad as it is with piracy (so much time, effort, and draconian laws over people copying data).
I don't think that'll ever happen. There are simply too many of them, and I simply don't think they're worth the time and effort it would take to pay too much attention to them to try to send a message.
It'll get even worse if they learn what anonymity actually is.
Surely they've been completely defeated. What a good use of time and resources.
Anonymous is a national security threat.
so by saying we don't need more people, you're being racist.
Your argument sounds highly convincing and I wish to hear more about how saying things that are disadvantageous to people of a certain race automatically makes someone racist.
The word is a word, instantiating a word is an action, it doesn't just happen by itself. Sorry if that comes as news to you.
Yeah. And I was saying you could use your logic to completely circumvent the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech for any type of speech. All you need to do is say that words are actions.
It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want".
It doesn't say that that isn't the case, either. Words are never "actions."
It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want". If you know for sure there is a lethal dose of poison in a glass of water, and someone asks you if it's safe to drink, and you say "sure, go ahead", you're a murderer.
I disagree completely. You might be a liar, but they are the ones who drank it. You never forced them to.
If you can't understand that, just strap on a helmet and give up.
Yes. Your subjective opinion is 100% right and mine is 100% wrong.
Right. It's clearly the fault of a 4 year old if it believes you something you tell it, and you cannot be held accountable at all.
"It"? Heh. But yes, it is. Not that I'd expect much out of a 4 year old, but it is. You thought I'd change my mind because you mentioned children? My survival of the fittest mentality regarding speech remains.
Too often do people believe everything they hear. Perhaps this would help them think twice about doing so.
Perhaps because fertility is what perpetuates the human race.
Believe me, we're in no danger of going extinct.
are obviously concerns to us all
Are you sure? Many people don't seem to care at all.
It doesn't to me. Why do they have to make a new one? What exactly is wrong with adoption?
You can't live through your genes. You don't become immortal by having children. What exactly is the obsession with having biological children?
I challenge you to come up with a scenario in which copyright is actually a good thing.
Why? You'll only receive his opinion. And you'll probably disagree with it.
This is the furthest thing from simple political incorrectness/speech.
Right. It's just blaming someone for someone else's suicide.
So it very much does matter who you are and who your victim is for all "regular" crimes, but when such discretion is coded into laws, bigots everywhere come out and defend their right to abuse whole subcultures violently based on their prejudices.
It does? It doesn't to me.
This has been held to be the case if you loan a car to someone who robs a store and an elderly patron has a heart attack at the robbery, the owner of the can can and will be found guilty of murder (that's not one that's happened yet, but an "innocent" car owner was charged with and convicted of robbery for loaning their car to someone who used if for that, and the rest of the chain has happened more than once).
Well, I disagree with that.
Nobody is criminalizing words. Instead, the action of uttering some of them sometimes is a crime.
Wow. You could use this logic to ban any word ("It's an action, man!").
The fantasy that words and actions are two totally different and separate things is just that, a fantasy.
So what's the point of freedom of speech in the first amendment, then? If we used your logic, the government could ban whatever speech it wanted.
You can with words alone get someone to lose their job and friends and have them starve to death. But hey, it's just words!
Right. And they are just words. The words aren't sentient beings that force you to lose your job and friends. Do you know who does that? Idiotic people who believe everything they hear and consequently fire you and/or other such nonsense.
so how come people call him murderer for that?
No idea. At most, he commanded people and forced them to do his bidding with the threat of violence.
You say it's unacceptable to be "overly" offended by mere words, and I guess you're the judge what constitutes "overly".
That's pretty funny considering how subjective this entire case is (punishing someone because of someone else's suicide). I simply gave you my opinion. If you're looking for a precise explanation, then you won't even find that in the law.
But I'll try. "Overly," is, to me, getting offended at all.
I have some karma to burn and I'm going to burn it right now: YOU ARE A STUPID FUCK and I cannot wait until you get hoisted by your own petard.
I'm completely defeated now.
Conspiracy to kill someone is a crime
Right now. Not that it being a crime is relevant to what I said, though.
unalienable rights
Not sure about that "unalienable" part, though.
Tell me, do you understand where people are coming from when they do support the hitman prosecution scenario?
Pretty sure I do. I simply don't agree with them.
Ask the people lynched for fun just for being in an oppressed minority. If the majority thinks casual abuse to people who are different is OK just because the target is different, then maybe the law has to be there to correct that idiotic smug thoughtlessness?
I fail to see how that's casual abuse.
And no, I don't believe in violating people's freedom of speech because some people are getting their feelings hurt (provided you meant speech). If you didn't mean speech, then prosecute people for whatever crime they committed regardless of the characteristics of the victim. I fail to see the problem here.
Everyone's different to their peers one way or another: you might think differently if suddenly you were on the wrong end of constant harassment for some random (and entirely legal) aspect of your life.
I hear this all the time. "If you were in another situation, you'd feel differently." So? That doesn't mean my current opinion is wrong (and indeed, I might very well be more biased if I was in their situation).
If you were in my situation, you'd agree with me (my assumption). I can literally apply that logic to anything and anyone.
or as a person willing to engage in false equivalencies in order to bolster a political position
Yeah, like hiring corporate shills to infest Slashdot, this will get me far. What a highly probable scenario this is.
I am guessing you are the second of those two, because nobody could equate bullying with talking.
Really? I have seen many, many people who have claimed that people are bullying based on comments they made. No physical contact is necessary, they said. Simple comments. Is that not talking? Speaking? If not, then what is it?
But they're actually "mean" words.
For instance, you can be convicted of murder if you hire a hitman to kill someone, even though you "merely exchanged words" with the hitman. In fact there are lots of laws like that.
Well, you might want to find a different example, because I disagree with that hitman law. Mainly based on the fact that I believe in absolute freedom of speech. Simply a preference.