So if we see a chasm that needs crossing, and someone says, "We need to cross that chasm! A bridge will do!". Then we look around - no rocks, no wood, no rope.
Ok cool, bridge was a great idea. But unless you're going to pull one out of your ass...
Damn, send your sources to the Department of Labor!
They're under the impression that Oracle has been discriminating against pretty much everybody in one area or the other. They're only going on the data they have, employee complaints, and Oracle's absolute refusal to disclose related documents.
So by all means, please release your info! Then we can get by this bullshit so much faster./s
Seriously though, it shocks me that people follow that line of thinking.
You've got me confused for someone else, fuckwit.
"This stuff" in terms of law enforcement interaction WOULD have been news twenty years ago - if it had been around. The law enforcement aspect of this situation is CLEARLY a new development. Do you see the part up there where I said "this stuff" wasn't news? This should've tipped you off - but I guess you've spent way too long in that echo chamber of yours.
"This stuff" - the stuff I'm talking about - refers to what WAS NOT news decades ago. The fact that human brains continue to develop well into the twenties.
You would've figured that, with the help of handy dandy context clues, I was clearly not referring to the law enforcement aspect of your comment. Merely the "special snowflake" buzzword that's taken over the anti-PC crowd. It's usually followed by insults (oh, look!), and more stupid drivel (oh, look!). You formed this opinion of me, which I assume is just a projection of your fears, and have ran with it. Congrats bud! You've fully realized your username.
You know what I'm always taken aback by? The vitriol spewed by lovey dovey liberals, and the absolutely dichotomy through which they see the world. You know what never surprises me? Shit like you.
What in the actual fuck are you going on about?
My comment is about your "snowflake" remark, not law enforcement. Congrats on fulfilling that username a second time!
I think that's a pretty rude way to talk about FDR, but I'm no saint. Oh, unless you meant Obama was a socialist? That's funny - sorry for ruining the joke.
Agreed. I used to have close to 20 friends working for Twitter. They've all left, including those in the legal department. The user base issue was something that they really couldn't change.
Maybe quit giving incentives for employing H1B's.
There are people of color out there that can program better than you or I. Embrace this fact, and those people.
It's amused me that one's right to bear arms is limited by the need to protect the safety of others, but the right to free speech is considered inviolable. Tell me, which of these two rights is more important in a democracy?
Both of these statements are incredibly ridiculous. Everyone's right to weapons is limited by the government in order to prevent some loon from going on a murderous rampage. Everyone's right to free speech is limited by the government in order to prevent some loon from yelling "fire!" in a movie theater.
I'm not arguing the effectiveness of these measures, but it is what it is.
You have two choices:
- Government regulate ISPs, with (at least theoretically) the public interest in mind.
- ISPs regulate themselves, with only large shareholders and CEO bonuses in mind.
Who do you think will serve the public good more?
In my humble opinion, the government looking out for the "public interest" is just as likely to happen as an ISP looking out for the "little guy".
The government will do what their fiscally-blessed constituency wants, just as an ISP will do what its large shareholders and CEO want. The fact that these actions would lineup with "public interest" is nothing but coincidence.
But that's just me, I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, a Confederate hate group - League of the South - felt threatened in public. This is not a bad thing.
So if we see a chasm that needs crossing, and someone says, "We need to cross that chasm! A bridge will do!". Then we look around - no rocks, no wood, no rope. Ok cool, bridge was a great idea. But unless you're going to pull one out of your ass...
Damn, send your sources to the Department of Labor! They're under the impression that Oracle has been discriminating against pretty much everybody in one area or the other. They're only going on the data they have, employee complaints, and Oracle's absolute refusal to disclose related documents. So by all means, please release your info! Then we can get by this bullshit so much faster. /s
Seriously though, it shocks me that people follow that line of thinking.
A company with no employees, no store front, no nothing, has tremendous overhead? What is a, "bad business model"?
Software? Sure. Malware? Nah.
Happy Newton datos?
Sounds like some weird offshoot of date flavored Newtons.
Indeed, this was the point I was making (clearly not clear enough).
You've got me confused for someone else, fuckwit. "This stuff" in terms of law enforcement interaction WOULD have been news twenty years ago - if it had been around. The law enforcement aspect of this situation is CLEARLY a new development. Do you see the part up there where I said "this stuff" wasn't news? This should've tipped you off - but I guess you've spent way too long in that echo chamber of yours. "This stuff" - the stuff I'm talking about - refers to what WAS NOT news decades ago. The fact that human brains continue to develop well into the twenties. You would've figured that, with the help of handy dandy context clues, I was clearly not referring to the law enforcement aspect of your comment. Merely the "special snowflake" buzzword that's taken over the anti-PC crowd. It's usually followed by insults (oh, look!), and more stupid drivel (oh, look!). You formed this opinion of me, which I assume is just a projection of your fears, and have ran with it. Congrats bud! You've fully realized your username. You know what I'm always taken aback by? The vitriol spewed by lovey dovey liberals, and the absolutely dichotomy through which they see the world. You know what never surprises me? Shit like you.
What in the actual fuck are you going on about? My comment is about your "snowflake" remark, not law enforcement. Congrats on fulfilling that username a second time!
Yes, your brain keeps forming till you're well into your twenties. Who, seriously, didn't know this?
Username checks out. This stuff wasn't news 20 years ago. It's certainly not news now.
I think Rick Perry's Animal Science degree is a life science, right?
They got forwarded to the poor starving children of St. Bart's.
I think that's a pretty rude way to talk about FDR, but I'm no saint. Oh, unless you meant Obama was a socialist? That's funny - sorry for ruining the joke.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, snowflake.
Agreed. I used to have close to 20 friends working for Twitter. They've all left, including those in the legal department. The user base issue was something that they really couldn't change.
I'd like to get it in number of long-intestines-wrapped-around-the-Earth.
Maybe quit giving incentives for employing H1B's. There are people of color out there that can program better than you or I. Embrace this fact, and those people.
People are usually aware of fire drills. Not so much if some punk decides to incite panic in a crowded place.
It's amused me that one's right to bear arms is limited by the need to protect the safety of others, but the right to free speech is considered inviolable. Tell me, which of these two rights is more important in a democracy?
Both of these statements are incredibly ridiculous. Everyone's right to weapons is limited by the government in order to prevent some loon from going on a murderous rampage. Everyone's right to free speech is limited by the government in order to prevent some loon from yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. I'm not arguing the effectiveness of these measures, but it is what it is.
You have two choices: - Government regulate ISPs, with (at least theoretically) the public interest in mind.
- ISPs regulate themselves, with only large shareholders and CEO bonuses in mind.
Who do you think will serve the public good more?
In my humble opinion, the government looking out for the "public interest" is just as likely to happen as an ISP looking out for the "little guy". The government will do what their fiscally-blessed constituency wants, just as an ISP will do what its large shareholders and CEO want. The fact that these actions would lineup with "public interest" is nothing but coincidence. But that's just me, I suppose.