Traditional news sites repost content from social networks and blog sites, and then traditional media blames social networks and blog sites for exploiting tragedy and the errors they themselves repeated.
Who fucking cares what they think. You should be attacking them directly, not defending yourselves with equivocation about page views and advertising. Newspapers and TV news have ads too, and their websites are even more obnoxious with them.
it is simply wrong to call making this choice "censorship."
"I don't like how this looks for my ideology of unfettered corporate influence, so let's change the definition of this word."
If you don't like it, you can always vote with your wallet
Or vote for real and force a change in Apple's behavior, or at least render it moot. We could make it illegal to restrict devices to only function with the seller's marketplace.
Byron York, a conservative columnist for the Washington Examiner, characterised Mr Obama's space policy shift as moving "from moon landings to promoting self-esteem"
Half the content is whining about "open source" versus "free software". The author was barely in high school when all that went down. Everything else is "zomg he is just like Ayn Rand!!!11!!"
Tim O'Reilly must have ruined his life somehow.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
Actually, there is nothing preventing government funded schools from being ruthlessly competitive. You just have to limit how many there are, and not treat your preferred secondary education as some kind of right.
I mean, it's hell on the middling students, who just might get in the good schools if they study their asses off, but seems to work for many Asian and European countries.
Of course, here we have too many special snowflakes, and the obnoxiousness of parents is only amplified when their wealth is rendered moot against demonstrable ability. "I pay taxes, how dare they give my child's spot to some brown immigrant ragamuffin with a 150 IQ!"
How would you feel if I told you every police officer would be wearing these in a couple years coupled with apps that recognize faces and search databases?
Why is that a problem? Unless you have a warrant out for your arrest, why do you care?
It would be nice if they were required to wear them on duty and if turning them off were an immediate trigger for IA investigation.
We know for a fact that thieves will data mine the Internet on things like social networks for targets who are on vacation. We also know for a fact that thieves will target houses with guns because clean guns have an inordinate value to criminals.
I have relatives who had nothing but guns stolen while they are on vacation, twice. They had to get a high-end gun safe and sign up for home security monitoring. It's an anecdote, but it demonstrates the threat.
And while I'm sure a passive-aggressive* gun grabber like yourself will rationalize about anecdotes versus data, I'm sure you'd flip your shit if someone starting publishing a database for who owns valuable cars, or who has a lot of jewelry, or where young, hot women live home alone.
* "apologies if this post tramples over people's biases" - Why do you fucks always talk like that? You think it is clever sarcasm, but you sound like a sniveling weenie.
Take a look at the atheism page on reddit and you will see an entire page of posts deriding religion.
a- or ( before a vowel ) an- 1
— prefix not; without; opposite to: atonal ; asocial
I suppose you also consider it obnoxious that websites about rape, murder, child prostitution, genocide, etc. never have anything nice to say about their subject matter.
Most athiests are worse than christians about preaching their beliefs at any cost.
He's right, you know. Atheists were willing to give away 178 pairs of shoes to prove that all religions are false. No Christian has ever been so confident in their belief or so generous.
that this article appears the day T-Mobile ditches the service contract and starts selling the iPhone. I mean, this isn't just about T-Mobile, because "almost no one likes their carrier", am I right?
Google "rare earth thorium regulation". Usually, anti-regulation whining like this gets plenty a mention in right-wing think tank-funded articles and political editorials.
This one gets YouTube propaganda from the thorium reactor proponents and some of their websites. Why is it that, at least in terms of web presence, the only people concerned about this care more about thorium than rare earth minerals?
We don't care about that for the most part because we're able to change focus very quickly.
You're confusing depth perception with focus, and no, we don't actually focus all that quickly, and no, the message could be projected in your field of vision as if it were floating well ahead of you, so there would be no focus change. Even if you had to refocus your eyes, you'd still be seeing the road no differently than if you were looking at a bug on your windshield.
In your common sense anti-Glass rationalizing, did you even consider that we're constantly reading things all the time while driving, much of it essential to the task at hand, and rarely is it ever on the road itself? I guess we should outlaw signs, too.
Teachers often refuse to teach real CS because more often than not they don't understand it. Instead, they end up teaching word processing and website construction, while calling it CS.
Which is funny, considering how people aren't willing to pay programmers the salary market scarcity demands. I expect next they will be complaining that there no people who could be programmers accepting a teacher's salary instead.
They've jumped the shark so many times they must be in orbit.
And that isn't to say they haven't actually jumped the shark, it's that, like reality TV and fast food, they keep figuring out ways of turning their games to shit and make more money doing it.
But many on the "pro-choice" side have accused the "pro-life" crowd of hating women and wanting to enslave them.
This is exactly the bullshit you're against. You're arguing against hyperbole with more hyperbole, as you've framed it as if the pro-choice side literally believes the pro-life wishes women hurt and wants them in chains.
The point of that hyberbole is to make people consider the difference between stated intent and actual intent and actual results. They may say they want to save fetuses from murder, but the effect is actual harm against women and the government control of their bodies, akin to slavery. They say they are motivated by a religious belief that human life is sacred, but they are also motivated by religious patriarchy and a desire to enforce the consequences of sexual sin, dogma which derives from a historical hatred of women.
The original intent of political correctness was to provide a way for people to be self-critical about the subtle biases that they engage in when they speak.
There are no silver bullets and government shouldn't be in a position to promise them.
Yes there is. The government could abolish itself except for a very narrow range of criteria concerned with the enforcement of property rights, with all public property auctioned off to individuals, and all our problems will be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
legitimized with an editorial?
Traditional news sites repost content from social networks and blog sites, and then traditional media blames social networks and blog sites for exploiting tragedy and the errors they themselves repeated.
Who fucking cares what they think. You should be attacking them directly, not defending yourselves with equivocation about page views and advertising. Newspapers and TV news have ads too, and their websites are even more obnoxious with them.
I refute the argument above by directing attention at the expression of the argument above.
"I don't like how this looks for my ideology of unfettered corporate influence, so let's change the definition of this word."
Or vote for real and force a change in Apple's behavior, or at least render it moot. We could make it illegal to restrict devices to only function with the seller's marketplace.
Is there some legal principle that a narrowly defined law necessarily redefines a more broadly defined law it may seem to overlap?
No? Then from what hole are you pulling your legal opinion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e857ZcuIfnI
Um... that's not actually a shift.
Half the content is whining about "open source" versus "free software". The author was barely in high school when all that went down. Everything else is "zomg he is just like Ayn Rand!!!11!!"
Tim O'Reilly must have ruined his life somehow.
Actually, there is nothing preventing government funded schools from being ruthlessly competitive. You just have to limit how many there are, and not treat your preferred secondary education as some kind of right.
I mean, it's hell on the middling students, who just might get in the good schools if they study their asses off, but seems to work for many Asian and European countries.
Of course, here we have too many special snowflakes, and the obnoxiousness of parents is only amplified when their wealth is rendered moot against demonstrable ability. "I pay taxes, how dare they give my child's spot to some brown immigrant ragamuffin with a 150 IQ!"
Why is that a problem? Unless you have a warrant out for your arrest, why do you care?
It would be nice if they were required to wear them on duty and if turning them off were an immediate trigger for IA investigation.
Is there any evidence it isn't? Who cares?
We know for a fact that thieves will data mine the Internet on things like social networks for targets who are on vacation. We also know for a fact that thieves will target houses with guns because clean guns have an inordinate value to criminals.
I have relatives who had nothing but guns stolen while they are on vacation, twice. They had to get a high-end gun safe and sign up for home security monitoring. It's an anecdote, but it demonstrates the threat.
And while I'm sure a passive-aggressive* gun grabber like yourself will rationalize about anecdotes versus data, I'm sure you'd flip your shit if someone starting publishing a database for who owns valuable cars, or who has a lot of jewelry, or where young, hot women live home alone.
* "apologies if this post tramples over people's biases" - Why do you fucks always talk like that? You think it is clever sarcasm, but you sound like a sniveling weenie.
*gasp*
That's so sexist!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gun+list+newspaper+robbed
a- or ( before a vowel ) an- 1
— prefix
not; without; opposite to: atonal ; asocial
I suppose you also consider it obnoxious that websites about rape, murder, child prostitution, genocide, etc. never have anything nice to say about their subject matter.
He's right, you know. Atheists were willing to give away 178 pairs of shoes to prove that all religions are false. No Christian has ever been so confident in their belief or so generous.
Then buy them unlocked. T-Mobile is far and away the least douchetastic carrier when it comes to that sort of thing.
that this article appears the day T-Mobile ditches the service contract and starts selling the iPhone. I mean, this isn't just about T-Mobile, because "almost no one likes their carrier", am I right?
Google "rare earth thorium regulation". Usually, anti-regulation whining like this gets plenty a mention in right-wing think tank-funded articles and political editorials.
This one gets YouTube propaganda from the thorium reactor proponents and some of their websites. Why is it that, at least in terms of web presence, the only people concerned about this care more about thorium than rare earth minerals?
You're confusing depth perception with focus, and no, we don't actually focus all that quickly, and no, the message could be projected in your field of vision as if it were floating well ahead of you, so there would be no focus change. Even if you had to refocus your eyes, you'd still be seeing the road no differently than if you were looking at a bug on your windshield.
In your common sense anti-Glass rationalizing, did you even consider that we're constantly reading things all the time while driving, much of it essential to the task at hand, and rarely is it ever on the road itself? I guess we should outlaw signs, too.
Google is working on a solution for that as well.
I'll be glad when motorcycles are illegal on public roads. They're far too unsafe, even under mandatory computer control.
Which is funny, considering how people aren't willing to pay programmers the salary market scarcity demands. I expect next they will be complaining that there no people who could be programmers accepting a teacher's salary instead.
They've jumped the shark so many times they must be in orbit.
And that isn't to say they haven't actually jumped the shark, it's that, like reality TV and fast food, they keep figuring out ways of turning their games to shit and make more money doing it.
This is exactly the bullshit you're against. You're arguing against hyperbole with more hyperbole, as you've framed it as if the pro-choice side literally believes the pro-life wishes women hurt and wants them in chains.
The point of that hyberbole is to make people consider the difference between stated intent and actual intent and actual results. They may say they want to save fetuses from murder, but the effect is actual harm against women and the government control of their bodies, akin to slavery. They say they are motivated by a religious belief that human life is sacred, but they are also motivated by religious patriarchy and a desire to enforce the consequences of sexual sin, dogma which derives from a historical hatred of women.
No, it wasn't.
timothy, you moron, in fuel efficiency and hydrocarbon pollution, diesel is actually better for the environment than regular gas.
Yes there is. The government could abolish itself except for a very narrow range of criteria concerned with the enforcement of property rights, with all public property auctioned off to individuals, and all our problems will be solved.