That is SO GREAT that you posted that. ESPECIALLY since 500 people DIDN'T already make the exact same points before you. If I hadn't read your TIMELY and INFORMATIVE memo, I may never have known what a Beta is and I might have actually thought it was appropriate to discuss security flaws without being a shameless corporate apologist! Thank god you've pulled the wool away from my eyes!
Some people are able to look at more than one issue when choosing a candidate for the presidency. I can understand if it is a hot enough issue for you personally that it completely turns you off of the guy (and consequently his entire political party) but for others it may not be quite so important as to make their entire decision for them.
For me, "smoking bans" are not about the patrons. It's about the employees.
I like that my wife and I can go out to any bar or restaurant without coming home smelling disgusting and smokey.
I don't entirely disagree with you about employees being exposed to smoke, except that I know some waitresses and bartenders and *NOT ONE* of them has ever complained about smoke in bars. In fact, most of the bartenders in my city smoke while they're on the job. Your second statement covers both the group complaining about smoking (non-smoking patrons) and their *actual* reasoning (can't handle cigarette smoke). I think you're using the employees as an excuse to sound more reasonable.
Majority rules do not work in private establishments. The owner of the establishment decides what to do with his own property (provided his TV is not so loud that it damages your hearing, naturally).
I'm not so sure why people get distracted so much by the TV. Especially considering that all of the anti-TV people are particularly disinterested in it. Why would you pay so much of your valuable attention to something you despise?
Nice troll. I'd love to see you break my boom box into pieces. You internet tough guys are about the most pathetic fucking thing I have ever witnessed in my entire life. Your posturing is such a waste of effort - I've yet to meet anyone who's intimidated by words on their monitor. Nice try, though.
Your opinions are vastly idiotic, but I'm pretty sure you're just making them up as you go anyway.
You failed to answer any of his points at all, but rather continued to name human embryos a "class of humans".
How do any of your statements address the point the parent made that calling an embryo a human trivializes humanity? An embryo, incidentally, will not "if left uninterrupted", produce a human being. I'm really not sure you've thought this through.
How do you address the points of other posters that embryos are naturally ejected during menstruation and flushed down toilets or thrown into trashbins? Are women committing monthly murder, in your opinion? (Or is it manslaughter, since they didn't intentionally kill their unborn child?)
I'd normally address more of your points, but your hyperbole in insisting that embryonic stem cell research is murder and your absolutely ridiculous final statement about scientists believing the earth was flat for the last two thousand years (can you *possibly* be serious about this?) have convinced me that arguing with you would be entirely pointless.
I'm going to give you the opportunity to actually think about what you just posted. A camera, across the street from your apartment, pointed right at the window of your apartment, 24 hours a day, is not analogous to a cop driving by.
It is analogous to a cop sitting in his patrol car all night, every night, for the entirety of the time you live there, able to examine any activity you perform at any time. I suppose you would feel comfortable in that situation, right?
So, is your apartment or house across the street from a "public place". My scenario is REALLY not all that unlikely if you think about it that way.
Hey, jackass, he never said "more stupider". He said "stupider" and "more stupid" in separate places.
Aside from that, your condescending attitude is so irritating it makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a fork to erase the horrible impression reading your posts has left on them. Ass.
The best part is, he DID say "more deeper" which you somehow missed when you were playing armchair copy editor. Nice job.
Why is driving a "privilege"? I assume you use that phrase because you have heard other people say it (it is a notably frequently used cliche after all) but have you really thought about what that implies?
Is it a privilege because you don't own the road you're driving on? Who owns the roads? The government? Who granted the authority to the government to build those roads? Why is it to be considered a privilege that I am able to drive my vehicle on roads which are built by my representative government using my tax dollars?
Yes, a lot of anime has philosophy. VERY shallow philosophy. Final Fantasy (the movie) is a perfect example of an attempt to appear "deep" without actually saying anything surprising or revealing in any way whatsoever. Their theory on the spirit of planets is not fleshed out at all, it's just a half assed attempt to appear "spiritual" without having to put a lot of effort into writing a complex story or meaningful dialogue.
If 100% of the population of the US voted, there would almost certainly be more desirable candidates, and if not, then a third party candidate would actually have a decent chance at defeating the two major parties. The fact that most people who vote now vote against one candidate rather than FOR anyone in particular could be very different if everyone currently removed from the game were to suddenly realize they had a chance to change things.
Besides which, why in the world would you choose not to vote for ANYONE because you don't like the Presidential candidates? What about Congress? What about local and state legislatures, governor, mayor, etc. Why not vote on the local issues that will undoubtedly be on your ballot like school bonds, tax increases, and so forth? There could be a bill on there about something you feel strongly about like gun control or public place smoking bans, or something of that nature.
See, that's just it - where's the objectivity here? Fox News is one outlet. One very, very conservative outlet. There are plenty of other outlets for more liberal news, but it seems as if a lot of people honestly believe that the voice (whatever voice that may be) that they agree with the least is somehow the only voice out there.
I'm not actually that big of a conservative myself, so let's flip this around - the right likes to use the phrase "the liberal media" fairly frequently. They're falling victim to the same myth you guys seem to be - a myopic assumption that the media that pushes their buttons and makes them angry is the only media that exists.
1. Isn't that the same reasoning behing the Iraqi tortures? "... but when Sadam ruled them, they were tortured even harder!
That is similarly illogical thinking. That is EXACTLY what I was accusing you of doing, thank you. If you think that the above statement is absurd (it is!) then why are you doing the same thing?
And furthermore, it's your good right to think I'm stupid, but imho it does show your lack of actual counterarguments.
No, it does not. Your arguments are filled with pointless diatribe and hyperbole. Furthermore, a key point you brought up in your response (that this article is about banning a video game) is destructive to the entire argument you are trying to make (i.e. that US publications only criticize other countries' governments)
- Yes, this post is about banning a video game. That is why it is on Slashdot. You can find TONS of anti-war, anti-US articles written by *gasp* US newspapers and online publications. These are NOT on Slashdot right now because of Slashdot's focus on technology and law. Typical anti-US articles on Slashdot focus on these two key areas, which in most cases involve complaints about government payoffs from entertainment conglomerates, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, etc.
By the way, Slashdot is not afilliated with the US government and as stated above is often extremely critical of that government. Why is it hypocritical for them to publish an article about another nation's abuse of the law in what is certainly their usual domain?
As for your last paragraph, I am at a loss for words trying to imagine in what way you think that Hollywood movies designed for entertainment can be validly compared to direct government alteration of history. Yes, China altered the history of the region, but not by banning a video game. I never said that. They banned the video game because it conflicts with the way in which they already altered history. Do you suppose that the US government has an official version of history and that no one is allowed to deviate from it in entertainment products? Because that is what we are discussing with China here.
So what you are implying is that Slashdot committed crimes against other nations. You realize you're doing that when you call it hypocritical of SLASHDOT to complain about problems with the Chinese government right?
Yes, the point you nimrods are supposed to be arriving at after FIVE THOUSAND OF THE EXACT SAME POST is that atrocities committed by various powerful nations can not be dismissed by comparing them to other atrocities and saying "Well, X atrocity is worse so it's not bad that Y atrocity occurred just now".
How hard is it to understand that ALL horrible acts are horrible?
Wow, two great points there, buddy. Let me help sum up:
1. It doesn't matter that the Chinese government represses the truth, because the U.S. does as well! So it's all good!
2. Fictional movies with Russian villains is the same thing as changing the entire history of a region to suit your political ends and demanding that a billion people believe your version.
Glad you thought about this before posting. You're really smart!
Car dealers only act that way because they *WANT* to sell you something they have on the lot - so they can get an immediate commission, I assume. Tell them you'll take your business elsewhere if they won't custom order you something. Repeat yourself several times. Then walk away. They will fucking *RUN* after you to sell you something if it's the only choice they have.
Of course, worms like that are few and far between, especially when compared to the number of Windows worms going about lately, but to claim a system is "worm free by nature"? I think that's more than a little premature.
Slashdot Mirror
That is SO GREAT that you posted that. ESPECIALLY since 500 people DIDN'T already make the exact same points before you. If I hadn't read your TIMELY and INFORMATIVE memo, I may never have known what a Beta is and I might have actually thought it was appropriate to discuss security flaws without being a shameless corporate apologist! Thank god you've pulled the wool away from my eyes!
Some people are able to look at more than one issue when choosing a candidate for the presidency. I can understand if it is a hot enough issue for you personally that it completely turns you off of the guy (and consequently his entire political party) but for others it may not be quite so important as to make their entire decision for them.
For me, "smoking bans" are not about the patrons. It's about the employees.
I like that my wife and I can go out to any bar or restaurant without coming home smelling disgusting and smokey.
I don't entirely disagree with you about employees being exposed to smoke, except that I know some waitresses and bartenders and *NOT ONE* of them has ever complained about smoke in bars. In fact, most of the bartenders in my city smoke while they're on the job. Your second statement covers both the group complaining about smoking (non-smoking patrons) and their *actual* reasoning (can't handle cigarette smoke). I think you're using the employees as an excuse to sound more reasonable.
Majority rules do not work in private establishments. The owner of the establishment decides what to do with his own property (provided his TV is not so loud that it damages your hearing, naturally).
You sound like a communist.
I'm not so sure why people get distracted so much by the TV. Especially considering that all of the anti-TV people are particularly disinterested in it. Why would you pay so much of your valuable attention to something you despise?
What if other people LIKE watching TV? What if the owner of some establishment likes watching his own TV while he's not busy?
In other words, what makes YOU so important? Why don't you go somewhere else if you don't like it - no one else seems to have a problem with it.
Nice troll. I'd love to see you break my boom box into pieces. You internet tough guys are about the most pathetic fucking thing I have ever witnessed in my entire life. Your posturing is such a waste of effort - I've yet to meet anyone who's intimidated by words on their monitor. Nice try, though.
Your opinions are vastly idiotic, but I'm pretty sure you're just making them up as you go anyway.
Whoever modded you insightful should be shot.
You failed to answer any of his points at all, but rather continued to name human embryos a "class of humans".
How do any of your statements address the point the parent made that calling an embryo a human trivializes humanity? An embryo, incidentally, will not "if left uninterrupted", produce a human being. I'm really not sure you've thought this through.
How do you address the points of other posters that embryos are naturally ejected during menstruation and flushed down toilets or thrown into trashbins? Are women committing monthly murder, in your opinion? (Or is it manslaughter, since they didn't intentionally kill their unborn child?)
I'd normally address more of your points, but your hyperbole in insisting that embryonic stem cell research is murder and your absolutely ridiculous final statement about scientists believing the earth was flat for the last two thousand years (can you *possibly* be serious about this?) have convinced me that arguing with you would be entirely pointless.
I'm going to give you the opportunity to actually think about what you just posted. A camera, across the street from your apartment, pointed right at the window of your apartment, 24 hours a day, is not analogous to a cop driving by.
It is analogous to a cop sitting in his patrol car all night, every night, for the entirety of the time you live there, able to examine any activity you perform at any time. I suppose you would feel comfortable in that situation, right?
So, is your apartment or house across the street from a "public place". My scenario is REALLY not all that unlikely if you think about it that way.
Hey, jackass, he never said "more stupider". He said "stupider" and "more stupid" in separate places.
Aside from that, your condescending attitude is so irritating it makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a fork to erase the horrible impression reading your posts has left on them. Ass.
The best part is, he DID say "more deeper" which you somehow missed when you were playing armchair copy editor. Nice job.
The article writer is clearly a moran. (Yes, I spelled it that way on purpose.)
Why?
Why is driving a "privilege"? I assume you use that phrase because you have heard other people say it (it is a notably frequently used cliche after all) but have you really thought about what that implies?
Is it a privilege because you don't own the road you're driving on? Who owns the roads? The government? Who granted the authority to the government to build those roads? Why is it to be considered a privilege that I am able to drive my vehicle on roads which are built by my representative government using my tax dollars?
Nice job missing his entire point there, chief.
Yes, a lot of anime has philosophy. VERY shallow philosophy. Final Fantasy (the movie) is a perfect example of an attempt to appear "deep" without actually saying anything surprising or revealing in any way whatsoever. Their theory on the spirit of planets is not fleshed out at all, it's just a half assed attempt to appear "spiritual" without having to put a lot of effort into writing a complex story or meaningful dialogue.
If 100% of the population of the US voted, there would almost certainly be more desirable candidates, and if not, then a third party candidate would actually have a decent chance at defeating the two major parties. The fact that most people who vote now vote against one candidate rather than FOR anyone in particular could be very different if everyone currently removed from the game were to suddenly realize they had a chance to change things.
Besides which, why in the world would you choose not to vote for ANYONE because you don't like the Presidential candidates? What about Congress? What about local and state legislatures, governor, mayor, etc. Why not vote on the local issues that will undoubtedly be on your ballot like school bonds, tax increases, and so forth? There could be a bill on there about something you feel strongly about like gun control or public place smoking bans, or something of that nature.
See, that's just it - where's the objectivity here? Fox News is one outlet. One very, very conservative outlet. There are plenty of other outlets for more liberal news, but it seems as if a lot of people honestly believe that the voice (whatever voice that may be) that they agree with the least is somehow the only voice out there.
I'm not actually that big of a conservative myself, so let's flip this around - the right likes to use the phrase "the liberal media" fairly frequently. They're falling victim to the same myth you guys seem to be - a myopic assumption that the media that pushes their buttons and makes them angry is the only media that exists.
1. Isn't that the same reasoning behing the Iraqi tortures? "... but when Sadam ruled them, they were tortured even harder!
That is similarly illogical thinking. That is EXACTLY what I was accusing you of doing, thank you. If you think that the above statement is absurd (it is!) then why are you doing the same thing?
And furthermore, it's your good right to think I'm stupid, but imho it does show your lack of actual counterarguments.
No, it does not. Your arguments are filled with pointless diatribe and hyperbole. Furthermore, a key point you brought up in your response (that this article is about banning a video game) is destructive to the entire argument you are trying to make (i.e. that US publications only criticize other countries' governments)
- Yes, this post is about banning a video game. That is why it is on Slashdot. You can find TONS of anti-war, anti-US articles written by *gasp* US newspapers and online publications. These are NOT on Slashdot right now because of Slashdot's focus on technology and law. Typical anti-US articles on Slashdot focus on these two key areas, which in most cases involve complaints about government payoffs from entertainment conglomerates, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, etc.
By the way, Slashdot is not afilliated with the US government and as stated above is often extremely critical of that government. Why is it hypocritical for them to publish an article about another nation's abuse of the law in what is certainly their usual domain?
As for your last paragraph, I am at a loss for words trying to imagine in what way you think that Hollywood movies designed for entertainment can be validly compared to direct government alteration of history. Yes, China altered the history of the region, but not by banning a video game. I never said that. They banned the video game because it conflicts with the way in which they already altered history. Do you suppose that the US government has an official version of history and that no one is allowed to deviate from it in entertainment products? Because that is what we are discussing with China here.
So what you are implying is that Slashdot committed crimes against other nations. You realize you're doing that when you call it hypocritical of SLASHDOT to complain about problems with the Chinese government right?
Yes, the point you nimrods are supposed to be arriving at after FIVE THOUSAND OF THE EXACT SAME POST is that atrocities committed by various powerful nations can not be dismissed by comparing them to other atrocities and saying "Well, X atrocity is worse so it's not bad that Y atrocity occurred just now".
How hard is it to understand that ALL horrible acts are horrible?
Wow, two great points there, buddy. Let me help sum up:
1. It doesn't matter that the Chinese government represses the truth, because the U.S. does as well! So it's all good!
2. Fictional movies with Russian villains is the same thing as changing the entire history of a region to suit your political ends and demanding that a billion people believe your version.
Glad you thought about this before posting. You're really smart!
Car dealers only act that way because they *WANT* to sell you something they have on the lot - so they can get an immediate commission, I assume. Tell them you'll take your business elsewhere if they won't custom order you something. Repeat yourself several times. Then walk away. They will fucking *RUN* after you to sell you something if it's the only choice they have.
He should throw the word "meme" in there a few hundred times. He could be just like the commentary on Slashdot!
People have short memories. There was an Apache worm about two years ago (in mod_ssl).
Here is a link
Of course, worms like that are few and far between, especially when compared to the number of Windows worms going about lately, but to claim a system is "worm free by nature"? I think that's more than a little premature.
Marshall? Wow, that IS obscure!
Don't meet me then. I use it and I tend to be more "drunken asshole" than nice.