"Lonely" implies that you feel sad due to a lack of interaction with others. That's not accurate for a lot of people.
For those of us 'extremely social' people who you know actually have a few friends and get along with acquaintances, we can't go scorched earth on everyone.
Then just don't use a Facebook account if you don't want to go that far.
No matter how you slice it, being a shut-in is very sad.
What is and is not sad is completely subjective, so no. And I reject the notion that you can't find people who don't use Facebook; others participating in this discussion have said as much.
No. Facebook is an awful company and no one should deal with them. Giving your information to such a company only ensures it will be abused.
It's outrageously unreasonable to suggest that I ditch them now because they have an account on a website.
You don't need to ditch them, but at least don't follow them in getting a Facebook account unless you want to join them in being unprincipled ignoramuses who sacrifice massive amounts of privacy for convenience.
Surely they don't expect them to judge me on having an account on/.
Is Slashdot evil like Facebook? No. Facebook is designed to violate people's privacy and sell information to advertisers.
Facebook is intolerable to anyone with actual principles. That's just a fact. Maybe having principles isn't popular, but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
Maybe live thousands miles away from your friends and family. Maybe your friends and family do not share the same principles like you do.
Who gives a shit what they do? You think being "social" is about reading petty nonsense that they post online, and perhaps responding? I don't think that's socialization at all. If I was a "social" person, I would just do it the old fashioned way: Find some decent people to hang out with in real life. If my family lived too far away, too fucking bad; I don't need to know about them. Maybe you could even occasionally use something called a phone or send a letter. No, that's simply impossible; you need to know every thought that pops into their heads.
Like it or not social networking is an amazing way to keep in touch and follow peoples life.
That's worthless, especially for actual nerds. And all you'll get is useless information.
It seems that too many people readily sacrifice everything for convenience.
Not one person says that someone making and selling copies is innocent.
I am such a person. Therefore, your statement is incorrect. I don't see commercial copyright infringement as any worse than normal copyright infringement; I think copyright should be totally abolished.
Ergo, the degenerate solution of pirating and deleting the movie unwatched. It's a logically consistent position.
No, it's ridiculous. You're not sticking up for freedom of speech or against censorship by downloading one of Sony's awful movies. But at least you're not going to give an evil company like Sony money; only an absolute idiot would do that, and sadly there are a lot of those.
"Piracy" is a propaganda term. Copyright infringement is a non-threat because, even in the event of a "lost sale" (you can't truly lose sales because you never had them in your possession), you still lose nothing; you merely don't gain.
You keep speaking of "liberals" as if they're a hivemind, much as some speak of "conservatives" as if they're a hivemind. You're just making hasty generalizations.
Looks like you've been duped into believing the left vs right/liberal vs conservative false dichotomy scam.
Only partisan hacks are pointing out how dumb "the other guy" is. The rest of us aren't voting for candidates endorsed by The One Party. And some people *did* protest the Patriot Act; just not enough. Others donate to rights organizations and try to educate others. Sadly, it's difficult when the general public is convinced that freedom is worthless or not worth fighting for.
His oath to an evil organization does not matter. He has a more important oath to be a good human being.
When he gave up information about abuses of spying on Americans
Because Americans are the only ones that matter? Ethics don't matter? You sound like the very neocon scumbags you criticize.
all of which was what the NSA was set up for
If the NSA's mission was to spy on allies and innocent people all over the world just because the information may prove useful, then the NSA's mission was unethical.
Which does not matter. Patriot act is not the issue, nor the problem. Nearly all aspects of pat act were and continue, to be needed.
Now, not only has snowden told enemies how to evade us
What the shit? Well, thanks for revealing your true colors, you authoritarian, partisan hack.
Worse, a number of u idiots have called for the NSA, a relatively powerless entity( no ability to arrest, etc), to be disbanded and then for the tech. To be handed over to FBI and CIA.
"u"? Seriously? He just left.
Anyway, all of those organizations are corrupt to the core.
Yes but none of them actually had time to read it did they?
A nonsensical excuse. The one democrat who voted against it realized it contained freedom-violating provisions, so there's no excuse for voting for it. Even at the time, it was known to be an awful bill.
In the political climate of the time voting against it looked like a career ending move
And...? They have a duty to defend the constitution, even if that means ending their careers. There are still so many people in both parties saying we should sacrifice our liberties for security. Their true colors were especially revealed on 9/11; they took advantage of the situation to push their authoritarian agenda. It was not an accident, and nor was it because they didn't read it.
I'm not the one calling for a revolution you pathetic sack of shit.
So, you think mass surveillance isn't a problem? If you do think it's a problem, then according to your logic, you can't post on Slashdot and take action at the same time.
But the logic is ridiculous to begin with. Someone can be an activist while still making posts on the Internet.
And once you accept such a premise - that everyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith - how could you possibly behave any differently than the NSA did?
Because I'm against mass surveillance. And we have evidence of their bad faith: The current situation. I do not suggest we violate anyone's rights, since I view freedom as most important, so that makes me instantly better than what the NSA is doing.
What else can you do but keep them under surveillance in hopes of catching them in the act?
I don't know... pay attention to how they fucking vote?
This is what's really wrong with American political process: treating political opponents as enemies.
They're trying to infringe upon the constitution and our fundamental liberties; they *are* enemies. How could anyone who desires to live in a free country not treat these authoritarian scumbags as enemies?
So both parties listen to the voters, otherwise being rabidly vocal would have no effect.
That makes no sense. They might not be listening to the majority of voters, and since we're stuck with an awful two party system where most people only pay attention to silly hot button issues and are stupid enough to believe in voting for 'the lesser of two evils', you end up with voters voting for people who might have quite a few policies that they disagree with.
We should just offer a trade school option starting in high school, like some other countries do. That's where people can have the shop and metal working classes.
and creativity has been sucked out of our public educational system.
You can't suck out something that never existed. Our school system was and is geared towards creating worker drones and rote memorization 'geniuses.' NCLB made the problem a bit worse, but only a bit.
If he's a 'warmonger' then you must be an appeaser.
No, he's a warmongering world police fool. Read his posts. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, and his just leads to war, war, and more war, all in the name of some ignorant notion of 'justice' that has shown to increase suffering for everyone involved.
If this were WWII you would arguing for surrender to Hitler, or Stalin
We were attacked by a clearly identifiable country in WWII, so it's not even close to a valid comparison. Nice try.
I bet a lot more people have died in NK, and will die due to their government than would die in a war.
Sad, but they haven't attacked us. Preemptive warfare makes you a warmonger.
My arguments stand on their own merit. What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation than I am now is 100% irrelevant to the validity of my arguments. It surprises me how many Slashdotters--which I would think would at least be able to understand basic logic--use the "You'd think differently if you were in a different situation!" argument as if it's relevant to anything.
Have you never heard of bias? Why are only the people who are directly affected by something correct? That makes no logical sense. Lots of people would do or say *anything* if they felt it benefited them. A family of a murder victim wants to be judge, jury, and executioner for the accused? A robber thinks that laws against robbery are bad? Better listen to them, then, because you might feel the same as them if you were in their situation!
No, such arguments are irrelevant, illogical, and demonstrate that your critical thinking skills are lacking.
Slashdot Mirror
"Lonely" implies that you feel sad due to a lack of interaction with others. That's not accurate for a lot of people.
For those of us 'extremely social' people who you know actually have a few friends and get along with acquaintances, we can't go scorched earth on everyone.
Then just don't use a Facebook account if you don't want to go that far.
No matter how you slice it, being a shut-in is very sad.
What is and is not sad is completely subjective, so no. And I reject the notion that you can't find people who don't use Facebook; others participating in this discussion have said as much.
Oh, shut up already.
No. Facebook is an awful company and no one should deal with them. Giving your information to such a company only ensures it will be abused.
It's outrageously unreasonable to suggest that I ditch them now because they have an account on a website.
You don't need to ditch them, but at least don't follow them in getting a Facebook account unless you want to join them in being unprincipled ignoramuses who sacrifice massive amounts of privacy for convenience.
Surely they don't expect them to judge me on having an account on /.
Is Slashdot evil like Facebook? No. Facebook is designed to violate people's privacy and sell information to advertisers.
You sound like a real joy to spend time with.
Facebook is intolerable to anyone with actual principles. That's just a fact. Maybe having principles isn't popular, but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
Maybe live thousands miles away from your friends and family. Maybe your friends and family do not share the same principles like you do.
Who gives a shit what they do? You think being "social" is about reading petty nonsense that they post online, and perhaps responding? I don't think that's socialization at all. If I was a "social" person, I would just do it the old fashioned way: Find some decent people to hang out with in real life. If my family lived too far away, too fucking bad; I don't need to know about them. Maybe you could even occasionally use something called a phone or send a letter. No, that's simply impossible; you need to know every thought that pops into their heads.
Like it or not social networking is an amazing way to keep in touch and follow peoples life.
That's worthless, especially for actual nerds. And all you'll get is useless information.
It seems that too many people readily sacrifice everything for convenience.
Not one person says that someone making and selling copies is innocent.
I am such a person. Therefore, your statement is incorrect. I don't see commercial copyright infringement as any worse than normal copyright infringement; I think copyright should be totally abolished.
(not copy and then sell/distribute, but merely copy)
Even if you copy and sell/distribute, you have taken nothing away from the creator.
Eh? If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages.
No, normal people with brains say that. The legal system and companies like Sony do not feel the same way. Don't confuse the two.
These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.
I agree that people who say that copying such data harms none shouldn't care if Sony does it (and some do, making them hypocrites).
But the thing is, it's about Sony being absolute hypocrites, and equality under the law.
Ergo, the degenerate solution of pirating and deleting the movie unwatched. It's a logically consistent position.
No, it's ridiculous. You're not sticking up for freedom of speech or against censorship by downloading one of Sony's awful movies. But at least you're not going to give an evil company like Sony money; only an absolute idiot would do that, and sadly there are a lot of those.
"You might feel differently if you were in situation X!" does not debunk someone's arguments.
"Piracy" is a propaganda term. Copyright infringement is a non-threat because, even in the event of a "lost sale" (you can't truly lose sales because you never had them in your possession), you still lose nothing; you merely don't gain.
Hardly. They obviously believe the product has some value or they wouldn't have stolen it.
Worth downloading != worth paying money for.
You keep speaking of "liberals" as if they're a hivemind, much as some speak of "conservatives" as if they're a hivemind. You're just making hasty generalizations.
Looks like you've been duped into believing the left vs right/liberal vs conservative false dichotomy scam.
I don't see why only disliking stupid jokes is a liberal-only thing. It seems more like what is and is not funny is subjective.
Only partisan hacks are pointing out how dumb "the other guy" is. The rest of us aren't voting for candidates endorsed by The One Party. And some people *did* protest the Patriot Act; just not enough. Others donate to rights organizations and try to educate others. Sadly, it's difficult when the general public is convinced that freedom is worthless or not worth fighting for.
He took a loyalty oath.
His oath to an evil organization does not matter. He has a more important oath to be a good human being.
When he gave up information about abuses of spying on Americans
Because Americans are the only ones that matter? Ethics don't matter? You sound like the very neocon scumbags you criticize.
all of which was what the NSA was set up for
If the NSA's mission was to spy on allies and innocent people all over the world just because the information may prove useful, then the NSA's mission was unethical.
Which does not matter. Patriot act is not the issue, nor the problem. Nearly all aspects of pat act were and continue, to be needed.
Now, not only has snowden told enemies how to evade us
What the shit? Well, thanks for revealing your true colors, you authoritarian, partisan hack.
Worse, a number of u idiots have called for the NSA, a relatively powerless entity( no ability to arrest, etc), to be disbanded and then for the tech. To be handed over to FBI and CIA.
"u"? Seriously? He just left.
Anyway, all of those organizations are corrupt to the core.
Yes but none of them actually had time to read it did they?
A nonsensical excuse. The one democrat who voted against it realized it contained freedom-violating provisions, so there's no excuse for voting for it. Even at the time, it was known to be an awful bill.
In the political climate of the time voting against it looked like a career ending move
And...? They have a duty to defend the constitution, even if that means ending their careers. There are still so many people in both parties saying we should sacrifice our liberties for security. Their true colors were especially revealed on 9/11; they took advantage of the situation to push their authoritarian agenda. It was not an accident, and nor was it because they didn't read it.
I'm not the one calling for a revolution you pathetic sack of shit.
So, you think mass surveillance isn't a problem? If you do think it's a problem, then according to your logic, you can't post on Slashdot and take action at the same time.
But the logic is ridiculous to begin with. Someone can be an activist while still making posts on the Internet.
What?
And once you accept such a premise - that everyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith - how could you possibly behave any differently than the NSA did?
Because I'm against mass surveillance. And we have evidence of their bad faith: The current situation. I do not suggest we violate anyone's rights, since I view freedom as most important, so that makes me instantly better than what the NSA is doing.
What else can you do but keep them under surveillance in hopes of catching them in the act?
I don't know... pay attention to how they fucking vote?
This is what's really wrong with American political process: treating political opponents as enemies.
They're trying to infringe upon the constitution and our fundamental liberties; they *are* enemies. How could anyone who desires to live in a free country not treat these authoritarian scumbags as enemies?
So both parties listen to the voters, otherwise being rabidly vocal would have no effect.
That makes no sense. They might not be listening to the majority of voters, and since we're stuck with an awful two party system where most people only pay attention to silly hot button issues and are stupid enough to believe in voting for 'the lesser of two evils', you end up with voters voting for people who might have quite a few policies that they disagree with.
We should just offer a trade school option starting in high school, like some other countries do. That's where people can have the shop and metal working classes.
and creativity has been sucked out of our public educational system.
You can't suck out something that never existed. Our school system was and is geared towards creating worker drones and rote memorization 'geniuses.' NCLB made the problem a bit worse, but only a bit.
You know, now that I think about it, warmongers might want to move to North Korea; they'd fit right in.
If he's a 'warmonger' then you must be an appeaser.
No, he's a warmongering world police fool. Read his posts. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, and his just leads to war, war, and more war, all in the name of some ignorant notion of 'justice' that has shown to increase suffering for everyone involved.
If this were WWII you would arguing for surrender to Hitler, or Stalin
We were attacked by a clearly identifiable country in WWII, so it's not even close to a valid comparison. Nice try.
I bet a lot more people have died in NK, and will die due to their government than would die in a war.
Sad, but they haven't attacked us. Preemptive warfare makes you a warmonger.
My arguments stand on their own merit. What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation than I am now is 100% irrelevant to the validity of my arguments. It surprises me how many Slashdotters--which I would think would at least be able to understand basic logic--use the "You'd think differently if you were in a different situation!" argument as if it's relevant to anything.
Have you never heard of bias? Why are only the people who are directly affected by something correct? That makes no logical sense. Lots of people would do or say *anything* if they felt it benefited them. A family of a murder victim wants to be judge, jury, and executioner for the accused? A robber thinks that laws against robbery are bad? Better listen to them, then, because you might feel the same as them if you were in their situation!
No, such arguments are irrelevant, illogical, and demonstrate that your critical thinking skills are lacking.