Speak for yourself, bigot-boy. I don't think a bunch of right-wing gay-bashing assholes have any more claim to the word 'marriage' than anyone else. Gays, straights, groups, whatever - it's all okay by me. I don't see a difference between my marriage and the alternatives, and making sweeping claims about what 'we all' want based upon your own narrow-minded point of view just highlights your willful ignorance.
Don't like it? Hey, try fucking off, 'cuz in the end it isn't any of your goddamned business. If a group of gays got together and tried to tell you that your marriage to someone of the opposite sex was unnatural, a perversion, or something that society could do without you'd be the first to take up arms and fight back. Yet here you are, doing the same thing in reverse.
Or we can simply pay attention to the Constitutional requirement for separation of church and state and ban the state from issuing marriage licenses altogether. If two or more parties want a contractual agreement, then they can sign a contract and be done with it.
The state has no business deciding who can and cannot get married, nor does it have the right to do so based on the outdated ethics of right-wing religious freaks who refuse to grow up and enter the 21st century. This is clearly a case of a bunch of ignorant loons who'd as soon wipe their ass with the Constitution as read it deciding that their precious religious book is the only law worth abiding by.
There are plenty of countries in the world where that is true. If only these stupid fucks would move there and leave the rest of us the hell alone....
Are you talking about Rick "everything I touch turns to shit" Berman? The guy who has single-handedly fucked up everything that has anything to do with Star Trek?
That guy is a fucking disaster. He's so goddamned bad the only way he could've kept his stranglehold on the franchise is through blackmail. Gotta wonder what sort of dirt he's holding over the major players to keep himself in the ball game after doing nothing but piss all over Star Trek for so long.
The franchise would be improved immeasurably if ol' Rick were to get hit by a bus. The sooner the better.
Chalk me down as completely disagreeing with your assessment of the actors. The ability of all the primary players is far beyond what passes for 'acting' on most major networks, and most popular shows (e.g., Friends, Seinfield, etc.). None of the hacks on these idiotic programs could hold a candle to the folks on SG-1 on even their best day.
I'm always amazed at what I sometimes catch on the major networks. So many shows are such crocks of shit, featuring no-talent morons barely able to repeat a few lines of dialogue in any one scene without getting confused. And yet these shows go on...and on...and on...which actually isn't surprising, when you consider who the fan base is.
Yet another crock of shit brazenly posted by a Slashdot poser. High protein diets don't do a thing you describe; *high fat* diets do, most often in conjunction with minimal vegetable consumption (e.g., the average Happy Meal). Unless you're suffering from certain genetic disorders a large protein intake won't have any adverse affect on your health at all.
Here's a quarter, buy yourself a clue - preferably before the next time you decide to make a fool out of yourself.
No doubt some time after the 'gene manipulation is a tool of the devil crowd' starts whining once again that the 'end of the world is nigh, hoowah!' I can't wait until the rest of us can make smarter kids, to outcompete their stupid, narrow-minded brats and give them something to really bitch about.
In any event, beefing up rats certainly couldn't hurt. They already taste pretty bad as it is.
...and it's called a 'white list'. Seriously, this would work perfectly well for 99% of the folks out there. Most people only exchange email with those they already know, or with those they've specifically given their email address to (e.g., through PMs via forums they frequent, or - gasp! - in person). White lists would work perfectly well for them, if the white list were configured in such a way that adding or removing an accepted address via their email client was a simple process.
Combine this with existing Bayesian filters for sites which need to accept all incoming email and you'd cut the amount of spam actually reaching a target to tiny levels. The point wouldn't be to stop spam altogether (a silly goal), but to reduce the number of 'live hits' to the point where spamming is no longer profitable. Once spam isn't profitable anymore it'd die like any other failed business model.
And in that you'd be right. Mars, shmars, this guy can do some really cool art in legos! Much better than a bunch of geeks dropping a super-expensive remote-control car on one of the most boring planets in the solar system.
Spam is not just an 'internet-related' problem, it's a social problem
Give me a fucking break. Spam *only* appears on the internet, and for the very reason that the internet is the only cost-effective way to distribute it. Therefore, spam is an internet-related problem.
Which, considering that 85% of all spam originates from one country, means that if that country passes (and enforces) appropriate legislation, they will pretty much solve the spam problem, no?
Just how clueless are you? Outlaw it in one country and it'll simply move to another - even assuming it's necessary. Drugs are outlawed in this country, with massive attendant penalties, yet drug use hasn't declined one whit due to government enforcement of those penalties. Here's a quarter, go buy yourself a clue.
Relying on technology to 'fix' social problems is an outmoded way of thinking.
Yeah, that's right, all we need is MORE government and MORE legislation. And since power is a zero-sum game, that means at the end of the day I'll have LESS rights and LESS freedom.
...and the horse they rode in on. I don't want some hair-brained scheme to force creators to release their work to the public regardless of their own wishes, all in accordance with 'the greater good' - at least how it's defined by these loons.
All I want is the old copyright laws back. They're more than enough to protect any creator (including myself) without placing undue burden upon the consumer. There is no need for an enforced, legislated, dictatorial version of the Creative Commons, unless you happen to be some fucked-up totalitarian parading about in the disguise of a socialist.
People are willing to actually do some amount of work for the greater good of society.
There is no such thing as 'the greater good of society'. This is nothing more than a buzz phrase invented by pseudo-liberals looking for a moral high ground from which to enforce their views on everyone else.
The only good that any person can do is for another person - another individual. Nothing can ever been done 'for the greater good', because 'the greater good' doesn't exist. If you want to improve the lot of a group of people as a whole, the *ONLY* way to do it is by improving the lot of the INDIVIDUALS who make up that group.
It sickens me to see people use this phrase; it's just as baseless as those 'for the chiiillldren!' arguments that right-winger loons make. Ultimately what it really means is "you'll do things my way because I'm morally superior to you and therefore have the right to order you about".
If you want to do something for 'the greater good', start by shooting everyone who actually uses that phrase. You'll improve the society *and* the gene pool immeasurably.
As a writer I'd like to get *paid* for my work from time to time, so I can do little things like eat, pay the rent, etc.
Copyright is not the Root Of All Evil(TM), although some super-liberal fools (who undoubtedly pay their rent and food bills some other way) certainly seem to think so.
t is unfortunate that our "representatives" in the federal government, instead of fighting spam, have instead gone out and legalized it. The fight against it is something we have to do ourselves because we clearly cannot rely on the government to institute any meaningful legislation.
Government action isn't the answer to any internet-related problem. Governments can legislate all they like, but given that the internet is world-wide this legislation will have little, if any, impact outside the national borders of the country passing the legislation. And even there the best government will be able to do is 'poster-child' cases, which provides a very weak disincentive towards the criminalized activity. Whether it be crack or spam, government is a useless tool for actual control or behavior modification in a multinational arena.
Relying on the government to 'fix' internet problems is an outmoded way of thinking. Not to mention which it only encourages government to amass power by taking it from individuals, all in the name of 'the greater good'. I think there's been enough of that already, thank you. I'll take spam over more government control any day of the week.
It gets me kind of mad when I hear one bunch of smart people completely dissing another bunch of smart people just because they don't understand them
You might have a point here, if middle management wasn't composed of fucking idiots. Phrases like 'enterprise management' are as close as these Darwinian pieces of flotsam ever get to true sentience, much less actual brilliance.
The path to middle management isn't one of brains, but of how well you can suck the dick of the guy above you. Has been, always will be.
Evil people, stealing the names of those worshipped by socially-challenged geeks and using them for profit! What horrors!
Quick! Someone *pass a law* to prevent this tragedy!
Whining little gits. No one has a 'right' to a domain name; it's first-come first-serve, and fuck the hindmost. You lose out, you lose out - end of story. Oh, wait, I forgot - it's a different kettle of fish if someone famous is involved. Wouldn't matter for dick if *my* name was 'stolen' by some cybersquatting company, but since it's Tolkien, the object of fan worship, why *he* gets special treatment!
Even after he's dead!
Yeah, pass a law, you freakin' hypocrites. Next week you'll be back to bitching and moaning over how powerful the government is becoming, doing your best to inflict selective amnesia on yourself to avoid facing up to the fact that you are just as responsible for the situation as everyone else out there. Either that, or desperately trying to justify why *your* laws are good, and those you object to are bad.
This could be catastrophic. We still don't know all the ways ecosystems interact with one another, but we do know that the systems get very, very complex, and throwing a huge honking monkey wrench into one isn't a good idea.
It's called evolution. What most greenies don't understand, or refuse to accept, is that humans are just as much agents of evolution as random background radiation is. No matter what we do, it's just another step in the alteration of life on this planet, the same process which has been occurring for the last billion years or so.
The only difference between us and background radiation is that we can do the job *faster*.
People keep talking about ways to block spam, but the fact is spam is theft. Unlike regular mail, which is delivered to my mailbox for free and can be tossed with minimal effort, spam costs me money because access to my ISP costs me money. My equipment costs me money. The time it takes to find blockers and to maintain them costs me money.
Spam steals from me. That's theft, pure and simple. The spammers need to be charged with theft and prosecuted. End of story.
Failure of the government to prevent this theft will undoubtedly, and ultimately, result in extreme reactions from more and more individuals, such as the one described here. Were I on the jury, I'd acquit - because clearly, if the government won't do it's job prosecuting the thieves, it has no business protecting them either.
Yet another delusional law where the U.S. government actually thinks it can do something to control activity on the internet. As if, somehow, this law will be upheld world-wide simply because it applies within the territorial boundaries of the United States.
No doubt it'll be just as globally effective as all the previous laws passed by Congress concerning the internet.
Here's my '2' rating to bump this up. I like Yahoo, and you get what you pay for, so all this righteous indignation is enough to put me off my feed. Don't like Yahoo? Don't use it, you twits.
Even so, I've had one too many porn ads slide past my bulk mail filter and end up in my inbox recently. Not sure why these people think I want porn since I've never signed up for a porn site at any time in my life, but what the hell....
Rambling on, I just signed up for a MyWay account. Damn me, but I do like it. Very sleek in an extremely utilitarian sort of way. If you want bells and whistles MyWay isn't your ticket, but I just want plain ol' functionality without having to compromise my own IP address. And MyWay seems to be the ticket here.
Definitely check this one out, if you're a Yahoo or Hotmail user and are getting tired of people begging to enlarge your penis or supply you with pictures of bound Malaysian hotties.
I ignore all EULA's as well. What's the point? They all say, don't do anything wrong or we'll sue. Okay, I won't do anything wrong, so they won't sue. Simple enough.
You aren't translating Legalese correctly. In plain English most EULAs say "you're our bitch now! Bend over and grab your ankles, you little consumer whore!"
Hell, in the last general election voter fraud was rife across a number of states, and it was blatantly obvious - after the fact. One had to wonder if one was living in near the turn of the 21st century or the 20th, when you hear of 50,000 DEAD PEOPLE showing up to vote in a single state. Makes you think you're in good ol' mob run Chicago, pre-FBI.
Given that so many people attempt to pervert the process, and apparently managed to do so so well that they fucked up the last Presidential election, voting machines where the vote count can't be independently verified are just about the worst idea in the world to be entertaining. That means that no one will ever know if the count was accurate or a complete fabrication.
Ultimately, without the ability to verify the accuracy of the results - and verification does not mean taking the word of the makers of the machine or the government in power that 'everything's just hunky-dory' - your vote becomes worthless. Anything can be changed, anyone can 'win' an election, for the right price, without the chance of being discovered.
At that point, the last vestiges of democracy in America are dead. And there is no peaceful return from this state affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
Speak for yourself, bigot-boy. I don't think a bunch of right-wing gay-bashing assholes have any more claim to the word 'marriage' than anyone else. Gays, straights, groups, whatever - it's all okay by me. I don't see a difference between my marriage and the alternatives, and making sweeping claims about what 'we all' want based upon your own narrow-minded point of view just highlights your willful ignorance.
Don't like it? Hey, try fucking off, 'cuz in the end it isn't any of your goddamned business. If a group of gays got together and tried to tell you that your marriage to someone of the opposite sex was unnatural, a perversion, or something that society could do without you'd be the first to take up arms and fight back. Yet here you are, doing the same thing in reverse.
Hypocrite.
Max
Or we can simply pay attention to the Constitutional requirement for separation of church and state and ban the state from issuing marriage licenses altogether. If two or more parties want a contractual agreement, then they can sign a contract and be done with it.
The state has no business deciding who can and cannot get married, nor does it have the right to do so based on the outdated ethics of right-wing religious freaks who refuse to grow up and enter the 21st century. This is clearly a case of a bunch of ignorant loons who'd as soon wipe their ass with the Constitution as read it deciding that their precious religious book is the only law worth abiding by.
There are plenty of countries in the world where that is true. If only these stupid fucks would move there and leave the rest of us the hell alone....
Max
Are you talking about Rick "everything I touch turns to shit" Berman? The guy who has single-handedly fucked up everything that has anything to do with Star Trek?
That guy is a fucking disaster. He's so goddamned bad the only way he could've kept his stranglehold on the franchise is through blackmail. Gotta wonder what sort of dirt he's holding over the major players to keep himself in the ball game after doing nothing but piss all over Star Trek for so long.
The franchise would be improved immeasurably if ol' Rick were to get hit by a bus. The sooner the better.
Max
Chalk me down as completely disagreeing with your assessment of the actors. The ability of all the primary players is far beyond what passes for 'acting' on most major networks, and most popular shows (e.g., Friends, Seinfield, etc.). None of the hacks on these idiotic programs could hold a candle to the folks on SG-1 on even their best day.
I'm always amazed at what I sometimes catch on the major networks. So many shows are such crocks of shit, featuring no-talent morons barely able to repeat a few lines of dialogue in any one scene without getting confused. And yet these shows go on...and on...and on...which actually isn't surprising, when you consider who the fan base is.
Max
Yet another crock of shit brazenly posted by a Slashdot poser. High protein diets don't do a thing you describe; *high fat* diets do, most often in conjunction with minimal vegetable consumption (e.g., the average Happy Meal). Unless you're suffering from certain genetic disorders a large protein intake won't have any adverse affect on your health at all.
Here's a quarter, buy yourself a clue - preferably before the next time you decide to make a fool out of yourself.
Max
No doubt some time after the 'gene manipulation is a tool of the devil crowd' starts whining once again that the 'end of the world is nigh, hoowah!' I can't wait until the rest of us can make smarter kids, to outcompete their stupid, narrow-minded brats and give them something to really bitch about.
In any event, beefing up rats certainly couldn't hurt. They already taste pretty bad as it is.
Max
if that's the case, why are people still interested in III?
Natalie Portman. 'nuff said.
Max
...and it's called a 'white list'. Seriously, this would work perfectly well for 99% of the folks out there. Most people only exchange email with those they already know, or with those they've specifically given their email address to (e.g., through PMs via forums they frequent, or - gasp! - in person). White lists would work perfectly well for them, if the white list were configured in such a way that adding or removing an accepted address via their email client was a simple process.
Combine this with existing Bayesian filters for sites which need to accept all incoming email and you'd cut the amount of spam actually reaching a target to tiny levels. The point wouldn't be to stop spam altogether (a silly goal), but to reduce the number of 'live hits' to the point where spamming is no longer profitable. Once spam isn't profitable anymore it'd die like any other failed business model.
Max
And in that you'd be right. Mars, shmars, this guy can do some really cool art in legos! Much better than a bunch of geeks dropping a super-expensive remote-control car on one of the most boring planets in the solar system.
Max
Spam is not just an 'internet-related' problem, it's a social problem
Give me a fucking break. Spam *only* appears on the internet, and for the very reason that the internet is the only cost-effective way to distribute it. Therefore, spam is an internet-related problem.
Which, considering that 85% of all spam originates from one country, means that if that country passes (and enforces) appropriate legislation, they will pretty much solve the spam problem, no?
Just how clueless are you? Outlaw it in one country and it'll simply move to another - even assuming it's necessary. Drugs are outlawed in this country, with massive attendant penalties, yet drug use hasn't declined one whit due to government enforcement of those penalties. Here's a quarter, go buy yourself a clue.
Relying on technology to 'fix' social problems is an outmoded way of thinking.
Yeah, that's right, all we need is MORE government and MORE legislation. And since power is a zero-sum game, that means at the end of the day I'll have LESS rights and LESS freedom.
Go fuck yourself, you totalitarian loon.
Max
...and the horse they rode in on. I don't want some hair-brained scheme to force creators to release their work to the public regardless of their own wishes, all in accordance with 'the greater good' - at least how it's defined by these loons.
All I want is the old copyright laws back. They're more than enough to protect any creator (including myself) without placing undue burden upon the consumer. There is no need for an enforced, legislated, dictatorial version of the Creative Commons, unless you happen to be some fucked-up totalitarian parading about in the disguise of a socialist.
Max
People are willing to actually do some amount of work for the greater good of society.
There is no such thing as 'the greater good of society'. This is nothing more than a buzz phrase invented by pseudo-liberals looking for a moral high ground from which to enforce their views on everyone else.
The only good that any person can do is for another person - another individual. Nothing can ever been done 'for the greater good', because 'the greater good' doesn't exist. If you want to improve the lot of a group of people as a whole, the *ONLY* way to do it is by improving the lot of the INDIVIDUALS who make up that group.
It sickens me to see people use this phrase; it's just as baseless as those 'for the chiiillldren!' arguments that right-winger loons make. Ultimately what it really means is "you'll do things my way because I'm morally superior to you and therefore have the right to order you about".
If you want to do something for 'the greater good', start by shooting everyone who actually uses that phrase. You'll improve the society *and* the gene pool immeasurably.
Max
As a writer I'd like to get *paid* for my work from time to time, so I can do little things like eat, pay the rent, etc.
Copyright is not the Root Of All Evil(TM), although some super-liberal fools (who undoubtedly pay their rent and food bills some other way) certainly seem to think so.
Max
t is unfortunate that our "representatives" in the federal government, instead of fighting spam, have instead gone out and legalized it. The fight against it is something we have to do ourselves because we clearly cannot rely on the government to institute any meaningful legislation.
Government action isn't the answer to any internet-related problem. Governments can legislate all they like, but given that the internet is world-wide this legislation will have little, if any, impact outside the national borders of the country passing the legislation. And even there the best government will be able to do is 'poster-child' cases, which provides a very weak disincentive towards the criminalized activity. Whether it be crack or spam, government is a useless tool for actual control or behavior modification in a multinational arena.
Relying on the government to 'fix' internet problems is an outmoded way of thinking. Not to mention which it only encourages government to amass power by taking it from individuals, all in the name of 'the greater good'. I think there's been enough of that already, thank you. I'll take spam over more government control any day of the week.
Max
It gets me kind of mad when I hear one bunch of smart people completely dissing another bunch of smart people just because they don't understand them
You might have a point here, if middle management wasn't composed of fucking idiots. Phrases like 'enterprise management' are as close as these Darwinian pieces of flotsam ever get to true sentience, much less actual brilliance.
The path to middle management isn't one of brains, but of how well you can suck the dick of the guy above you. Has been, always will be.
Max
Just about every journalist has an agenda these days. Assuming impartiality is the mark of the gullible.
Max
Evil people, stealing the names of those worshipped by socially-challenged geeks and using them for profit! What horrors!
Quick! Someone *pass a law* to prevent this tragedy!
Whining little gits. No one has a 'right' to a domain name; it's first-come first-serve, and fuck the hindmost. You lose out, you lose out - end of story. Oh, wait, I forgot - it's a different kettle of fish if someone famous is involved. Wouldn't matter for dick if *my* name was 'stolen' by some cybersquatting company, but since it's Tolkien, the object of fan worship, why *he* gets special treatment!
Even after he's dead!
Yeah, pass a law, you freakin' hypocrites. Next week you'll be back to bitching and moaning over how powerful the government is becoming, doing your best to inflict selective amnesia on yourself to avoid facing up to the fact that you are just as responsible for the situation as everyone else out there. Either that, or desperately trying to justify why *your* laws are good, and those you object to are bad.
Max
Jurassic Park was based on bullshit scare tactics. Great book, better movie, horrible science.
Max
This could be catastrophic. We still don't know all the ways ecosystems interact with one another, but we do know that the systems get very, very complex, and throwing a huge honking monkey wrench into one isn't a good idea.
It's called evolution. What most greenies don't understand, or refuse to accept, is that humans are just as much agents of evolution as random background radiation is. No matter what we do, it's just another step in the alteration of life on this planet, the same process which has been occurring for the last billion years or so.
The only difference between us and background radiation is that we can do the job *faster*.
Max
People keep talking about ways to block spam, but the fact is spam is theft. Unlike regular mail, which is delivered to my mailbox for free and can be tossed with minimal effort, spam costs me money because access to my ISP costs me money. My equipment costs me money. The time it takes to find blockers and to maintain them costs me money.
Spam steals from me. That's theft, pure and simple. The spammers need to be charged with theft and prosecuted. End of story.
Failure of the government to prevent this theft will undoubtedly, and ultimately, result in extreme reactions from more and more individuals, such as the one described here. Were I on the jury, I'd acquit - because clearly, if the government won't do it's job prosecuting the thieves, it has no business protecting them either.
Max
Yet another delusional law where the U.S. government actually thinks it can do something to control activity on the internet. As if, somehow, this law will be upheld world-wide simply because it applies within the territorial boundaries of the United States.
No doubt it'll be just as globally effective as all the previous laws passed by Congress concerning the internet.
Max
Here's my '2' rating to bump this up. I like Yahoo, and you get what you pay for, so all this righteous indignation is enough to put me off my feed. Don't like Yahoo? Don't use it, you twits.
Even so, I've had one too many porn ads slide past my bulk mail filter and end up in my inbox recently. Not sure why these people think I want porn since I've never signed up for a porn site at any time in my life, but what the hell....
Rambling on, I just signed up for a MyWay account. Damn me, but I do like it. Very sleek in an extremely utilitarian sort of way. If you want bells and whistles MyWay isn't your ticket, but I just want plain ol' functionality without having to compromise my own IP address. And MyWay seems to be the ticket here.
Definitely check this one out, if you're a Yahoo or Hotmail user and are getting tired of people begging to enlarge your penis or supply you with pictures of bound Malaysian hotties.
Max
I ignore all EULA's as well. What's the point? They all say, don't do anything wrong or we'll sue. Okay, I won't do anything wrong, so they won't sue. Simple enough.
You aren't translating Legalese correctly. In plain English most EULAs say "you're our bitch now! Bend over and grab your ankles, you little consumer whore!"
Max
Hell, in the last general election voter fraud was rife across a number of states, and it was blatantly obvious - after the fact. One had to wonder if one was living in near the turn of the 21st century or the 20th, when you hear of 50,000 DEAD PEOPLE showing up to vote in a single state. Makes you think you're in good ol' mob run Chicago, pre-FBI.
Given that so many people attempt to pervert the process, and apparently managed to do so so well that they fucked up the last Presidential election, voting machines where the vote count can't be independently verified are just about the worst idea in the world to be entertaining. That means that no one will ever know if the count was accurate or a complete fabrication.
Ultimately, without the ability to verify the accuracy of the results - and verification does not mean taking the word of the makers of the machine or the government in power that 'everything's just hunky-dory' - your vote becomes worthless. Anything can be changed, anyone can 'win' an election, for the right price, without the chance of being discovered.
At that point, the last vestiges of democracy in America are dead. And there is no peaceful return from this state affairs.
Max
Either that, or emigrate to Canada before the Canadians wise up and close the border on *their* end.
Max