I personally don't agree that freedom to sound off on _any_ topic is a good thing, but I'm happy to note the disagreement and not try to change your mind.
However, a lot of people these days imagine that freedom to say whatever they want includes from dealing with the fallout if what they said. This is not true, has never been true, and likely never will be. But when they are confronted with said consequences, they cry foul and censorship.
I don't have a magic formula or solution, I'm only pointing out that when people get mad at something we say and we lose our job that isn't censoring per se. On the other hand, there's the so called "chilling effect" that makes people afraid to say some things. So the whole thing will always be a tug of war...
I'm well old enough, but never heard of it.
On its face isn't a bad idea, and I even agree with the stated reasons.
But most of the current audience of the originating site have zero interest in open discussion. They want to censor opposing opinions as much as the "tech giants" by shouting down and booing (and doxing) their pet dislikes. I guess if it keeps them off the main comment sections they may become a bit more readable...
(Part of) The complex truth is that, even though you personally may be marginalised, and personally be "unfairly disadvantaged", you belong to a Group that as a whole gets a disproportionately large chunk of every pie.
You may not have money, but whites have most of the money. You may not have education opportunities, but whites have the most education, the most facilities for finance, the most positive bias from mostly white faculty, the most job prospects, and the highest salary.
If you are missing out on any of the white advantages it sucks for you, but it doesn't make them false.
Now, if you truly feel left out and disadvantaged, one of the positive things that could come out of it is to realise that THAT is exactly how minorities feel all the time: treated unfairly, left out.
The other possible positive thing that could come out of this moment of empathy is to realise that the public discourse about race in USA is broken, and encouraged by some sectors to continue to be broken.
The colour of your skin does not matter in the slightest regarding capacity or intelligence. But it matters vitally when it comes to tribalism and "us vs them" politics that keep little people fighting each, other whilst true robber barons run the show and watch the spectacle from above. And those guys come in all colours of skin.
The problem with your reasoning is that it effectively removes any possibility of the wrongdoer learning from the experience and moving on with their life.
What good is the sanction if it never ends? For all we know, she did fuck up but also she did learn her lesson and is now a wonderful surgeon.
Yes, it _may_ not be the case, but a search engine isn't the proper place to keep track of these things.
I use Firefox containers and they mostly work.
The default one is for random stuff since that's where clicked links open.
I created one for work and one for Facebook and I try to stick to them (at least the Facebook one).
I also run ad block, but usually allow the first party site (even FB). I notice that it seems to serve only adds about tech doodads I click on from friends posts, which is much less annoying.
I think they really want to serve you stuff you may actually shell out for, so you can work a bit with the system and sandbox the rest.
On mobile I don't have a default Android browser set, so every single time I have to choose between Firefox Focus, plain Firefox or Brave. Never ever Chrome.
Sounds like a lot, but you get used in a couple of days
FINALLY! someone who realises that two or more vocables strung together aren't a "word", they are a PHRASE!!
2017 is saved:)
And no, I'm not making fun of it, I am actually pleased someone did the right thing at last:)
A new kidney would have saved him. We need a plan to grow new organs, even if it's in pigs or in brainless human bodies. Of course the Christian fundamentalists will never let this happen. Fucking hypocrites.
My condolences, annon. Regarding organ growth I was thinking something similar. At the turn of the XX Century people thought more or less the same, they believed that humans could never travel at higher than 20Km/hr, or couldn't run faster than some record of the time. Then tech changed and we did. Once they figure out the kinks of individual organ cloning without having to grow a whole being (and hopefully, without having to grow them inside an existing being, such as a pig) then well be in another era of pushing back those limits.
I swear by this thing:
https://play.google.com/store/...
Shame it doesn't have much higher reviews, but there are a lot of ignorant people misusing it out there.
I haven't heard of any talk of this being an goal, but, besides the usual objections there are still many practical obstacles.
I do mostly use the tap-n-go facilities (direct charge to your account, without need for a pin, for purchases up to $100 AUD) but there are plenty of places that have:
* minimum purchase amount to use
* surcharges
* both
Not to mention not every vendor has it, or network reception isn't always there for the reader to connect.
So yeah, maybe one day but we won't be the first.
From TFA: '''
"When dealing with such large-scale phenomena, we don't usually think it can occur within a few decades. We usually think it would take thousands or tens of thousands of years," Forman says.
The finding, he adds, "opens up a big can of worms" because researchers just don't know how or why that would happen.
So there's something missing about scientists' concept of goings on in the Earth's core.'''
But hey, at least now we know we don't know:)
That's one of the reasons I kind of hope it does pass initially it will cause a lot of problems (technical and otherwise). But we'll have to come up with solutions to those problems and when they really want to censor us it will be a lot more difficult. Where as if it doesn't pass it will likely be replaced shortly by more reasonable and enforceable means of censorship.
I think that's actually a bit too optimistic. What Hollywood, "traditional media", Politicians and associated Moneypolists want is to turn the web into Television. They want a one-way medium to distribute their content, whether it be entertainment, political platform or other stuff they sell. They don't want the regular Joe to generate their own content, hence the extremes they go to brand anything not made by them as spurious and pirated.
If this law was to remain, it would cement their grip on the medium so they can turn it into the advertisement broadcast platform they want it to be: sanitized, monetized and sales-orientated. They want to know who you are and where you are so you can't dodge them; they want you to be a trapped consumer, and they want to keep tabs on you to better tailor their efforts at shovelling their crap down your throat. This is why that MoFo Murdoch (or was it Turner?) said the Internet should have been patented from the start. This is why politicians and law enforcement agencies everywhere want it muzzled, they don't want disent they want obedience and mindless consumerism.
Would that make any impact? This would appear the perfect moment to use all their lobbying power, clearly appealing to the masses is passe and doesn't work anymore in the US. Witness the OWS movement.
Hate to break it to you but this is absolutely not the same and not better. If you type www.facebook.com/business you land on the business page straight away, and the first thing you see is whatever content business placed there.
If one follows your method, you land on a Google search page where the page you look for is one of many links. Yes, it is the top link but you are still on google, you still see the listing of other random crap (or related crap if you're [un]lucky). It takes an extra click to get to the goods, and all the extra links are potential distractions that in some cases will take you away from the business you were looking for originally. plus.google.com/business would be a much cleaner solution.
Hatred of our fellow man didn't put us at the top of the evolutionary chain. Banding together and sharing the burden of survival as a group did.
I beg to differ. We are unquestionably at the top of the food chain, but evolutionary chain? very debatable. Just because we have culture and technology and other nifty stuff doesn't mean we're more "evolved" than oil-eating bacteria, or sharks, or cockroaches, or...
That's a lot of words to dance around "Yes, there's no evidence"
I disagree; in any case it should be "There's no conclusive evidence" because his whole point is that there is some of it. If whatever evidence there is isn't enough to convince you that's fair enough, some areas of human knowledge aren't as solid as math and physics (biology, medicine and psychology to mention three biggies) and have much more hazy areas than the "hard" sciences.
I have no mod points. So all I can do is post that I agree.
The moderation system works because most moderators mods up the insightful, informative and funny. And refrains from modding up because they agree, or worse, mod down because they disagree.
Great point. What/. should do is have a dual system. An "Agree/disagree" button that does absolutely nothing but count the number of either paired with the current moderation system. To reduce a bit the potential for abuse and promote fair moderation, they could make the Dis/Agrees invisible to people with moderation points.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally don't agree that freedom to sound off on _any_ topic is a good thing, but I'm happy to note the disagreement and not try to change your mind. However, a lot of people these days imagine that freedom to say whatever they want includes from dealing with the fallout if what they said. This is not true, has never been true, and likely never will be. But when they are confronted with said consequences, they cry foul and censorship. I don't have a magic formula or solution, I'm only pointing out that when people get mad at something we say and we lose our job that isn't censoring per se. On the other hand, there's the so called "chilling effect" that makes people afraid to say some things. So the whole thing will always be a tug of war...
I'm well old enough, but never heard of it. On its face isn't a bad idea, and I even agree with the stated reasons. But most of the current audience of the originating site have zero interest in open discussion. They want to censor opposing opinions as much as the "tech giants" by shouting down and booing (and doxing) their pet dislikes. I guess if it keeps them off the main comment sections they may become a bit more readable...
(Part of) The complex truth is that, even though you personally may be marginalised, and personally be "unfairly disadvantaged", you belong to a Group that as a whole gets a disproportionately large chunk of every pie. You may not have money, but whites have most of the money. You may not have education opportunities, but whites have the most education, the most facilities for finance, the most positive bias from mostly white faculty, the most job prospects, and the highest salary. If you are missing out on any of the white advantages it sucks for you, but it doesn't make them false. Now, if you truly feel left out and disadvantaged, one of the positive things that could come out of it is to realise that THAT is exactly how minorities feel all the time: treated unfairly, left out. The other possible positive thing that could come out of this moment of empathy is to realise that the public discourse about race in USA is broken, and encouraged by some sectors to continue to be broken. The colour of your skin does not matter in the slightest regarding capacity or intelligence. But it matters vitally when it comes to tribalism and "us vs them" politics that keep little people fighting each, other whilst true robber barons run the show and watch the spectacle from above. And those guys come in all colours of skin.
The problem with your reasoning is that it effectively removes any possibility of the wrongdoer learning from the experience and moving on with their life. What good is the sanction if it never ends? For all we know, she did fuck up but also she did learn her lesson and is now a wonderful surgeon. Yes, it _may_ not be the case, but a search engine isn't the proper place to keep track of these things.
I wonder if it affects loot boxes. Some EU countries think they are basically gambling
No, don''t get up, I'll show myself out
Wrong Forum to ask that question. Obviously none of us would know what's like to be ugly 0:-)
I use Firefox containers and they mostly work. The default one is for random stuff since that's where clicked links open. I created one for work and one for Facebook and I try to stick to them (at least the Facebook one). I also run ad block, but usually allow the first party site (even FB). I notice that it seems to serve only adds about tech doodads I click on from friends posts, which is much less annoying. I think they really want to serve you stuff you may actually shell out for, so you can work a bit with the system and sandbox the rest. On mobile I don't have a default Android browser set, so every single time I have to choose between Firefox Focus, plain Firefox or Brave. Never ever Chrome. Sounds like a lot, but you get used in a couple of days
FINALLY! someone who realises that two or more vocables strung together aren't a "word", they are a PHRASE!! 2017 is saved :)
And no, I'm not making fun of it, I am actually pleased someone did the right thing at last :)
A new kidney would have saved him. We need a plan to grow new organs, even if it's in pigs or in brainless human bodies. Of course the Christian fundamentalists will never let this happen. Fucking hypocrites.
My condolences, annon. Regarding organ growth I was thinking something similar. At the turn of the XX Century people thought more or less the same, they believed that humans could never travel at higher than 20Km/hr, or couldn't run faster than some record of the time. Then tech changed and we did. Once they figure out the kinks of individual organ cloning without having to grow a whole being (and hopefully, without having to grow them inside an existing being, such as a pig) then well be in another era of pushing back those limits.
I swear by this thing: https://play.google.com/store/... Shame it doesn't have much higher reviews, but there are a lot of ignorant people misusing it out there.
Not to mention not every vendor has it, or network reception isn't always there for the reader to connect. So yeah, maybe one day but we won't be the first.
From TFA: ''' "When dealing with such large-scale phenomena, we don't usually think it can occur within a few decades. We usually think it would take thousands or tens of thousands of years," Forman says. The finding, he adds, "opens up a big can of worms" because researchers just don't know how or why that would happen. So there's something missing about scientists' concept of goings on in the Earth's core.''' But hey, at least now we know we don't know :)
You may have a different idea of what millennial means. I've been here since the mid 1990's and I'm gen X
Damn yoo trooll, you got me! Well played :)
The word is "scroogled" ;)
Look into Inomial's Smile ( http://www.inomial.com/ We use it and it's better than Platypus somebody mentioned; might suit you.
They probably have some fancy-fangled-ass-shit to pop open and reseal an envelope without showing signs of tampering, too.
The word you are looking for is "equipment" ;)
when you see a post from someone with a low 6 digit Slashdot user ID you probably want to refrain from contradicting them.
Yeah right. Low ID = genius. That's the universal rule of /.
Yeah, move over Einstein! ;)
That's one of the reasons I kind of hope it does pass initially it will cause a lot of problems (technical and otherwise). But we'll have to come up with solutions to those problems and when they really want to censor us it will be a lot more difficult. Where as if it doesn't pass it will likely be replaced shortly by more reasonable and enforceable means of censorship.
I think that's actually a bit too optimistic. What Hollywood, "traditional media", Politicians and associated Moneypolists want is to turn the web into Television. They want a one-way medium to distribute their content, whether it be entertainment, political platform or other stuff they sell. They don't want the regular Joe to generate their own content, hence the extremes they go to brand anything not made by them as spurious and pirated.
If this law was to remain, it would cement their grip on the medium so they can turn it into the advertisement broadcast platform they want it to be: sanitized, monetized and sales-orientated. They want to know who you are and where you are so you can't dodge them; they want you to be a trapped consumer, and they want to keep tabs on you to better tailor their efforts at shovelling their crap down your throat. This is why that MoFo Murdoch (or was it Turner?) said the Internet should have been patented from the start. This is why politicians and law enforcement agencies everywhere want it muzzled, they don't want disent they want obedience and mindless consumerism.
Would that make any impact? This would appear the perfect moment to use all their lobbying power, clearly appealing to the masses is passe and doesn't work anymore in the US. Witness the OWS movement.
using Google, you're doing it wrong.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%2Bpepsi
Hate to break it to you but this is absolutely not the same and not better. If you type www.facebook.com/business you land on the business page straight away, and the first thing you see is whatever content business placed there.
If one follows your method, you land on a Google search page where the page you look for is one of many links. Yes, it is the top link but you are still on google, you still see the listing of other random crap (or related crap if you're [un]lucky). It takes an extra click to get to the goods, and all the extra links are potential distractions that in some cases will take you away from the business you were looking for originally. plus.google.com/business would be a much cleaner solution.
Hatred of our fellow man didn't put us at the top of the evolutionary chain. Banding together and sharing the burden of survival as a group did.
I beg to differ. We are unquestionably at the top of the food chain, but evolutionary chain? very debatable. Just because we have culture and technology and other nifty stuff doesn't mean we're more "evolved" than oil-eating bacteria, or sharks, or cockroaches, or...
That's a lot of words to dance around "Yes, there's no evidence"
I disagree; in any case it should be "There's no conclusive evidence" because his whole point is that there is some of it. If whatever evidence there is isn't enough to convince you that's fair enough, some areas of human knowledge aren't as solid as math and physics (biology, medicine and psychology to mention three biggies) and have much more hazy areas than the "hard" sciences.
(Off topic)
I have no mod points. So all I can do is post that I agree.
The moderation system works because most moderators mods up the insightful, informative and funny. And refrains from modding up because they agree, or worse, mod down because they disagree.
Great point. What /. should do is have a dual system. An "Agree/disagree" button that does absolutely nothing but count the number of either paired with the current moderation system. To reduce a bit the potential for abuse and promote fair moderation, they could make the Dis/Agrees invisible to people with moderation points.