1. If Earth gets hit by an asteroid which ruins the environment and the weather, putting us into an ice-age, Earth will STILL be the most hospitable place for humans in the universe.
2. People on non-Earth planets will not survive due to the wrong gravity.
3. People who call the moon 'Luna' are an argument for post-natal abortion. I bet you call the sun 'Sol' and Earth 'Terra'.
4. I'd rather live on post-apocalyptic Earth than an asteroid, either rotting in the zero gravity on the outside or psychologically rotting spinning round and round inside a giant metal cave.
5. If we all get killed, will we care if some other humans are living somewhere else?
Say you have a million customers, in a country of a three hundred million. A third of a percent. Then you lay off 500 workers. That's less than 2 customers. I'm sure that's a net profit. And that's assuming that none of those workers find new work, and don't spend any of their money on your product. You'd be surprised how many supposedly poor unemployed people spend their shrinking savings on frivoloties.
The system we have now is designed to funnel the profits into the hands of a few people
Always has been like that, always will be. The Romans used slaves to build marble villas for the governers. Medieval knights had serfs working the fields to put food on the banquet tables in their castles. Peasants worked in cotton mills to keep the industrialists in mansions. Now office drones sit in cubicles to help chief executives pay for their privates jets. This isn't a new thing, I don't know why you're surprised.
In fact now the gap between the rich and poor is smaller than ever. In the 14th century if you worked picking potatoes, that was your lot, you'd never be anything else. You worked all the daylight hours and lived in a mudhut, most of your children died of disease and you ate stale vegetables and drank filthy water. Nowadays, even the poor have great opportunity. A man with no money living in a box can drag himself up and start a business and become a billionaire. Even the poor live in relative luxury, with housing, food, education and healthcare paid for by the government.
professionals who used to be able to raise a family in a nice home on a single income now barely scrape by with two incomes.
Of course, in the 'good' old days, poor families didn't spend their money on televisions, computers, fridges, microwaves, indoor toilets, supermarket meals, fizzy drinks, new clothes, cars, holidays abroad, central heating, air conditioning, mobile phones, hot water, leather furniture, detached house with four bedrooms, garage and big garden, not to mention thousands of other luxuries which weren't available when only the man of the house went to work. All these things COST MONEY. You want today's luxuries whilst living yesterday's lifestyle. Well unless you're rich you can't have it. I'm sure if you cut out all the expenses, you could live like they did in the 1950s, with the wife staying at home, and everyone shitting outside in a shed.
I'd say the opposite: Frodo started out incredibly eager, but slowly lost interest as the ring corrupted him. Although I'm talking about the subtle Tolkien version rather than Peter Jackon's unnecessary special effects and ham.
I'm afraid that SF and sci-fi are just abbreviations for the same thing. The term 'sci fi' was invented because it's more convenient than saying science fiction, it's not a new term altogether. You may as well argue the difference between 'hacker' and 'cracker'.
You haven't answered his question. He asked, what should Microsoft do in this situation. What should they do? Microsoft don't have a monopoly on RSS.
If you maintained a program which followed some standard, and though of some new functionality which would improve it, but wasn't in the standard, what would you do? Should you improve your product, or stagnate and wait for the stragglers to catch up?
It's influential because it's interesting and enjoyable to watch. If you want something 'deep' and 'awe-inspiring', then go and read one of those awful bone-dry sci-fi books written by authors who can't really write, but their books are gobbled up by geeks because they have space-ships and time-travel in them.
Sci-fi films are more than about science, they're films as well. The Matrix worked incredibly well as a film. It had a decent pace, good editing, great soundtrack, a couple of decent actors (Fishborn and Weaving), an interested concept and all sorts of cool scenes. Perhaps you've not understood that cinema is a visual medium. The whole point in having it on film rather than on the radio or in a book is that it looks good, it's pleasing to the eye. It's entertaining. The lobby scene might not have any science-fiction value, nor any philosophical significance, but it was a fucking cool thing to watch, which is the whole fucking point.
Perhaps you're one of those emotionless, quasi-autistic geeks who see everything in terms of numbers and logic, unable to appreciate anything for its artistic value.
And if schools could actually teach proper use of condoms et. al., we wouldn't have nearly so many STDs or underage pregnancies. It's quite possible to have responsible sex.
Contraception fails, very easily. The only sure way to be free of pregnancies and STDs is abstinence. It's simple, and it's free, it's worked since the dawn of time. Yes, it requires men to keep their trousers on, and girls to keep their legs together, but it's not rocket science. Try thinking with your brain rather than your dick.
We're not arguing that the guy didn't break the law, we're arguing that the guy isn't guilty of anything that should be criminally punished because the law is wrong.
So you're saying in effect that if you don't like the law, you should be free to break it, and that if you get caught, then you should be let off as long as you tell the judge you think the law is unjust?
Surely justice should be based on the law, rather than what the individual thinks? That's the only fair way: you know where you stand in advance, and if you don't want the punishment, you know what not to do. If people just do what they think is fair, we have anarchy.
Piracy definitely costs the copyright holders money. Someone who downloads something instead of buying it is costing people money. I think both piracy and spamming should be illegal, but it's inconsistent and dishonest to condemn one because it inconveniences you, and to approve of the other because you find it convenient. The sooner people admit they're basing their opinions on their own preferences rather than objective logic, the better.
Why is spamming bad, and should be illegal, but not copyright infringement? Surely if spammers can be punished, you can't excuse piracy. Neither of them are 'taking' anything. It seems that people on this site are hypocrites who choose their opinions based on what favours them the most.
Of course, those 'valuable' skills are generally worthless in the real world. Unless you're a rich kid who gets to be an officer, you're more likely to be stood at a guardpoint in Baghdad doing nothing all day and night (except being bombed). And once you get out, you'll find that you can't get a job because no corporations need people to stand about with machine guns dressed like storm troopers. Although the servitude aspect of military life is quite useful for corporate life. Not much difference between being an officer's bitch or being a manager's bitch.
As for the salary, note the families with people in the army who are on welfare. Or the people who get out of the army and still can't afford to go to college. Or the people who get into the army then find out their benefits aren't what they thought they were. Or the people who are crippled or injured and the army drops them like a stone.
Your speech reads like an army recruitment propaganda campaign.
You seem to think it's acceptable that people from poor backgrounds should be shepherded into military service because they have no prospects. How about instead we put all the rich kids into the military and let the poor people get the expensive educations instead? Of course that won't happen, because the rich rule the world, and they won't allow their kids to come near harm. Instead they get Ivy League degrees and positions of power because of their family backgrounds, whilst people with more intelligence and abilities get stuck doing manual labour because their schools were glorified drug dens and they came from a single-parent family who lived in a tiny apartment that's falling to pieces, living from paycheck to paycheck, no money for even basic healthcare. But that's OK, because they can go to the army, be someone's bitch, and get killed to support Haliburton's stock prices so some rich man can give his kid a Ferrari after he passes his driving test.
Yeah, but let's not forget that the US Military is a tremendous career opportunity for many people
You have to wonder about how fucked up America is when going to war is seen as a tremendous career opportunity. Ask some veterans from the World Wars or Vietnam whether it was a good opportunity. Ask the relatives of those who were killed whether it was good for their careers.
And what happens to your career when the military decide they don't need you anymore and kick you to the curb because you missed your recruitment quota?
Of course, it's only an opportunity for the poor people, in run-down areas with no prospects. Rather than perhaps providing them with better prospects, i.e. better schools, less crime, better health care, it's easier to send them off to war, being ordered to their deaths by officers from rich backgrounds with expensive unearned educations.
You drove drunk, without insurance, and crashed? And you're complaining that you have to pay your bills? You drive a car even though you can't afford it? And you're complaining about your situation?
I'll try to bring you back to reality:
1. People who drive without insurance fuck things up for everyone else, especially us hard-working people who pay through the nose for insurance. 2. People who drive drunk are worthless scumbags. You should have gotten a year. 3. If you're complaining about not having enough money, and you quit your job for no apparent reason, you deserve everything you get.
Well, perhaps you should reconsider the idea of extra-marital sex. Before everyone started sleeping around with everyone else we didn't have nearly so many STDs or underage pregnancies.
As for a 19 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, well, he knew the law. She was underage, it was illegal, but then again the sort of people who get up to that sort of thing are rarely the most intelligent. No sympathy from me.
The number of people using the service is 27. You're one of those slashdot bitches who thinks that everyone else should pay for his free Internet access because of a misguided sense of entitlement. Well, tough shit. Municipal wireless is dead in the water, and thank fuck for that.
Firefox is very inefficient when it comes to cash. I remember using Opera a few years ago. The cache was incredible. Images were hardly ever re-downloaded, and you could reload previously visited pages without having to redownload them, which on my dialup connection means a lot. On frequently-visited sites, it was so damn fast as all the images were cached.
Just now I had Firefox open with about 10 Slashdot tabs. Then I loaded that onion link, which has Flash in it. Flash often crashes Firefox. It did so this time. When I reopened it, instead of just opening the pages as they were, it decided, in its infinite wisdom, to REDOWNLOAD THE WHOLE FUCKING LOT OF THEM. WHY??????? I have a 200GB hard disk, I've given the cache tons of room, I can keep thousands of these pages on cache, so why doesn't it use it? I don't want to spend ages redownloading pages.
Also Opera sorts the cache better. Files have the proper extensions. Firefox removes the extensions from the files in the cache, so you don't know what the hell they are, and you can't browse them. Just a shame that Firefox is the open source one, I'd rather have Opera open-sourced, it's a lot quicker and more efficient, imagine what could have been done with all the effort that's gone into Firefox instead.
$1,800 divided by 27 users is $66.67 dollars a month, which is $800 per year, per person. A bit more than 'one penny' (I thought they used cents in the US?) Also how many of those people paying for it had actually been told about it? None? 27 people who accidently connected to it getting an $800/year service for free.
That's $2.19 per day. Less than $5, but then that $5 is the cost which the user pays for it, not the cost of running the service. I'd be willing to bet that it costs the airport less than $2.19 to offer wireless to a traveller for the couple of hours or so he's in the airport.
Also the government didn't even charge for this service, so they were using tax payers money to give a free Internet service to a handful of people at extortionate cost. This is why governments shouldn't provide luxury services at tax-payer's expense. The way I see it, people with fancy laptops with wireless capabilities who hang about at coffee shops all day can afford their own Internet access, I see no reason why people who don't even have computers should have to fund other people's free wireless Internet.
I'm afraid that a text file which may or may not exist is not the copyright holder. The copyright holder is NEVER asked. This is a legal time-bomb waiting to happen.
An analogy: "I took some things from someone's house, but it's not burglary, I asked permission. I went to the birdtable and said 'Hello, am I allowed to take things from this house?' The bird table didn't say no, so I was allowed to break in."
Great, so the only way to make the Linux UI even remotely consistent is to uninstall half your applications. That's the most fucking stupid thing I've ever heard. Who the hell came up with that one? Not only the inconsistency, but now you've got two different sets of libraries runnign, eating up ram, and twice as much to upgrade/patch/install. All for ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXTRA GAIN. It's like having two steering wheels in your car, or two languages in one book. I think it's time for Linus to crack some heads together.
I'm afraid that the burden is on the archive.org not to archive copyrighted material, not on the copyright holder to explicitely deny people permission.
If they really wanted to go out of their way, they would ask permission before illegally copying and distributing copyrighted material for which they do not have permission.
No. In the current climate, being modded down, even just once or twice, can lead to you being banned for over a month. It's ironic that a site which constantly bitches and moans about censorship is the first place to censor people. Even just two reasonable posts being modded down by partisan moderators can get your IP banned. And it lasts for several weeks at least. AC posting is necessary as long as Slashdot remains the Home of Censorship.
So you're saying that because you're a whiny, self-pitying, unsociable coward, it should be acceptable to vandalise message boards? Well in the real world, it doesn't work like that. It's generally people like you who've grown up with no discipline who think they can go round doing whatever they want. It's that same old sense of entitlement: a messageboard is there, therefore you have the right to deface it, the only thing stopping you is those horrible social constraints.
Social constraints are GOOD. Without them we would have anarchy. You wouldn't vandalise a messageboard in real life would you? If a church put up a bulletin board where people could leave notes for each other, you wouldn't come in during the night with a black market and write 'FUCK' hundreds of times all over it, so why do you think it's acceptable on the Internet?
Apparently, you dislike human contact, and think that therefore no-one else should enjoy it either. Your arguments are pitiful and remind me of a 3 year old upset that he can't throw paint at the wall.
Pardon me for asking, but why is a partisan flamebait comment from an Anonymous Coward a front-page story on Slashdot? Have this place really detereorated that far that someone using childish logic to say that 'google iz teh roxx0r' is worthy of an article?
For all the hype and cock-sucking about Google, and for all their money and PHDs, they don't exactly produce very much do they?
Slashdot Mirror
1. If Earth gets hit by an asteroid which ruins the environment and the weather, putting us into an ice-age, Earth will STILL be the most hospitable place for humans in the universe.
2. People on non-Earth planets will not survive due to the wrong gravity.
3. People who call the moon 'Luna' are an argument for post-natal abortion. I bet you call the sun 'Sol' and Earth 'Terra'.
4. I'd rather live on post-apocalyptic Earth than an asteroid, either rotting in the zero gravity on the outside or psychologically rotting spinning round and round inside a giant metal cave.
5. If we all get killed, will we care if some other humans are living somewhere else?
Say you have a million customers, in a country of a three hundred million. A third of a percent. Then you lay off 500 workers. That's less than 2 customers. I'm sure that's a net profit. And that's assuming that none of those workers find new work, and don't spend any of their money on your product. You'd be surprised how many supposedly poor unemployed people spend their shrinking savings on frivoloties.
The system we have now is designed to funnel the profits into the hands of a few people
Always has been like that, always will be. The Romans used slaves to build marble villas for the governers. Medieval knights had serfs working the fields to put food on the banquet tables in their castles. Peasants worked in cotton mills to keep the industrialists in mansions. Now office drones sit in cubicles to help chief executives pay for their privates jets. This isn't a new thing, I don't know why you're surprised.
In fact now the gap between the rich and poor is smaller than ever. In the 14th century if you worked picking potatoes, that was your lot, you'd never be anything else. You worked all the daylight hours and lived in a mudhut, most of your children died of disease and you ate stale vegetables and drank filthy water. Nowadays, even the poor have great opportunity. A man with no money living in a box can drag himself up and start a business and become a billionaire. Even the poor live in relative luxury, with housing, food, education and healthcare paid for by the government.
professionals who used to be able to raise a family in a nice home on a single income now barely scrape by with two incomes.
Of course, in the 'good' old days, poor families didn't spend their money on televisions, computers, fridges, microwaves, indoor toilets, supermarket meals, fizzy drinks, new clothes, cars, holidays abroad, central heating, air conditioning, mobile phones, hot water, leather furniture, detached house with four bedrooms, garage and big garden, not to mention thousands of other luxuries which weren't available when only the man of the house went to work. All these things COST MONEY. You want today's luxuries whilst living yesterday's lifestyle. Well unless you're rich you can't have it. I'm sure if you cut out all the expenses, you could live like they did in the 1950s, with the wife staying at home, and everyone shitting outside in a shed.
Note: Marxist Hacker is a long-term troll, he makes sport of winding people up, and you've all taken the bait.
I'd say the opposite: Frodo started out incredibly eager, but slowly lost interest as the ring corrupted him. Although I'm talking about the subtle Tolkien version rather than Peter Jackon's unnecessary special effects and ham.
I'm afraid that SF and sci-fi are just abbreviations for the same thing. The term 'sci fi' was invented because it's more convenient than saying science fiction, it's not a new term altogether. You may as well argue the difference between 'hacker' and 'cracker'.
You haven't answered his question. He asked, what should Microsoft do in this situation. What should they do? Microsoft don't have a monopoly on RSS.
If you maintained a program which followed some standard, and though of some new functionality which would improve it, but wasn't in the standard, what would you do? Should you improve your product, or stagnate and wait for the stragglers to catch up?
It's influential because it's interesting and enjoyable to watch. If you want something 'deep' and 'awe-inspiring', then go and read one of those awful bone-dry sci-fi books written by authors who can't really write, but their books are gobbled up by geeks because they have space-ships and time-travel in them.
Sci-fi films are more than about science, they're films as well. The Matrix worked incredibly well as a film. It had a decent pace, good editing, great soundtrack, a couple of decent actors (Fishborn and Weaving), an interested concept and all sorts of cool scenes. Perhaps you've not understood that cinema is a visual medium. The whole point in having it on film rather than on the radio or in a book is that it looks good, it's pleasing to the eye. It's entertaining. The lobby scene might not have any science-fiction value, nor any philosophical significance, but it was a fucking cool thing to watch, which is the whole fucking point.
Perhaps you're one of those emotionless, quasi-autistic geeks who see everything in terms of numbers and logic, unable to appreciate anything for its artistic value.
And if schools could actually teach proper use of condoms et. al., we wouldn't have nearly so many STDs or underage pregnancies. It's quite possible to have responsible sex.
Contraception fails, very easily. The only sure way to be free of pregnancies and STDs is abstinence. It's simple, and it's free, it's worked since the dawn of time. Yes, it requires men to keep their trousers on, and girls to keep their legs together, but it's not rocket science. Try thinking with your brain rather than your dick.
We're not arguing that the guy didn't break the law, we're arguing that the guy isn't guilty of anything that should be criminally punished because the law is wrong.
So you're saying in effect that if you don't like the law, you should be free to break it, and that if you get caught, then you should be let off as long as you tell the judge you think the law is unjust?
Surely justice should be based on the law, rather than what the individual thinks? That's the only fair way: you know where you stand in advance, and if you don't want the punishment, you know what not to do. If people just do what they think is fair, we have anarchy.
Piracy definitely costs the copyright holders money. Someone who downloads something instead of buying it is costing people money. I think both piracy and spamming should be illegal, but it's inconsistent and dishonest to condemn one because it inconveniences you, and to approve of the other because you find it convenient. The sooner people admit they're basing their opinions on their own preferences rather than objective logic, the better.
Why is spamming bad, and should be illegal, but not copyright infringement? Surely if spammers can be punished, you can't excuse piracy. Neither of them are 'taking' anything. It seems that people on this site are hypocrites who choose their opinions based on what favours them the most.
Of course, those 'valuable' skills are generally worthless in the real world. Unless you're a rich kid who gets to be an officer, you're more likely to be stood at a guardpoint in Baghdad doing nothing all day and night (except being bombed). And once you get out, you'll find that you can't get a job because no corporations need people to stand about with machine guns dressed like storm troopers. Although the servitude aspect of military life is quite useful for corporate life. Not much difference between being an officer's bitch or being a manager's bitch.
As for the salary, note the families with people in the army who are on welfare. Or the people who get out of the army and still can't afford to go to college. Or the people who get into the army then find out their benefits aren't what they thought they were. Or the people who are crippled or injured and the army drops them like a stone.
Your speech reads like an army recruitment propaganda campaign.
You seem to think it's acceptable that people from poor backgrounds should be shepherded into military service because they have no prospects. How about instead we put all the rich kids into the military and let the poor people get the expensive educations instead? Of course that won't happen, because the rich rule the world, and they won't allow their kids to come near harm. Instead they get Ivy League degrees and positions of power because of their family backgrounds, whilst people with more intelligence and abilities get stuck doing manual labour because their schools were glorified drug dens and they came from a single-parent family who lived in a tiny apartment that's falling to pieces, living from paycheck to paycheck, no money for even basic healthcare. But that's OK, because they can go to the army, be someone's bitch, and get killed to support Haliburton's stock prices so some rich man can give his kid a Ferrari after he passes his driving test.
Yeah, but let's not forget that the US Military is a tremendous career opportunity for many people
You have to wonder about how fucked up America is when going to war is seen as a tremendous career opportunity. Ask some veterans from the World Wars or Vietnam whether it was a good opportunity. Ask the relatives of those who were killed whether it was good for their careers.
And what happens to your career when the military decide they don't need you anymore and kick you to the curb because you missed your recruitment quota?
Of course, it's only an opportunity for the poor people, in run-down areas with no prospects. Rather than perhaps providing them with better prospects, i.e. better schools, less crime, better health care, it's easier to send them off to war, being ordered to their deaths by officers from rich backgrounds with expensive unearned educations.
You drove drunk, without insurance, and crashed? And you're complaining that you have to pay your bills? You drive a car even though you can't afford it? And you're complaining about your situation?
I'll try to bring you back to reality:
1. People who drive without insurance fuck things up for everyone else, especially us hard-working people who pay through the nose for insurance.
2. People who drive drunk are worthless scumbags. You should have gotten a year.
3. If you're complaining about not having enough money, and you quit your job for no apparent reason, you deserve everything you get.
Who said anything about married couple?
Well, perhaps you should reconsider the idea of extra-marital sex. Before everyone started sleeping around with everyone else we didn't have nearly so many STDs or underage pregnancies.
As for a 19 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, well, he knew the law. She was underage, it was illegal, but then again the sort of people who get up to that sort of thing are rarely the most intelligent. No sympathy from me.
The number of people using the service is 27. You're one of those slashdot bitches who thinks that everyone else should pay for his free Internet access because of a misguided sense of entitlement. Well, tough shit. Municipal wireless is dead in the water, and thank fuck for that.
Unfortuanately, Flash often crashes Firefox. It just freezes up.
Firefox is very inefficient when it comes to cash. I remember using Opera a few years ago. The cache was incredible. Images were hardly ever re-downloaded, and you could reload previously visited pages without having to redownload them, which on my dialup connection means a lot. On frequently-visited sites, it was so damn fast as all the images were cached.
Just now I had Firefox open with about 10 Slashdot tabs. Then I loaded that onion link, which has Flash in it. Flash often crashes Firefox. It did so this time. When I reopened it, instead of just opening the pages as they were, it decided, in its infinite wisdom, to REDOWNLOAD THE WHOLE FUCKING LOT OF THEM. WHY??????? I have a 200GB hard disk, I've given the cache tons of room, I can keep thousands of these pages on cache, so why doesn't it use it? I don't want to spend ages redownloading pages.
Also Opera sorts the cache better. Files have the proper extensions. Firefox removes the extensions from the files in the cache, so you don't know what the hell they are, and you can't browse them. Just a shame that Firefox is the open source one, I'd rather have Opera open-sourced, it's a lot quicker and more efficient, imagine what could have been done with all the effort that's gone into Firefox instead.
$1,800 divided by 27 users is $66.67 dollars a month, which is $800 per year, per person. A bit more than 'one penny' (I thought they used cents in the US?) Also how many of those people paying for it had actually been told about it? None? 27 people who accidently connected to it getting an $800/year service for free.
That's $2.19 per day. Less than $5, but then that $5 is the cost which the user pays for it, not the cost of running the service. I'd be willing to bet that it costs the airport less than $2.19 to offer wireless to a traveller for the couple of hours or so he's in the airport.
Also the government didn't even charge for this service, so they were using tax payers money to give a free Internet service to a handful of people at extortionate cost. This is why governments shouldn't provide luxury services at tax-payer's expense. The way I see it, people with fancy laptops with wireless capabilities who hang about at coffee shops all day can afford their own Internet access, I see no reason why people who don't even have computers should have to fund other people's free wireless Internet.
I'm afraid that a text file which may or may not exist is not the copyright holder. The copyright holder is NEVER asked. This is a legal time-bomb waiting to happen.
An analogy: "I took some things from someone's house, but it's not burglary, I asked permission. I went to the birdtable and said 'Hello, am I allowed to take things from this house?' The bird table didn't say no, so I was allowed to break in."
Can you see how stupid you are?
Then don't use any non-KDE apps
Great, so the only way to make the Linux UI even remotely consistent is to uninstall half your applications. That's the most fucking stupid thing I've ever heard. Who the hell came up with that one? Not only the inconsistency, but now you've got two different sets of libraries runnign, eating up ram, and twice as much to upgrade/patch/install. All for ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXTRA GAIN. It's like having two steering wheels in your car, or two languages in one book. I think it's time for Linus to crack some heads together.
I'm afraid that the burden is on the archive.org not to archive copyrighted material, not on the copyright holder to explicitely deny people permission.
If they really wanted to go out of their way, they would ask permission before illegally copying and distributing copyrighted material for which they do not have permission.
No. In the current climate, being modded down, even just once or twice, can lead to you being banned for over a month. It's ironic that a site which constantly bitches and moans about censorship is the first place to censor people. Even just two reasonable posts being modded down by partisan moderators can get your IP banned. And it lasts for several weeks at least. AC posting is necessary as long as Slashdot remains the Home of Censorship.
So you're saying that because you're a whiny, self-pitying, unsociable coward, it should be acceptable to vandalise message boards? Well in the real world, it doesn't work like that. It's generally people like you who've grown up with no discipline who think they can go round doing whatever they want. It's that same old sense of entitlement: a messageboard is there, therefore you have the right to deface it, the only thing stopping you is those horrible social constraints.
Social constraints are GOOD. Without them we would have anarchy. You wouldn't vandalise a messageboard in real life would you? If a church put up a bulletin board where people could leave notes for each other, you wouldn't come in during the night with a black market and write 'FUCK' hundreds of times all over it, so why do you think it's acceptable on the Internet?
Apparently, you dislike human contact, and think that therefore no-one else should enjoy it either. Your arguments are pitiful and remind me of a 3 year old upset that he can't throw paint at the wall.
Pardon me for asking, but why is a partisan flamebait comment from an Anonymous Coward a front-page story on Slashdot? Have this place really detereorated that far that someone using childish logic to say that 'google iz teh roxx0r' is worthy of an article?
For all the hype and cock-sucking about Google, and for all their money and PHDs, they don't exactly produce very much do they?