They are very much a comedy program. They're basically a televised political cartoon. It's not an actual news show because it doesn't bring a whole lot of information. You need to be versed in current events to completely understand the show in the first place.
No, he's not a comedian, he's a partisan hack that uses his show to further his own political views. Yes, he uses comedy to make his points, but rather than being done for the sake of comedy, it's basically done with the intent of reducing his opponents to absurd strawmen. If you agree with him politically, you love this because it's basically angry browbeating of a caricature. It's more like a gym class bully than an actual comedian.
Now compare this to the Daily Show, which specializes in pointing out hypocrisy or pinpointing the absurdity in what would otherwise be considered fairly normal, or the Colbert Report which makes fun of the browbeating that the Rush Limbaugh show does.
It doesn't matter, the principle is the same. The only difference is in what you find morally reprehensible, and in which cases you think the person whose personal details are published "deserve" to have their shit aired. You "feel sorry" for suicidal people, but you don't for the "bastard who cheats on his wife." Both would be have the same legal grounds, and both would fit this kid's mantra of "don't ever trust anyone ever."
Let's change the analogy then: what if I set up the hotline and only published the details of people who wanted to commit suicide because they were cheating on their wives and didn't feel they deserved to live?
I don't think people realize just how much one million actually is. If this had any chance of succeeding, I would expect it to be in the six-figure range by now, especially after hitting Digg, Slashdot, and Reddit. One million is a lot of people.
I think you are grossly uninformed if you think that there aren't dozens of kinds of Christianity, and for every bullet on the list, you could pick one that prescribes it and one that doesn't.
You're grossly misinformed if you think other religions behave or believe things like this. Most religions, despite what you see on TV:
Do not try to extort money from members by charging exorbitant amounts of money for religious services
Do not blackmail members when they attempt to leave the organization
Do not claim to have supernatural effects on reality
Do not believe that all members of Other Religion X are doomed to damnation
To quote South Park:
"Is it really any more retarded than Jesus rising from the dead? Or Buddha sitting under a tree for 2 years?" "Yeah, dude, it's way, way more retarded."
Why doesn't the industry go directly after the people who start the seed for the copyrighted material?? Pirate Bay is doing them a favor by providing a helpful link directly to them!;)
I'm not Catholic, I'm Eastern Orthodox Christian, but here it goes:
Homosexuality can be a sign of general sexual deviance and hedonism - you know those kids in college that would screw anything with 2 legs? Psychologists will tell you that destructive sexual behavior is a negative influence on someone's life. But then again, there are homosexuals whose behavior is monogamous and not destructive. Either way, homosexuality is treated on a case by case basis and is a matter between an individual and their priest. The church makes no broad condemnation (of any sin, for that matter).
The preacher dude wears a vestment and it is a festal garment appropriate for celebrating the Liturgy. Jerk.
Here's the point where I tell you all about gospels and being saved or whatever. But look, if you don't believe it, there's nothing I can really do. All I can do is tell you that it makes sense to me that some kind of God exists, and that the Christian belief makes the most sense to me out of all the religions.
I can tell you the very first thing is that many people in today's society (at least on the internet) have completely lost the virtue of humility. Spirituality is also a very important part of the human equation, and any psychiatrist will tell you it has the potential to improve one's psyche. Religion is also a much better foundation for maintaining a base of morality than any other human institution. I'm not saying that you need religion to stay moral. I'm saying that without religion, society will not have a foundation for morality. I'm also not saying that society will crumble without Christianity or any other of today's religions; rather I think that a new religion (defined in a Durkheimian sense) would rush in to fill the void.
That is the point of the exercise (to show that those durn kids these don't appreciate their rights), but the question is not that simple. It's basically a market decision: it's certainly very advantageous to sell your single vote for a million dollars -- as long as no one else is doing it. As soon as a certain number of people make this exchange, the million dollars suddenly loses its value in influencing elections (since everyone else has that million bucks). Certainly the right for the people to vote is worth far more than $300,000,000,000,000 dollars. But the question asked of the students is misleading.
Your vote is not worth a lot. That is, your specific, individual vote is worth next to nothing. You can influence all of the elections you would have voted on far more with a million dollars than with a single vote.
Of course, the point is that the right to vote is priceless. And if everyone could exchange their right to vote for cash, then suddenly that million dollars would not buy you any influence.
I'm really disappointed that he didn't at least mention or defend the actual security hole found in qmail on 64-bit machines (to be fair, it required allowing qmail to get more than 4GB of memory).
I don't think that's the article's error at all. I don't care how many accounts they were hacking or how they did them (provided it wasn't violent), it's doubtful that the damage they did was as bad as manslaughter or trafficking huge amounts of crack cocaine.
Is it just me, or do most excellent pieces of software begin their lives as "yeah, I know there are all these other alternatives that do exactly the same thing, but I swear I'm not totally reinventing the wheel here...?"
Any musician or composer can tell you that there's a huge difference between a big orchestra playing your pieces and some amateurs playing "Jumpin Jack Flash" in their lame bar band for a pittance. Going into coffee houses and bars isn't quite as bad as jumping on Girl Scouts for singing campfire songs, but it's still shameful. The only reason anyone could have to start going after these places is for greed and power, pure and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah! Serves them right for taking part in extracurricular activities!!
Nope, 1 sentence is really all it takes, because the first sentence has this gem:
"based entirely on the assumption that the Internet and active networks are not in conflict with object-oriented languages"
This is like saying, "The American highway system is based entirely on the assumption that roads are not in conflict with CD players."
I came here to post the exact same thing.
They are very much a comedy program. They're basically a televised political cartoon. It's not an actual news show because it doesn't bring a whole lot of information. You need to be versed in current events to completely understand the show in the first place.
No, he's not a comedian, he's a partisan hack that uses his show to further his own political views. Yes, he uses comedy to make his points, but rather than being done for the sake of comedy, it's basically done with the intent of reducing his opponents to absurd strawmen. If you agree with him politically, you love this because it's basically angry browbeating of a caricature. It's more like a gym class bully than an actual comedian.
Now compare this to the Daily Show, which specializes in pointing out hypocrisy or pinpointing the absurdity in what would otherwise be considered fairly normal, or the Colbert Report which makes fun of the browbeating that the Rush Limbaugh show does.
It doesn't matter, the principle is the same. The only difference is in what you find morally reprehensible, and in which cases you think the person whose personal details are published "deserve" to have their shit aired. You "feel sorry" for suicidal people, but you don't for the "bastard who cheats on his wife." Both would be have the same legal grounds, and both would fit this kid's mantra of "don't ever trust anyone ever."
Let's change the analogy then: what if I set up the hotline and only published the details of people who wanted to commit suicide because they were cheating on their wives and didn't feel they deserved to live?
I don't think people realize just how much one million actually is. If this had any chance of succeeding, I would expect it to be in the six-figure range by now, especially after hitting Digg, Slashdot, and Reddit. One million is a lot of people.
I think you are grossly uninformed if you think that there aren't dozens of kinds of Christianity, and for every bullet on the list, you could pick one that prescribes it and one that doesn't.
And all of them are certain sects of Christianity. The one I belong to (Orthodox) offers none of them.
- Do not try to extort money from members by charging exorbitant amounts of money for religious services
- Do not blackmail members when they attempt to leave the organization
- Do not claim to have supernatural effects on reality
- Do not believe that all members of Other Religion X are doomed to damnation
To quote South Park:"Is it really any more retarded than Jesus rising from the dead? Or Buddha sitting under a tree for 2 years?"
"Yeah, dude, it's way, way more retarded."
Even after leaving Scientology, you still believe that the e-meter actually does something??
Talent has nothing to do with getting laid. The trick is to say you're in a band. Whereas no amount of Guitar Hero skill will get you anything.
Anyone who's read 1984 or Animal Farm knows just how powerful diff is politically.
Why doesn't the industry go directly after the people who start the seed for the copyrighted material?? Pirate Bay is doing them a favor by providing a helpful link directly to them! ;)
Would you want to admit that you were an idiot that believed in dowsing?
Any questions?
That is the point of the exercise (to show that those durn kids these don't appreciate their rights), but the question is not that simple. It's basically a market decision: it's certainly very advantageous to sell your single vote for a million dollars -- as long as no one else is doing it. As soon as a certain number of people make this exchange, the million dollars suddenly loses its value in influencing elections (since everyone else has that million bucks). Certainly the right for the people to vote is worth far more than $300,000,000,000,000 dollars. But the question asked of the students is misleading.
Your vote is not worth a lot. That is, your specific, individual vote is worth next to nothing. You can influence all of the elections you would have voted on far more with a million dollars than with a single vote.
Of course, the point is that the right to vote is priceless. And if everyone could exchange their right to vote for cash, then suddenly that million dollars would not buy you any influence.
I'm disappointed that you didn't bother to read the comment I made immediately after I spotted it in TFA.
Oops, there's the mention of it buried in the paper. Thanks for letting me edit my comments Slashdot
I'm really disappointed that he didn't at least mention or defend the actual security hole found in qmail on 64-bit machines (to be fair, it required allowing qmail to get more than 4GB of memory).
I don't think that's the article's error at all. I don't care how many accounts they were hacking or how they did them (provided it wasn't violent), it's doubtful that the damage they did was as bad as manslaughter or trafficking huge amounts of crack cocaine.
It's more like "We don't like copyright, but we're going to use copyright to make sure you don't add copyright restrictions once you get it from us."
Is it just me, or do most excellent pieces of software begin their lives as "yeah, I know there are all these other alternatives that do exactly the same thing, but I swear I'm not totally reinventing the wheel here...?"
Any musician or composer can tell you that there's a huge difference between a big orchestra playing your pieces and some amateurs playing "Jumpin Jack Flash" in their lame bar band for a pittance. Going into coffee houses and bars isn't quite as bad as jumping on Girl Scouts for singing campfire songs, but it's still shameful. The only reason anyone could have to start going after these places is for greed and power, pure and simple.