But they'll only be available Beta. Or maybe/. TV.
I have wondered though - interviews with RMS, Theo De Raadt, Eric Raymond (lol) have all been promised. It's as if/.'s trying to win all the doubters back over.
But you didn't have a valid insightful point. You characterized the people in the bar in a certain way, denigrated them because of it, when in fact the fine article actually points out what the other customers actually did. Nothing like what you describe.
Late to the party so I suspect all y'all will miss this but it's important to realise that The Telegraph is a very right-of centre, capital "C" Conservative news organisation. In the UK it's often called the Torygraph for it's unquestioning and unalloyed support of all things associated with the Tory (Conservative) party. For a different spin, try the Guardian's coverage, here.
Even better would be to actually read the LRB article which actually is a detailed, nuanced piece which says both good things and bad about the guy.
What are you, 13? "Go look it up in Wikipedia". Please. Sam's (your) argument is that people suffer famine because they live in the desert and this would be solved if they just left the desert area. Because that's why famine happens. And because it's easy to leave. Seriously - how naive are you? Even the wikipedia entry on famine shows you up FFS,
What a well thought through and nuanced position that is. As a rule, famine doesn't happen because people live in a desert. It happens because of crop failure. Or war. Or any combination of a number of social and geo-political factors. But because they live in a desert? Not so much. Further, the "great" Sam's position implies that people have a choice about where they live. Again, not so much.
There is a great fun 1-hour TV show called Black Mirror - The Entire History of You which deals with what it would be like to be able to record every minute of your private life and review it at any stage. Didn't have entirely positive things to say. Worth a watch one evening - might temper your view?
Why don't we make our own Slashdot (with blackjack & hookers)? What IP is there in the site that we couldn't take with us? Could we take the moderation system (it's the only thing I can think of on Slashdot that's good and that no other site does as well)? I can't code for toffee but I'd be happy to make coffee & buy pizza for those who did.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Use a nice clean fresh browser, no cookies, no history and log into Slashdot. From a clean start (ie not having logged in before, and with no cookies etc) I can't get to classic. Yeah I can add a URL trailer, but really, if my prefs say "Classic" I'm not sure whay, on log on, I don't automatically get that.
Seriously/. - fuck you! If I go to slashdot.org you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org. If I go to classic.slashdot.org, you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org. If I log in, you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org.
I freaking HATE beta.slashdot.org and I resent your pushing me into it! If I log in, and my preferences are set to classic, LET ME HAVE CLASSIC!
Why do some people seem to care more about the death of 200,000 Syrians than the death of 500,000 Iraqis? It's a crap argument - you're saying that because people have picked issue A as being worthy of their support over (or perhaps even as well as) issue B, and Issue B is in your view more important than issue A, that caring about issue A is somehow insupportable.
This rhetorical device - that it's ok to do x because x is natural - is called an "Appeal to Nature". At base, it argues that because something's natural, it's good. You can use it to justify all sorts of things - rape, murder, sticking your dick into anything that moves - all manner of things. One of the nice things about being human is that we're now in a position to choose whether or not to live by following our natural desires. And in many cases, we've chosen not to - we sanction against rape, murder etc, and many, many cultures, we eschew eating meat. So the argument really isn't whether we should eat meat because it's "natural" to do so, but rather, given we don't really need to, should we eat meat. "we should eat meat because it's 'natural' to" isn't really much of an argument.
Most of the comments on this article seem to be against this which is interesting, because every time an article about gun control gets posted, the highest rating comments are overwhelmingly from gun advocates, often with the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Whats the difference here? Surely robots don't kill people, people kill people?
In a perfect world we'd all be able to have jobs that didn't piss you off. Sadly, we don't live in that world and there are some people who have to take the only job that's available to them, and in some cases, that jobs going to be a job that consists of annoying you. When the alternative's starvation, any job's a good one. You're an asshole because you're advocating making life even shittier for people who may have no choice in doing the job they do.
Just kidding. That said, it's definitely worth reading "A Loeb Classical Library Reader" - it's a subset of the Library and gives a great introduction to Classical Greek & Roman thought.
Perhaps the British should also work on reforming their laws on free speech (or lack thereof).
The British (and the Europeans) have perfectly adequate laws against hate-speech, which is what these comments were likely caught by. Just because you don't know what those laws are, understand how or why they came about, or how their application works, doesn't mean they necessarily need to be reformed.
Slashdot Mirror
But they'll only be available Beta. Or maybe /. TV.
/.'s trying to win all the doubters back over.
I have wondered though - interviews with RMS, Theo De Raadt, Eric Raymond (lol) have all been promised. It's as if
But you didn't have a valid insightful point. You characterized the people in the bar in a certain way, denigrated them because of it, when in fact the fine article actually points out what the other customers actually did. Nothing like what you describe.
Late to the party so I suspect all y'all will miss this but it's important to realise that The Telegraph is a very right-of centre, capital "C" Conservative news organisation. In the UK it's often called the Torygraph for it's unquestioning and unalloyed support of all things associated with the Tory (Conservative) party. For a different spin, try the Guardian's coverage, here.
Even better would be to actually read the LRB article which actually is a detailed, nuanced piece which says both good things and bad about the guy.
What are you, 13? "Go look it up in Wikipedia". Please. Sam's (your) argument is that people suffer famine because they live in the desert and this would be solved if they just left the desert area. Because that's why famine happens. And because it's easy to leave. Seriously - how naive are you? Even the wikipedia entry on famine shows you up FFS,
What a well thought through and nuanced position that is. As a rule, famine doesn't happen because people live in a desert. It happens because of crop failure. Or war. Or any combination of a number of social and geo-political factors. But because they live in a desert? Not so much. Further, the "great" Sam's position implies that people have a choice about where they live. Again, not so much.
There is a great fun 1-hour TV show called Black Mirror - The Entire History of You which deals with what it would be like to be able to record every minute of your private life and review it at any stage. Didn't have entirely positive things to say. Worth a watch one evening - might temper your view?
The clue was "cheerful staff" :-/
Why don't we make our own Slashdot (with blackjack & hookers)? What IP is there in the site that we couldn't take with us? Could we take the moderation system (it's the only thing I can think of on Slashdot that's good and that no other site does as well)? I can't code for toffee but I'd be happy to make coffee & buy pizza for those who did.
Come back Jon Katz! All is forgiven! Screw Beta!
Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Use a nice clean fresh browser, no cookies, no history and log into Slashdot. From a clean start (ie not having logged in before, and with no cookies etc) I can't get to classic. Yeah I can add a URL trailer, but really, if my prefs say "Classic" I'm not sure whay, on log on, I don't automatically get that.
Seriously /. - fuck you! If I go to slashdot.org you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org. If I go to classic.slashdot.org, you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org. If I log in, you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org.
I freaking HATE beta.slashdot.org and I resent your pushing me into it! If I log in, and my preferences are set to classic, LET ME HAVE CLASSIC!
Who are these people that seem to care about the impending slaughter of 200 dolphins more than Syrians? Why is it a bad thing if they do?
Why do some people seem to care more about the death of 200,000 Syrians than the death of 500,000 Iraqis? It's a crap argument - you're saying that because people have picked issue A as being worthy of their support over (or perhaps even as well as) issue B, and Issue B is in your view more important than issue A, that caring about issue A is somehow insupportable.
This rhetorical device - that it's ok to do x because x is natural - is called an "Appeal to Nature". At base, it argues that because something's natural, it's good. You can use it to justify all sorts of things - rape, murder, sticking your dick into anything that moves - all manner of things. One of the nice things about being human is that we're now in a position to choose whether or not to live by following our natural desires. And in many cases, we've chosen not to - we sanction against rape, murder etc, and many, many cultures, we eschew eating meat. So the argument really isn't whether we should eat meat because it's "natural" to do so, but rather, given we don't really need to, should we eat meat. "we should eat meat because it's 'natural' to" isn't really much of an argument.
With all due respect, I would suggest "harrowing" is overstating things. Tragic certainly, but not harrowing.
Most of the comments on this article seem to be against this which is interesting, because every time an article about gun control gets posted, the highest rating comments are overwhelmingly from gun advocates, often with the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Whats the difference here? Surely robots don't kill people, people kill people?
In a perfect world we'd all be able to have jobs that didn't piss you off. Sadly, we don't live in that world and there are some people who have to take the only job that's available to them, and in some cases, that jobs going to be a job that consists of annoying you. When the alternative's starvation, any job's a good one. You're an asshole because you're advocating making life even shittier for people who may have no choice in doing the job they do.
Just kidding. That said, it's definitely worth reading "A Loeb Classical Library Reader" - it's a subset of the Library and gives a great introduction to Classical Greek & Roman thought.
"many different education systems in African countries"
or perhaps
many different education systems in a particular country in Africa
it would have been clearer.
"Culture" has to be commercially viable? Consign it to the dustbin of history of it's not? Nah - you're doing it wrong.
We need a Godwin equivalent for when people use the "Think of the children" argument in an online discussion.
I'm pretty sure you haven't read the article. I can tell because you missed the fact that Mac's a she.
Perhaps the British should also work on reforming their laws on free speech (or lack thereof).
The British (and the Europeans) have perfectly adequate laws against hate-speech, which is what these comments were likely caught by. Just because you don't know what those laws are, understand how or why they came about, or how their application works, doesn't mean they necessarily need to be reformed.
I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave
South Africa's Mail & Guardian is worth a read - local perspective.