As opposed to the insightful and highly original "$language is bad mmkay", which can only be the product of a mind as daring and freethinking as yours.
I am advising people not to waste their time.
Which they can only avoid by consulting you on their choice of programming languages, of course. After all, you do know more about everybody's projects than they do themselves.
They should think about the architectural confusion they create by doing so.
Well, I'm sold. Nothing makes your case like using vaguely accusatory rhetoric in place of evidence or logic.
"Another good reason - look at what you would have to go through today. At the risk of sounding like an Auld Farte, think about how bad teenagers have it today. All the good music is gone. Pepsi decides what is cool these days. You have three choices basically. Stupid thumping gangsta rap whose only function is to shake your car's quarter panels, bubblegum crap pop, or Nu Metal where guys with long hair get up in front of the mike, blast the distortion and whine about their relationships."
Corporate entities decided what was cool when you were a kid, too. And the adults of your time hated your music as much as you hate the kids of today's, and for the exact same reasons. Nothing has changed.
"And you can't do anything fun or dangerous in this bubble-wrap world we've made. As soon as one kid gets hurt doing something it gets outlawed or regulated past the point of any fun whatsoever. How many childhood memories do you have where you were experiencing both big fun and mild danger at the same time? Are their any stories you have about your childhood that you haven't told your parents yet because you don't want to give them a heart attack? Kids today will never have those kinds of vivid childhood memories. We've outlawed them."
Previous generations said the same thing- we were sure to be raising a generation of kids that would never know danger, what with our "speed limits" and those newfangled plastic toys. Kids found ways to endanger themselves via their own curiosity and stupidity anyway, and they continue to do so today. Again, nothing has changed.
"Where I live Timmy would have some serious problems getting an assault weapon from his shady friends, because we control access to these weapons tightly. No civilian ever has a right to own one under any circumstances. Ever. It means the police don't need them because their antagonists don't have them, so the only source for assault weapons is the military, which usually manages to keep them locked up. It's not 100%, but it still means that it's hard to get one."
Ignoring the 800-pound gorilla that is the question of access to an effective means of self-defense being a basic human right...
We're talking about the United States, where this total-control-of-the-weapons scenario is impossible to achieve if for no other reason than the sheer size of the place. Therefore, any laws in America operating on the theory that "guns harder to get == less crime" will fail to achieve that goal, because criminals will damn well get the guns anyway. In the meantime, law-abiding citizens suffer an obstruction of their Constitutional rights for negligible benefit.
"This of course means that the citizens can't defeat the military if necessary, but neither can they in any possible world, unless the citizens have tanks, gunships, and attack jets with airports, fuel, ammo, personel, etc. Which of course just becomes another military organization that can be turned against the people.
Just face it, if your military wants to conquer its own population, it's going to. Unless of course France steps in and saves your asses again, he he!"
Cute. But if superior firepower was all you needed to effectively subdue a population, we'd have had Iraq all wrapped up two years ago.
I don't understand. From the screenshot of the fuddruckers site, it clearly gives the url and email of the flash game site... so how is this stealing content?
The Fuddrucker's site doesn't give the URL and email, that's only showing up in the game itself. Fudd's doesn't credit the author in any way on their own site.
Furthermore, as several have already noted, this type of link also constitutes bandwith theft.
Wouldn't a small-time flash developer want this sort of exposure?
No. I can say that with utmost confidence, being one myself.
Doing some sort of goatse move to poor kids who are expecting to play a game is just wrong. This guy should be taken to court or something for indecent exposure.
RTFA. He didn't put up anything obscene, he put up images from a slaughterhouse. And even if he had put up something obscene, the idea of taking him to court would be ridiculous. He's free to put whatever content he likes on his own site (provided the content itself is legal), and he's not obligated to preserve anything that someone else links to.
Agreed. Furthemore, his arguments (as presented in the article anyway) only seem to address space-to-space weaponry. His reasoning of "it's only useful against other spacefaring countries, and it makes too much space debris" doesn't apply to space-to-ground weaponry.
Well, by Episode VI, the Empire had researched a few levels of Hyper-Advanced Physics, thus miniaturizing the Stellar Converter to the point where several of them could fit onto a single Doom Star.
Which is probably why they lost, because Stellar Converters are terribly inefficient weapons to use against ships. It's far more efficient to use large numbers of Maulers or shield-piercing Phasors.
Re:Now there's no point in subscribing
on
Morpheus is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Funny
That's what I thought of as well upon reading the story on the MxO website.
Of course the big hole in the theory is that a porcelain mask is far too expressive for its wearer to be Keanu Reeves. Ba-zing.
In my experience, the best quick-and-easy way to spot a PayPal phish is to check the salutation at the beginning of the email. If it addresses you as "Dear Valued PayPal Customer" or some such, it's definitely a phish. PayPal always addresses you by name in their emails.
This, I have found, is not only an easy way for us geeks to spot phishers, but a way we can easily explain to non-geeks how to spot them.
"I think the fact that the first thing that came into your mind when faced with a female poster was her being raped by her dad says alot about you as a person."
Oh? So incestual rape was "the first thing" that came into the poster's mind upon seeing a presumably-female Slashdot nick? And that's a "fact"? As long as you're reading minds, Kreskin, what number am I thinking of?
"Oh really. Please find examples on the web of these vast amounts of 'my dad raped me' weblogs."
Please find the part of my post where I said there are "vast amounts of 'my dad raped me' weblogs".
But really, is it so difficult to believe that some people might choose blogging as a way to deal with the emotional aftermath of a sexual assault? Not that it matters; the poster you chose to label as a rape-obsessed pervert was merely making a hypothetical example. The actual number of blogs detailing such events, be it one or one hundred million, is irrelevant to the example and its validity.
"Only a slashdot reader would think that the first thing a raped woman would to is post to the web about it."
Again with "the first thing". I'd like you to point out where the poster implied that a rape victim would immediately go rushing to the computer after her attacker left.
"It wasn't baseless, it was based on his post, you fool."
No. It was based on erroneous, fallacious assumptions that you made about the poster. Such assumptions are not a valid base for a judgement of character, nor for any kind of logical statement. So yes, it was in fact baseless.
"Go and learn what 'baseless' means."
Did that years ago. Your turn.
"I'm willing to personally guarantee if the parent poster hadn't used her name (or, at least, a female name) as their user ID, then the idea of rape would not have entered our perverted friend's mind."
Brilliant. You just "guaranteed" that you are capable of making a sound psychological assessment of someone you've never met based on a single typed sentence. Excuse me if I give Miss Cleo more credibility than I give you.
I think the fact that you dismiss a valid hypothetical situation in favor of a baseless ad hominem attack says considerably more about you as a person.
"Actually, you're paying for the privilege of watching the movie repeatedly. Copying is cheap. The bits basically cost nothing to produce. If you "owned" the movie, then there would be nothing wrong with making a dozen copies and selling them. But you don't, you own the right to view it, which is bound to the original copy itself."
Show me the part where I stated (or even implied) that it's okay to "make a dozen copies and sell them". You're either making a ham-handed attempt at devil's advocacy, or you're trying to distract me with a straw-man argument.
"You're making the common mistake of assuming that whatever is technically possible is somehow your 'right'."
Wrong again. What I'm assuming is that I have the right to do anything that is not expressly forbidden by a Constitutionally valid law. And that, Coward, is not a mistake.
When you buy a movie ticket, you are paying for the privilege of attending a single viewing of someone else's copy of a movie. It is therefore reasonable to assume the owners of that copy have the right to control the presentation (by showing previews, commmercials, MPAA propaganda, etc). Their house, their rules.
When you buy a DVD, you are paying for the copy of that movie. As you are now the owner of said copy, it is reasonable to assume you have the right to control the presentation- whether by skipping commercials, repeating your favorite scene, or format-shifting for use in a different type of player (say, a Linux machine). Your house, your rules.
True. But it's not as if conservatives are any different in that respect. Party-liners only recognize threats to freedom when they come from The Other Guy.
It sounds a bit like they took a page from CyberGeneration, the followup to Cyberpunk published in the mid-90's. Basically they handled it by stating that most areas were on a WiFi-esque extension of the Internet that caused programs and data to manifest as three-dimensional images in the real world. Pity they couldn't come up with a better name for it than "Virtuality".
Slashdot Mirror
That sure would suck, and would be a crushing disappointment if it failed.
After starting your first two points with "I said no such thing", you follow up with this.
If only we could convert irony into electricity. That comment alone would keep L.A. lit up for two weeks.
1. Get advertisers to pay you to spam blogs and forums
2. Get hassled admins to pay you to delete your spam
3. Profit!
Title and summary are incorrect. The law was not a ban on violent games, it was a ban on selling said games to minors.
Contrary to popular opinion, "Insightful" is not Sanskrit for "I agree with this".
No it doesn't, Sparky. If your foot goes any further into your mouth, you'll get athlete's foot on your tonsils.
You also fail to see the irony of you thinking that someone else should learn about something before forming an opinion on it.
In what alternate universe could that be considered a "plus" side?
"Another good reason - look at what you would have to go through today. At the risk of sounding like an Auld Farte, think about how bad teenagers have it today. All the good music is gone. Pepsi decides what is cool these days. You have three choices basically. Stupid thumping gangsta rap whose only function is to shake your car's quarter panels, bubblegum crap pop, or Nu Metal where guys with long hair get up in front of the mike, blast the distortion and whine about their relationships."
Corporate entities decided what was cool when you were a kid, too. And the adults of your time hated your music as much as you hate the kids of today's, and for the exact same reasons. Nothing has changed.
"And you can't do anything fun or dangerous in this bubble-wrap world we've made. As soon as one kid gets hurt doing something it gets outlawed or regulated past the point of any fun whatsoever. How many childhood memories do you have where you were experiencing both big fun and mild danger at the same time? Are their any stories you have about your childhood that you haven't told your parents yet because you don't want to give them a heart attack? Kids today will never have those kinds of vivid childhood memories. We've outlawed them."
Previous generations said the same thing- we were sure to be raising a generation of kids that would never know danger, what with our "speed limits" and those newfangled plastic toys. Kids found ways to endanger themselves via their own curiosity and stupidity anyway, and they continue to do so today. Again, nothing has changed.
Actually, Sony and Wal-Mart are named as defendants in the case. So is the killer, in what pretty much amounts to an afterthought.
I think you made a wrong turn somewhere. Fark.com is that way.
Ignoring the 800-pound gorilla that is the question of access to an effective means of self-defense being a basic human right...
We're talking about the United States, where this total-control-of-the-weapons scenario is impossible to achieve if for no other reason than the sheer size of the place. Therefore, any laws in America operating on the theory that "guns harder to get == less crime" will fail to achieve that goal, because criminals will damn well get the guns anyway. In the meantime, law-abiding citizens suffer an obstruction of their Constitutional rights for negligible benefit.
"This of course means that the citizens can't defeat the military if necessary, but neither can they in any possible world, unless the citizens have tanks, gunships, and attack jets with airports, fuel, ammo, personel, etc. Which of course just becomes another military organization that can be turned against the people.
Just face it, if your military wants to conquer its own population, it's going to. Unless of course France steps in and saves your asses again, he he!"
Cute. But if superior firepower was all you needed to effectively subdue a population, we'd have had Iraq all wrapped up two years ago.
The Fuddrucker's site doesn't give the URL and email, that's only showing up in the game itself. Fudd's doesn't credit the author in any way on their own site.
Furthermore, as several have already noted, this type of link also constitutes bandwith theft.
Wouldn't a small-time flash developer want this sort of exposure?
No. I can say that with utmost confidence, being one myself.
Doing some sort of goatse move to poor kids who are expecting to play a game is just wrong. This guy should be taken to court or something for indecent exposure.
RTFA. He didn't put up anything obscene, he put up images from a slaughterhouse. And even if he had put up something obscene, the idea of taking him to court would be ridiculous. He's free to put whatever content he likes on his own site (provided the content itself is legal), and he's not obligated to preserve anything that someone else links to.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Not holding all of your social/economic/political beliefs != psycopathy.
Let's put this in a new perspective, shall we?
"The first person to make the P2P software is responsible for any act of piracy ever caused by the distribution thereof. There is zero excuse."
Or maybe this one?
"The first person to make the automobile is responsible for any car accident ever caused by the manufacture thereof. There is zero excuse."
Agreed. Furthemore, his arguments (as presented in the article anyway) only seem to address space-to-space weaponry. His reasoning of "it's only useful against other spacefaring countries, and it makes too much space debris" doesn't apply to space-to-ground weaponry.
Which is probably why they lost, because Stellar Converters are terribly inefficient weapons to use against ships. It's far more efficient to use large numbers of Maulers or shield-piercing Phasors.
Of course the big hole in the theory is that a porcelain mask is far too expressive for its wearer to be Keanu Reeves. Ba-zing.
This, I have found, is not only an easy way for us geeks to spot phishers, but a way we can easily explain to non-geeks how to spot them.
Oh. Right.
"I think the fact that the first thing that came into your mind when faced with a female poster was her being raped by her dad says alot about you as a person."
Oh? So incestual rape was "the first thing" that came into the poster's mind upon seeing a presumably-female Slashdot nick? And that's a "fact"? As long as you're reading minds, Kreskin, what number am I thinking of?
"Oh really. Please find examples on the web of these vast amounts of 'my dad raped me' weblogs."
Please find the part of my post where I said there are "vast amounts of 'my dad raped me' weblogs".
But really, is it so difficult to believe that some people might choose blogging as a way to deal with the emotional aftermath of a sexual assault? Not that it matters; the poster you chose to label as a rape-obsessed pervert was merely making a hypothetical example. The actual number of blogs detailing such events, be it one or one hundred million, is irrelevant to the example and its validity.
"Only a slashdot reader would think that the first thing a raped woman would to is post to the web about it."
Again with "the first thing". I'd like you to point out where the poster implied that a rape victim would immediately go rushing to the computer after her attacker left.
"It wasn't baseless, it was based on his post, you fool."
No. It was based on erroneous, fallacious assumptions that you made about the poster. Such assumptions are not a valid base for a judgement of character, nor for any kind of logical statement. So yes, it was in fact baseless.
"Go and learn what 'baseless' means."
Did that years ago. Your turn.
"I'm willing to personally guarantee if the parent poster hadn't used her name (or, at least, a female name) as their user ID, then the idea of rape would not have entered our perverted friend's mind."
Brilliant. You just "guaranteed" that you are capable of making a sound psychological assessment of someone you've never met based on a single typed sentence. Excuse me if I give Miss Cleo more credibility than I give you.
I think the fact that you dismiss a valid hypothetical situation in favor of a baseless ad hominem attack says considerably more about you as a person.
Show me the part where I stated (or even implied) that it's okay to "make a dozen copies and sell them". You're either making a ham-handed attempt at devil's advocacy, or you're trying to distract me with a straw-man argument.
"You're making the common mistake of assuming that whatever is technically possible is somehow your 'right'."
Wrong again. What I'm assuming is that I have the right to do anything that is not expressly forbidden by a Constitutionally valid law. And that, Coward, is not a mistake.
When you buy a movie ticket, you are paying for the privilege of attending a single viewing of someone else's copy of a movie. It is therefore reasonable to assume the owners of that copy have the right to control the presentation (by showing previews, commmercials, MPAA propaganda, etc). Their house, their rules.
When you buy a DVD, you are paying for the copy of that movie. As you are now the owner of said copy, it is reasonable to assume you have the right to control the presentation- whether by skipping commercials, repeating your favorite scene, or format-shifting for use in a different type of player (say, a Linux machine). Your house, your rules.
True. But it's not as if conservatives are any different in that respect. Party-liners only recognize threats to freedom when they come from The Other Guy.
It sounds a bit like they took a page from CyberGeneration, the followup to Cyberpunk published in the mid-90's. Basically they handled it by stating that most areas were on a WiFi-esque extension of the Internet that caused programs and data to manifest as three-dimensional images in the real world. Pity they couldn't come up with a better name for it than "Virtuality".