Discretion is not compatible with the narcissism and vanity that drives a person to think that the world needs to know every last detail about their personal lives, as though they were a celebrity who can hardly shop at a grocery store without having it published in the tabloids. That's why the people with discretion are relatively silent compared to the ones you're talking about.
This is positively incorrect, and your asserting it to others is toxic to the point of being dangerous. The people that post less simply feel less of a need to do so. Perhaps they're not getting positive feedback from it, or perhaps their needs are largely met in other ways. Those other people are asking for their friends to help them, if only by paying them some attention.
Common sense does not begin to enter the picture until well after vanity is recognized as the empty and useless pursuit that it is and rejected on those terms. Until then, any satisfaction derived from personal exhibitionism is hollow and fleeting which is why the person must engage in more and more of it to maintain the sense that they are "somebody". If it accomplished anything or had any lasting value, then there would not be the need you have recognized to sink lower and lower and engage in it more and more intensely. It is, as they say, a chasing after the wind
In other words, if you're not already famous, just shut up and die quietly.
Perhaps, just maybe, these people are reaching out to others around them seeking human interaction. That would be, you know, normal. And since Facebook and the like are supposed to be populated with your 'Friends', then it would follow that some of the readership there would actually care about the people doing the posting.
Further, if you don't actually care, then I challenge the hypocrisy of you ever electing to be counted amongst 'Friends' on that site or any other. You're probably not capable of being a friend, because you view all these posts in the most negative light imaginable.
The point is, there are very good reasons why I haven't jumped on this bandwagon.
You don't actually need that in the plural sense. The only reason you need is your lack of empathy and incompatibility with casual friendship.
Now I admit I don't know you, but your lack of humanity is relatively shocking from where I sit.
I see it as a strictly voluntary process, and further recognize the Second Amendment as insurance against exactly the kind of 'government-owns-you' scenario you're advocating.
Me, I wish voting/jury duty was reserved for those that can prove they know something about whats going on instead of getting the most retarded people in the country deciding the fate of everyone.
Me as well, but unfortunately this would exclude everyone who identifies with any sort of political party.
I mean I know we were all psyched about getting our first black President, but did we absolutely have to select a former Muslim with no birth certificate? Really?? And over on the Red Team they really want to see a woman elected, so they push Ms Palin, who is easily the least qualified human I can think of for the highest office in the land. She's supposed to negotiate peace in the Middle East? SHE CAN'T EVEN HANDLE KATIE COURIC!!!
Morons, the lot of them, and yet they stuff the ballot with the least impressive selections they can possibly imagine. And we, the people, go out in droves to elect them, because we all obey our political masters, whomever those might be. I'd contend that if we were able to step outside the Red Team/Blue Team bullcrap, and actually search for the individual most qualified for the job, we'd be a lot better off.
He did not say he's against any amendment. He did not say he's against gun ownership. You're dragging this into it. He said, more or less, "We're still discussing this with words. Don't be surprised when you get modded down for arguing with your gun
I disagree. The quote respond to was:
if anyone tries to control me, i'll respond with my own soft point issues
And to that I say that TJ would have high-fived him.
Open source is actually about freedom, which requires a certain amount of limitation of government power. In the specific, open source limits the government's power to prevent use of software through court action. See SCO v IBM and all the potential implications of that case.
But, I'm sorry, you were trying to troll just then, weren't you? Oh well, off to another topic for you. Tell your boss I said 'hi'...
If you publish the thought on Facebook it's going to be even more prejudicial, because now you don't want to look like an idiot by changing your mind after being so certain before.
Now THAT is indeed a solid point.
Otherwise, yes, we're talking about a matter of degree.
False flag operations are designed to convince "the public" that "some other entity" was responsible for the operation in question.... Are you asking us to believe that Mr. Assange is working with the CIA to make us believe "someone else" is responsible for the war crimes?
I genuinely believe that the 'blood on his hands' allegation is designed to make Assange the 'bad guy'. The Pentagon is attempting to leverage the fact that the Taliban kills people as a good reason to shut down Wikileaks.
So yes, they are attempting to have us believe that 'some one else' at least will be responsible for the deaths of these informants.
We have genuinely covered this in depth, and I am absolutely confident that you're not in the least bit confused.
Now if you feel proof is absolutely necessary to criticize Mr. Assange
You're doing it again.
I'll grant that it's *possible* I missed them in a news cycle, but it's not likely, as I do follow the news rather closely.
Did you likewise miss how our own money was used to attack NATO forces? Isn't abetting terrorism on the list of 'bad things' to do? Do a Google search on the media's 'WTF' response to the first false Pentagon assertion that the data only contained things we already knew. Oh, and let's not forget the cover-up involving civilian deaths. That's quite likely criminal as well, though admittedly a minor crime.
This is yet another tangent that I'm sorry I brought up, but if you feel there were genuinely no revelations in the data, then I have to begin to be suspicious of your motives. You've ruled out 'discussion' a while back.
Anyway, I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word, and I'll see you around, I'm sure.
...do you really think I'm going to wake up that memory and resource hog on my Windows partition just to get to a social networking site when I can hit Facebook through Linux or (nearly) any mobile device? I might be a small minority but that's not for me.
I came to say this as well... The author touches on it, but stops short:
Still, Ping suffers from being locked inside iTunes, although Apple was smart enough to create an access application and put it in the App Store for iPad, iPod Touch, and iPhone users.
In my opinion, Ping suffers from being locked to Apple. It will never have a life outside of making them more money, which means it is genuinely no threat to Facebook. My dad is on Facebook, for example, and will likely never, ever, ever wear a Steve Jobs turtleneck. There are many more like him as well.
I see no threat here, except to Ping towards irrelevance. And with mp3 and streaming still reigning as kings, Facebook going with, say Amazon or Netflix, rather than Apple, could easily turn the tables and start to threaten iTunes itself.
Don't people know all defendants are guilty period?
I mean, c'mon. If they're on trial that means we got them.:P
I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that there's a rather natural reason why the system is slanted against the defendant:
It's expensive and overloaded.
As a prosecutor you wouldn't want to waste resources on a fishing expedition. You'll need a case, and whether fabricated out of whole cloth or genuine, it really ought to be a good enough case to convince at least SOME of the jurors by the time you are finished presenting it. If not, then it is too soon to go to trial, isn't it?
For all of it's faults, at least she posted on facebook, and she was caught. I'm sure lots of jurors over the centuries have made up their minds well before they should, anything that removes them from the process can't be all bad.
I don't know about your mind, but mine is always working and I have yet to find a way to shut it off. I'm always drawing conclusions subconsciously, and am always revising them over and over again based on new information. For her to have come out of the first half of the case with conclusions drawn means only that she was paying attention. Were she to have a truly open mind, we'd be looking at a case so weak that it probably shouldn't have gone to court without more evidence.
In essence, the oath being broken is somewhat moot, because that's simply not how human brains seem to operate.
Now she should have kept this a secret, should have remained open to new information, should have been ready to participate in deliberation, etc.
But to assert that she should refrain from thinking and drawing conclusions is patently absurd.
The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"
Facebook had nothing to do with it, the problem is people aren't objective. The injustice would have happened no matter if she didn't post anything about it.
That's a bit high and mighty, isn't it? I'm fairly certain there's a solid chance that any person / every person could decide to convict based on hearing only half of the story. You might elect to not tell anyone you had done so, but depending on the case, this may well be the correct choice. Labeling it as in injustice assumes that the decision was incorrect. We just don't know that yet, do we?
Imagine the prosecution lays out a case with video, DNA, eyewitness evidence, and a confession. Imagine further that the DA wanted to plea them out, but the defendant would rather be on TV, and insisted on a trial. You would, in this hypothetical case, come away from the first day with the conclusion that the defense would need a miracle to win the case. And, assuming the accused was some sort of scumbag, you'd probably be rooting for them to fail to find one.
Anyway, it seems bizarre that you'd bash her for jumping to conclusions by jumping to conclusions.
Well put, dear coward, but you're intentionally missing the point. I'm replying to the tangent presented by Captain Splendid that shunning violence to oppose oppression is not a common American value.
He's wrong.
There's not a metric ton of reading comprehension required.
Rather there's an anti-intellectual, liberal bias that's running rampant on this site, wherein we get into flame wars and attack people for even the hint of conservatism.
But I do concede that my comments were only meant as a reply to the assertions of #5 above, and may or may not have any bearing on #1 through #4, as well as any of the other posts on this thread, as well as all the posts on slashdot or the greater internet.
In short, I'm not the least bit interested in your flame war, and am merely sticking to the facts, such as they are.
You're right, we really ought to do a topic check here:
We're under the the topic of 'Assange Rape Case Reopened'. The initial post was of the rape case potentially taking him off the radar, and costing him his life.
This was followed up by a post essentially asserting that he deserves to die because Wikileaks is getting people killed.
Then there was a call for a citation.
Then there was a call for the negative to be cited.
Using a quote from the Pentagon, I did so.
Then you joined in readdressing the need for Assange to back up his assertions, and discussion ensued.
I am answering the challenge, put forward in the second post in the chain, that Assange should die, that Wikileaks should be stopped, because of the deaths that they may or may not have caused.
You're taking a tangential track from the second poster, wherein Assange's 'disappearance off the radar' is not warranted, and yet the allegation of harm is.
I've already pointed out how that allegation isn't relevant to me, mostly because I believe the point is a false-flag and also because the data should be in the public eye where we can decide for ourselves.
In saying that he should have to provide evidence to support his accusations, I AM NOT also saying "and he shouldn't be allowed to release this data" - no matter how hard you might wish that I've said that, I have not.
That's fabulous, but if this is the case, then you've rather veered off the topic of:
Assange-Wikileaks releases confidential information getting good people killed in the process
The government can and will suspend Constitutional rights during an existential crisis. It has happened before, and it most definitely will happen again if an insurrection gains enough momentum to threaten the integrity of the union.
Sure, sure, but only as an act of war, and the validity of this choice will be decided by the victor of that war. In the case of the Civil War, Lincoln's forces won, and so the suspension was a-okay. Had he lost, he'd have been tried for war crimes because of it. This isn't exactly a new phenomenon either...
Read the article, it puts the position forward far better than I would have. It should enlighten you a bit as to the question of why we would need a right to bear arms in the first place. The Amendments are about enumerating unalienable rights to all people, and there is no need whatsoever for the Second to have been drafted were it only to allow for hunting weapons, militias, or any such nonsense. It was written by Thomas Jefferson for crying out loud! You remember the 'water the tree of liberty' guy?
Besides, the federal government proved in 1861 that it will go to any and all lengths necessary to prevent citizens or territories from seceding. Your right to rebel doesn't exist either in theory or in practice.
This is a bit of a stretch, historically. The Civil War was more about 'North vs South' than it was about reuniting anything or freeing anyone. Are we really to believe that Sherman's behavior was in any way out of character in context of the conflict? And wasn't it the South that fired first? I know the version presented in primary and secondary education is all neat and clean, but as an adult you really should realize that nothing in the real world ever genuinely is so.
Nevertheless, the Amendment was not repealed and would even today trump all other law since written.
Very nice evasion. That's fine. So now we're down to a single disagreement, wherein you feel that Assange need back up his allegation and I feel that the allegation is entirely irrelevant to the release of the data.
Slashdot Mirror
Discretion is not compatible with the narcissism and vanity that drives a person to think that the world needs to know every last detail about their personal lives, as though they were a celebrity who can hardly shop at a grocery store without having it published in the tabloids. That's why the people with discretion are relatively silent compared to the ones you're talking about.
This is positively incorrect, and your asserting it to others is toxic to the point of being dangerous. The people that post less simply feel less of a need to do so. Perhaps they're not getting positive feedback from it, or perhaps their needs are largely met in other ways. Those other people are asking for their friends to help them, if only by paying them some attention.
Common sense does not begin to enter the picture until well after vanity is recognized as the empty and useless pursuit that it is and rejected on those terms. Until then, any satisfaction derived from personal exhibitionism is hollow and fleeting which is why the person must engage in more and more of it to maintain the sense that they are "somebody". If it accomplished anything or had any lasting value, then there would not be the need you have recognized to sink lower and lower and engage in it more and more intensely. It is, as they say, a chasing after the wind
In other words, if you're not already famous, just shut up and die quietly.
Perhaps, just maybe, these people are reaching out to others around them seeking human interaction. That would be, you know, normal. And since Facebook and the like are supposed to be populated with your 'Friends', then it would follow that some of the readership there would actually care about the people doing the posting.
Further, if you don't actually care, then I challenge the hypocrisy of you ever electing to be counted amongst 'Friends' on that site or any other. You're probably not capable of being a friend, because you view all these posts in the most negative light imaginable.
The point is, there are very good reasons why I haven't jumped on this bandwagon.
You don't actually need that in the plural sense. The only reason you need is your lack of empathy and incompatibility with casual friendship.
Now I admit I don't know you, but your lack of humanity is relatively shocking from where I sit.
If so, then who's the boss?
I see it as a strictly voluntary process, and further recognize the Second Amendment as insurance against exactly the kind of 'government-owns-you' scenario you're advocating.
Me, I wish voting/jury duty was reserved for those that can prove they know something about whats going on instead of getting the most retarded people in the country deciding the fate of everyone.
Me as well, but unfortunately this would exclude everyone who identifies with any sort of political party.
I mean I know we were all psyched about getting our first black President, but did we absolutely have to select a former Muslim with no birth certificate? Really?? And over on the Red Team they really want to see a woman elected, so they push Ms Palin, who is easily the least qualified human I can think of for the highest office in the land. She's supposed to negotiate peace in the Middle East? SHE CAN'T EVEN HANDLE KATIE COURIC!!!
Morons, the lot of them, and yet they stuff the ballot with the least impressive selections they can possibly imagine. And we, the people, go out in droves to elect them, because we all obey our political masters, whomever those might be. I'd contend that if we were able to step outside the Red Team/Blue Team bullcrap, and actually search for the individual most qualified for the job, we'd be a lot better off.
He did not say he's against any amendment. He did not say he's against gun ownership. You're dragging this into it. He said, more or less, "We're still discussing this with words. Don't be surprised when you get modded down for arguing with your gun
I disagree. The quote respond to was:
if anyone tries to control me, i'll respond with my own soft point issues
And to that I say that TJ would have high-fived him.
Isn't open source supposed to be about sharing?
What kind of anti-freedom people do we have here?
Go away shill.
Open source is actually about freedom, which requires a certain amount of limitation of government power. In the specific, open source limits the government's power to prevent use of software through court action. See SCO v IBM and all the potential implications of that case.
But, I'm sorry, you were trying to troll just then, weren't you? Oh well, off to another topic for you. Tell your boss I said 'hi'...
What's non-arbitrary about 'blackberry owners'? Does RIM allowing them access likewise give them iPhone data? No, it does not.
Remember how we said 'f- them' too?
If you publish the thought on Facebook it's going to be even more prejudicial, because now you don't want to look like an idiot by changing your mind after being so certain before.
Now THAT is indeed a solid point.
Otherwise, yes, we're talking about a matter of degree.
Does it not demonstrate the absurdity of it all?
Right, but the crime would be in the 'tuning out' rather than in the critical thinking.
Since she was emotionally invested in seeing a guilty verdict, there's a solid chance she'd be paying attention...
False flag operations are designed to convince "the public" that "some other entity" was responsible for the operation in question. ...
Are you asking us to believe that Mr. Assange is working with the CIA to make us believe "someone else" is responsible for the war crimes?
I genuinely believe that the 'blood on his hands' allegation is designed to make Assange the 'bad guy'. The Pentagon is attempting to leverage the fact that the Taliban kills people as a good reason to shut down Wikileaks.
So yes, they are attempting to have us believe that 'some one else' at least will be responsible for the deaths of these informants.
We have genuinely covered this in depth, and I am absolutely confident that you're not in the least bit confused.
Now if you feel proof is absolutely necessary to criticize Mr. Assange
You're doing it again.
I'll grant that it's *possible* I missed them in a news cycle, but it's not likely, as I do follow the news rather closely.
Did you likewise miss how our own money was used to attack NATO forces? Isn't abetting terrorism on the list of 'bad things' to do? Do a Google search on the media's 'WTF' response to the first false Pentagon assertion that the data only contained things we already knew. Oh, and let's not forget the cover-up involving civilian deaths. That's quite likely criminal as well, though admittedly a minor crime.
This is yet another tangent that I'm sorry I brought up, but if you feel there were genuinely no revelations in the data, then I have to begin to be suspicious of your motives. You've ruled out 'discussion' a while back.
Anyway, I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word, and I'll see you around, I'm sure.
...do you really think I'm going to wake up that memory and resource hog on my Windows partition just to get to a social networking site when I can hit Facebook through Linux or (nearly) any mobile device? I might be a small minority but that's not for me.
I came to say this as well... The author touches on it, but stops short:
Still, Ping suffers from being locked inside iTunes, although Apple was smart enough to create an access application and put it in the App Store for iPad, iPod Touch, and iPhone users.
In my opinion, Ping suffers from being locked to Apple. It will never have a life outside of making them more money, which means it is genuinely no threat to Facebook. My dad is on Facebook, for example, and will likely never, ever, ever wear a Steve Jobs turtleneck. There are many more like him as well.
I see no threat here, except to Ping towards irrelevance. And with mp3 and streaming still reigning as kings, Facebook going with, say Amazon or Netflix, rather than Apple, could easily turn the tables and start to threaten iTunes itself.
What about taking pictures of their homes and/or family?
You left it open ended, and implied that until your motives are known, your behavior can't reasonably be suspicious...
Don't people know all defendants are guilty period?
I mean, c'mon. If they're on trial that means we got them. :P
I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that there's a rather natural reason why the system is slanted against the defendant:
It's expensive and overloaded.
As a prosecutor you wouldn't want to waste resources on a fishing expedition. You'll need a case, and whether fabricated out of whole cloth or genuine, it really ought to be a good enough case to convince at least SOME of the jurors by the time you are finished presenting it. If not, then it is too soon to go to trial, isn't it?
For all of it's faults, at least she posted on facebook, and she was caught. I'm sure lots of jurors over the centuries have made up their minds well before they should, anything that removes them from the process can't be all bad.
I don't know about your mind, but mine is always working and I have yet to find a way to shut it off. I'm always drawing conclusions subconsciously, and am always revising them over and over again based on new information. For her to have come out of the first half of the case with conclusions drawn means only that she was paying attention. Were she to have a truly open mind, we'd be looking at a case so weak that it probably shouldn't have gone to court without more evidence.
In essence, the oath being broken is somewhat moot, because that's simply not how human brains seem to operate.
Now she should have kept this a secret, should have remained open to new information, should have been ready to participate in deliberation, etc.
But to assert that she should refrain from thinking and drawing conclusions is patently absurd.
Maybe because he wants to make sure his dad gets a fair trial?
Or maybe because he wants to make sure he is threatening and intimidating the right family members?
Stupid is as stupid does.
Anyway, luckily for us the premise is false, as it was the lawyer's son who was likely simply picked for being 'better at the internet'...
The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"
Facebook had nothing to do with it, the problem is people aren't objective. The injustice would have happened no matter if she didn't post anything about it.
That's a bit high and mighty, isn't it? I'm fairly certain there's a solid chance that any person / every person could decide to convict based on hearing only half of the story. You might elect to not tell anyone you had done so, but depending on the case, this may well be the correct choice. Labeling it as in injustice assumes that the decision was incorrect. We just don't know that yet, do we?
Imagine the prosecution lays out a case with video, DNA, eyewitness evidence, and a confession. Imagine further that the DA wanted to plea them out, but the defendant would rather be on TV, and insisted on a trial. You would, in this hypothetical case, come away from the first day with the conclusion that the defense would need a miracle to win the case. And, assuming the accused was some sort of scumbag, you'd probably be rooting for them to fail to find one.
Anyway, it seems bizarre that you'd bash her for jumping to conclusions by jumping to conclusions.
I tripped up my negatives, but since you're only a coward after all, I'll leave you to puzzle it through...
And I know you'll be back to check on what I wrote, because slashdot doesn't email-notify cowards... :D
Well put, dear coward, but you're intentionally missing the point. I'm replying to the tangent presented by Captain Splendid that shunning violence to oppose oppression is not a common American value.
He's wrong.
There's not a metric ton of reading comprehension required.
Rather there's an anti-intellectual, liberal bias that's running rampant on this site, wherein we get into flame wars and attack people for even the hint of conservatism.
But I do concede that my comments were only meant as a reply to the assertions of #5 above, and may or may not have any bearing on #1 through #4, as well as any of the other posts on this thread, as well as all the posts on slashdot or the greater internet.
In short, I'm not the least bit interested in your flame war, and am merely sticking to the facts, such as they are.
Better?
You're right, we really ought to do a topic check here:
We're under the the topic of 'Assange Rape Case Reopened'. The initial post was of the rape case potentially taking him off the radar, and costing him his life.
This was followed up by a post essentially asserting that he deserves to die because Wikileaks is getting people killed.
Then there was a call for a citation.
Then there was a call for the negative to be cited.
Using a quote from the Pentagon, I did so.
Then you joined in readdressing the need for Assange to back up his assertions, and discussion ensued.
I am answering the challenge, put forward in the second post in the chain, that Assange should die, that Wikileaks should be stopped, because of the deaths that they may or may not have caused.
You're taking a tangential track from the second poster, wherein Assange's 'disappearance off the radar' is not warranted, and yet the allegation of harm is.
I've already pointed out how that allegation isn't relevant to me, mostly because I believe the point is a false-flag and also because the data should be in the public eye where we can decide for ourselves.
In saying that he should have to provide evidence to support his accusations, I AM NOT also saying "and he shouldn't be allowed to release this data" - no matter how hard you might wish that I've said that, I have not.
That's fabulous, but if this is the case, then you've rather veered off the topic of:
Assange-Wikileaks releases confidential information getting good people killed in the process
The government can and will suspend Constitutional rights during an existential crisis. It has happened before, and it most definitely will happen again if an insurrection gains enough momentum to threaten the integrity of the union.
Sure, sure, but only as an act of war, and the validity of this choice will be decided by the victor of that war. In the case of the Civil War, Lincoln's forces won, and so the suspension was a-okay. Had he lost, he'd have been tried for war crimes because of it. This isn't exactly a new phenomenon either...
No, regardless of the strong language he's right about your reading comprehension severely sucking.
Assertions without substance are meaningless vapor, particularly from an AC.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
Read the article, it puts the position forward far better than I would have. It should enlighten you a bit as to the question of why we would need a right to bear arms in the first place. The Amendments are about enumerating unalienable rights to all people, and there is no need whatsoever for the Second to have been drafted were it only to allow for hunting weapons, militias, or any such nonsense. It was written by Thomas Jefferson for crying out loud! You remember the 'water the tree of liberty' guy?
Besides, the federal government proved in 1861 that it will go to any and all lengths necessary to prevent citizens or territories from seceding. Your right to rebel doesn't exist either in theory or in practice.
This is a bit of a stretch, historically. The Civil War was more about 'North vs South' than it was about reuniting anything or freeing anyone. Are we really to believe that Sherman's behavior was in any way out of character in context of the conflict? And wasn't it the South that fired first? I know the version presented in primary and secondary education is all neat and clean, but as an adult you really should realize that nothing in the real world ever genuinely is so.
Nevertheless, the Amendment was not repealed and would even today trump all other law since written.
Very nice evasion. That's fine. So now we're down to a single disagreement, wherein you feel that Assange need back up his allegation and I feel that the allegation is entirely irrelevant to the release of the data.
Fair enough?
Your eloquence does much to convince others of the true depth of your intellect.