1. Then someone will start a free version that people will flock to. The paywalled existing site will now have to justify charging money by competing with the new free site. If they fail to, the paywalled site dies. If the net eventually ends up like subscription tv with all its bullshit, unskippable ads, then it's value has approached zero anyway. abp is a reaction to the invasiveness of scripted ads. I have no sympathy. This alone is justification to remove scripting from browsers.
2. good riddance to sites like facebook. If it needs to sell out to advertising like that, it's gotten too top heavy, and yes that includes slashdot. It should not cost megabucks to run a site that posts links and pushes/pulls the text volume of a discussion board. The problem is that people want to profit more than the model realistically allows, so they pump it full of invasive ads and then cry victim when people block them. While search is a necessary function, today it comes with a large monkey on its back that it could do without, in the form of excessive surveillance, to back up the ad model (and give a feed to governments masquerading as defenders of freedom). 'social media' is a toxin that needs cleansing from the net, period.
If you want to force people into it, then put your content behind a paywall. Then you will find out what it is really worth. If you leave it open on a public facing server, you are implicitly offering it. The internet is not cable tv. You don't get to dictate what happens to your content inside computers that do not belong to you.
If women were actually making 30% less across the board and happy about it, the men would get replaced overnight. That doesn't happen. You might want to check your stats.
You don't need to surveil employees to figure out they work better with a little down time, and then force a 15 minute break on them. Let them socialize naturally and judge them on their performance. No Orwellian panopticon needed. How about not treating human beings as robots? Did that thought ever occur to management? I doubt it.
Fidgeting with people's coffee makers isn't necessary either.
I think, as a European, I need to wait for the American government to tell my politicians what to tell me to think because my culture is too weakwilled and spineless to stand up for itself. America does all the politically incorrect dirty work in the world so my politicians can retain the politically correct appearance needed to survive in my passive aggressive pantywaisted culture.
Actually, the party elite in the soviet union were bribed regularly in order to make sure things happened when they needed to. A government demanding bribes for doing what it's supposed to do is not 'capitalism.'
The chip is specced to run at a specific speed.. when the full performance is not needed, the drivers underclock it to save power and heat. same is true for the ram on the card too. Voltages and memory timings also scale too, which might be why some cards are having trouble at their highest settings. Nouveau might not set the right timings and voltages for those clocks.
So technically the card is not 'overclocked' unless it's run beyond the manufacturer set top speed and voltage.
Yeah the fact that it's called 'the N word', while non whites get away with using slurs for whites in public discourse is an example of PC granted privilege, as well as evidence of 'social justice' being a newspeak term. Hypocrisy like that is not justice of any kind. Really, people need to stop taking stupid names like that seriously, regardless of what attributes they have. Educating children in concepts like this will do much to solve the issue. Instead, we are sanitizing the environment for them in order to reenforce their victim status privileges from society as adults. This creates more drama seeking 'social justice warriors' looking to barter their (or some others') collection of attributes for privilege, as well as sanctuary from criticism. IE, more people who will run to the polls and vote left without thinking about the issues. This is little different than the neocons rallying their base with appeals to christ, except that, with the bible out of public schools, they can no longer get at the kids young. Both are despicable.
Effectively the rules are not enforced when whites are the target, so white people also don't get to overrule what they are called by other groups. I don't think you understand the true nature of 'social justice' and the farce that 'civil rights' groups have become. The bottom line is, each 'class' (as in marxist class warfare?) should not get the right to dictate what others call them in societies that respect free speech. No one has nor should have the right to not be offended, either. In other words, say what you like, do what you like, but if you do it in public you should not be shielded from critique. That's the only way to guarantee speech for everyone, not just nonwhite, nonstraight, nonmales, or hobbits, or royalty, or the Party elite, etc. In fact, in free societies, there is no 'class' at all because we are supposed to be treated as individuals instead of being lumped into some group or other based on assumed status from arbitrary attributes.
Al jazeera critiques western culture, which is not a problem by itself, but when fox critiques islamic culture, the leftwing bandwagoneers cry 'racism' or religious persecution. Like I said, free speech applies (and should apply) to everyone. As far as Aljazeera goes, it is likely funded by many of the same groups that fund the militants. No one else in that part of the world has the money to fund an international news network. Their message comes through loudly and clearly, too, despite all the passive aggression.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the reason for the nullification of the trademark was a method to hurt them financially for using the name. The trademark office, working for the government, shouldn't violate the first amendment either. Trademarks are a form of speech since they are words or groupings of words which are granted exclusive use-rights...and if they're not considered such, they should be.
Yeah, and using the law to justify itself is circular logic. Despite all the 'outrage' 'people of color' supposedly have, it doesn't seem to stop them from using 'disparaging' terms such as 'whitey', 'cracker','redneck', 'whitebread', 'whitetrash', etc. Hell, it doesn't even stop them from using 'nigger' (and it's shortened form, 'nigga') when referring to each other, though heaven forbid you use the word if you're white. It's really hard for me to sympathize over something like word use as it (should) only have an effect on elementary age children because adults have supposedly learned the lesson behind the "sticks and stones" nursery rhyme. However, when coupled with this level of hypocrisy and double standard, it becomes a laughing stock. If you don't like the 'redskins' name, then don't go to their games, buy their regalia, or watch them on tv. It's really not that hard.
I wonder how these 'people of color' will feel when those same screws, the ones they've lobbied so hard for, and voted big government in to enforce, are turned on them? All of this over a reference to skin color when I was taught that skin color wasn't supposed to matter. Apparently it still matters to some quite a bit, and they aren't white!
Have you heard of al jazeera? It's basically the jihad channel, all wrapped up in PC passive aggression to dull the impact just like the rest of the news outlets do, but still a pro islam outlet. It's ok for them to criticize the west without being labeled as bigots, but try criticizing them without being called 'islamophobic'. Hate speech laws destroy liberty because they conveniently allow some group to decide what constitutes it (ie whenever they are criticized, rationally or not), and then batter them with the state. That shit has no business in western democracy, regardless of anyone's feelings.
Shouting fire in a theater is not 'hate speech', so it doesn't apply here. This strawman is typically used by the anti free speech crowd to justify censorship of some set of values when it is a fallacious argument.
Memes and youtube video links are more important than your privacy? w t f ? If those so-called adults had considerable intellect, they'd realize just how shitty facebook/whatsapp et al are compared to other available systems and avoid them. Intelligent people do not fall for the newer is always better paradigm. A bunch of my friends do use facebook, but since they're my friends, they understand why I don't use the site or sites like it. We all end up running multiple networks to chat with people who aren't in others. I happen to stay with the ones that don't pervasively track my online habits. Since friends value each other more than they value convenience, it works out fine. The people who can't be bothered? They're not my friends.
Since they all graduated in computer science or some field of information technology, they should know better about the security and privacy concern that come with using Facebook, but they use it anyway. It's simply too convenient for them as a platform for communication with local friends and people that you can't meet on a regular basis, and since "everyone" is using it why not use it yourself? After all you know when to shut up about private things...
So, they trade their privacy for convenience, probably unmindful of the consequences. This is exactly what I was talking about.
If you and your friends' concept of online privacy is "just don't say private things online", none of you know better. You have it backwards: people don't know when to shut up about private things. You might, most of the time. Your friends might, most of the time, and in the past, a slip up might mean a few dozen people find out the secret. With facebook all it takes is one time, one 'oops' statement or photo. Most people (even modern 'IT' sorts) just dump their phone pics to facebook after a party or gathering and use the site to 'manage' them. There's no filtering anymore because this generation has no concept of privacy, nor does it understand how facebook and sites like it magnify the consequences of exposure. It can damage your rep for life.
If you have a lot in common with them, then facebook should not be the focal point between you. If that's your mainstay, and you only see/do things with them twice a year, they're not really your friends. You're better off making some new ones and killing your account.
and so therefore? what? we should all rush out and get accounts so that teenagers won't think we are losers?..so that the cops won't SWAT our dogs for traffic violations? I see little reason to appease today's generation's acceptance of the police state mentality.
'social' media is a parasitical emergent phenomenon. It requires people to compusively use it in order to maintain itself, and it does this by triggering the reward system for social interaction while it is really anything but social. Even IRC is more social than facebook. The only winning move is not to play.
The fact that it enables trends which normally scale to one circle of friends to go global is not a surprise.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Then someone will start a free version that people will flock to. The paywalled existing site will now have to justify charging money by competing with the new free site. If they fail to, the paywalled site dies. If the net eventually ends up like subscription tv with all its bullshit, unskippable ads, then it's value has approached zero anyway. abp is a reaction to the invasiveness of scripted ads. I have no sympathy. This alone is justification to remove scripting from browsers.
2. good riddance to sites like facebook. If it needs to sell out to advertising like that, it's gotten too top heavy, and yes that includes slashdot. It should not cost megabucks to run a site that posts links and pushes/pulls the text volume of a discussion board. The problem is that people want to profit more than the model realistically allows, so they pump it full of invasive ads and then cry victim when people block them. While search is a necessary function, today it comes with a large monkey on its back that it could do without, in the form of excessive surveillance, to back up the ad model (and give a feed to governments masquerading as defenders of freedom). 'social media' is a toxin that needs cleansing from the net, period.
If you want to force people into it, then put your content behind a paywall. Then you will find out what it is really worth. If you leave it open on a public facing server, you are implicitly offering it. The internet is not cable tv. You don't get to dictate what happens to your content inside computers that do not belong to you.
You already pay for your bw.. why should you pay for theirs?
If women were actually making 30% less across the board and happy about it, the men would get replaced overnight. That doesn't happen. You might want to check your stats.
Who cares about mcarthy and what your politicians are doing, it's time for football!
You don't need to surveil employees to figure out they work better with a little down time, and then force a 15 minute break on them. Let them socialize naturally and judge them on their performance. No Orwellian panopticon needed. How about not treating human beings as robots? Did that thought ever occur to management? I doubt it.
Fidgeting with people's coffee makers isn't necessary either.
Yeah and that code is calling what amounts to libraries all written in C or C++.
sorry, that 1996 insult book is still largely up to date. java is slow and resource hungry compared to well written equivalent native C/C++.
Hey keep quiet. if the NSA used host files snowden would've failed. Don't give them ideas.
I think, as a European, I need to wait for the American government to tell my politicians what to tell me to think because my culture is too weakwilled and spineless to stand up for itself. America does all the politically incorrect dirty work in the world so my politicians can retain the politically correct appearance needed to survive in my passive aggressive pantywaisted culture.
Actually, the party elite in the soviet union were bribed regularly in order to make sure things happened when they needed to. A government demanding bribes for doing what it's supposed to do is not 'capitalism.'
Not when it comes to safety.
The chip is specced to run at a specific speed.. when the full performance is not needed, the drivers underclock it to save power and heat. same is true for the ram on the card too. Voltages and memory timings also scale too, which might be why some cards are having trouble at their highest settings. Nouveau might not set the right timings and voltages for those clocks.
So technically the card is not 'overclocked' unless it's run beyond the manufacturer set top speed and voltage.
The firefox is always slow. It has been slow since it was the netscape.
Now if that isn't newspeak.. fuck the surveillance state.
boughten?
So why did they block the driveway? That has to be quite a story..
Yeah the fact that it's called 'the N word', while non whites get away with using slurs for whites in public discourse is an example of PC granted privilege, as well as evidence of 'social justice' being a newspeak term. Hypocrisy like that is not justice of any kind. Really, people need to stop taking stupid names like that seriously, regardless of what attributes they have. Educating children in concepts like this will do much to solve the issue. Instead, we are sanitizing the environment for them in order to reenforce their victim status privileges from society as adults. This creates more drama seeking 'social justice warriors' looking to barter their (or some others') collection of attributes for privilege, as well as sanctuary from criticism. IE, more people who will run to the polls and vote left without thinking about the issues. This is little different than the neocons rallying their base with appeals to christ, except that, with the bible out of public schools, they can no longer get at the kids young. Both are despicable.
Effectively the rules are not enforced when whites are the target, so white people also don't get to overrule what they are called by other groups. I don't think you understand the true nature of 'social justice' and the farce that 'civil rights' groups have become. The bottom line is, each 'class' (as in marxist class warfare?) should not get the right to dictate what others call them in societies that respect free speech. No one has nor should have the right to not be offended, either. In other words, say what you like, do what you like, but if you do it in public you should not be shielded from critique. That's the only way to guarantee speech for everyone, not just nonwhite, nonstraight, nonmales, or hobbits, or royalty, or the Party elite, etc. In fact, in free societies, there is no 'class' at all because we are supposed to be treated as individuals instead of being lumped into some group or other based on assumed status from arbitrary attributes.
Al jazeera critiques western culture, which is not a problem by itself, but when fox critiques islamic culture, the leftwing bandwagoneers cry 'racism' or religious persecution. Like I said, free speech applies (and should apply) to everyone. As far as Aljazeera goes, it is likely funded by many of the same groups that fund the militants. No one else in that part of the world has the money to fund an international news network. Their message comes through loudly and clearly, too, despite all the passive aggression.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the reason for the nullification of the trademark was a method to hurt them financially for using the name. The trademark office, working for the government, shouldn't violate the first amendment either. Trademarks are a form of speech since they are words or groupings of words which are granted exclusive use-rights...and if they're not considered such, they should be.
Yeah, and using the law to justify itself is circular logic. Despite all the 'outrage' 'people of color' supposedly have, it doesn't seem to stop them from using 'disparaging' terms such as 'whitey', 'cracker','redneck', 'whitebread', 'whitetrash', etc. Hell, it doesn't even stop them from using 'nigger' (and it's shortened form, 'nigga') when referring to each other, though heaven forbid you use the word if you're white. It's really hard for me to sympathize over something like word use as it (should) only have an effect on elementary age children because adults have supposedly learned the lesson behind the "sticks and stones" nursery rhyme. However, when coupled with this level of hypocrisy and double standard, it becomes a laughing stock. If you don't like the 'redskins' name, then don't go to their games, buy their regalia, or watch them on tv. It's really not that hard.
I wonder how these 'people of color' will feel when those same screws, the ones they've lobbied so hard for, and voted big government in to enforce, are turned on them? All of this over a reference to skin color when I was taught that skin color wasn't supposed to matter. Apparently it still matters to some quite a bit, and they aren't white!
Have you heard of al jazeera? It's basically the jihad channel, all wrapped up in PC passive aggression to dull the impact just like the rest of the news outlets do, but still a pro islam outlet. It's ok for them to criticize the west without being labeled as bigots, but try criticizing them without being called 'islamophobic'. Hate speech laws destroy liberty because they conveniently allow some group to decide what constitutes it (ie whenever they are criticized, rationally or not), and then batter them with the state. That shit has no business in western democracy, regardless of anyone's feelings.
Shouting fire in a theater is not 'hate speech', so it doesn't apply here. This strawman is typically used by the anti free speech crowd to justify censorship of some set of values when it is a fallacious argument.
Memes and youtube video links are more important than your privacy? w t f ? If those so-called adults had considerable intellect, they'd realize just how shitty facebook/whatsapp et al are compared to other available systems and avoid them. Intelligent people do not fall for the newer is always better paradigm. A bunch of my friends do use facebook, but since they're my friends, they understand why I don't use the site or sites like it. We all end up running multiple networks to chat with people who aren't in others. I happen to stay with the ones that don't pervasively track my online habits. Since friends value each other more than they value convenience, it works out fine. The people who can't be bothered? They're not my friends.
Since they all graduated in computer science or some field of information technology, they should know better about the security and privacy concern that come with using Facebook, but they use it anyway. It's simply too convenient for them as a platform for communication with local friends and people that you can't meet on a regular basis, and since "everyone" is using it why not use it yourself? After all you know when to shut up about private things...
So, they trade their privacy for convenience, probably unmindful of the consequences. This is exactly what I was talking about.
If you and your friends' concept of online privacy is "just don't say private things online", none of you know better. You have it backwards: people don't know when to shut up about private things. You might, most of the time. Your friends might, most of the time, and in the past, a slip up might mean a few dozen people find out the secret. With facebook all it takes is one time, one 'oops' statement or photo. Most people (even modern 'IT' sorts) just dump their phone pics to facebook after a party or gathering and use the site to 'manage' them. There's no filtering anymore because this generation has no concept of privacy, nor does it understand how facebook and sites like it magnify the consequences of exposure. It can damage your rep for life.
If you have a lot in common with them, then facebook should not be the focal point between you. If that's your mainstay, and you only see/do things with them twice a year, they're not really your friends. You're better off making some new ones and killing your account.
No. People with social lives are out with their friends. They're not sitting at home on falebook.
and so therefore? what? we should all rush out and get accounts so that teenagers won't think we are losers? ..so that the cops won't SWAT our dogs for traffic violations? I see little reason to appease today's generation's acceptance of the police state mentality.
You let teenagers dictate your life parameters?
'social' media is a parasitical emergent phenomenon. It requires people to compusively use it in order to maintain itself, and it does this by triggering the reward system for social interaction while it is really anything but social. Even IRC is more social than facebook. The only winning move is not to play.
The fact that it enables trends which normally scale to one circle of friends to go global is not a surprise.