..or maybe they graduated highschool and it takes more than crappy soap operas to entertain them. Face it, a huge percentage of today's tv now uses that model. It's all about feelings and who's doing who. There's nothing smug about moving on from highschool drama.
Perhaps that's part of why certain political views are held in esteem while others are demonized without a rational basis. People let tv tell them what they're 'supposed' to think.
Nope. It's the ones who want to ban and censor everything that use fear mongering to justify their actions. Really, they just want to silence criticism of their own positions, whatever they are.
Brits are not French, Frenchmen are not German, etc. Borders keep the peace and allow more autonomy to local populations. Taking your position to its logical conclusion, a world government would obliterate individual liberty.
I agree. It should be freer than it is. That's what happens when the constitution is systematically ignored. There are plenty of 'democratic republics' where every government meeting is considered a state secret.
Perhaps they should focus on the factors causing society's violence rather than specifically how it is violent. If society has a violence problem (historically, we're as peaceful as we've ever been), then it must deal with those problems. Infantilizing the environment in order to bury the violent acts themselves without addressing the conflicts that cause them solves nothing and creates its own problems. Politicians have long histories of blaming specific things for the ills of society (music, movies, video games, guns) rather than doing some self-reflection on their ideological convictions. It's like arguing with westboro baptist church over gay rights. If liberal society is to survive, it must force politicians to do their jobs rather than let them use fear to knee jerk us until we have no liberty left.
Nah I'd blame dogmatic belief. In the old days, the left would support this.. Now that they've decreed that muslims are now the newest most victimized class, they're sounding more and more like the christian right in the 80s/90s with their bansticks and censorious policy.
Oh god, get over yourself.. While I'm no fan of today's overly indulgent parenting, insufferable snobs like you are the opposite end of the spectrum and just as bad. Hell, they're probably what today's society is now overcompensating for.
Using your logic, I could make a better claim against eating and talking.. It's uncivilized to talk with your mouth full, after all, as no one wants to see what the food looks like after it's been chewed.
As I'm sure you're aware, there are blatant privacy issues with fb messenger. You really shouldn't use it at all, especially not for business or anything remotely sensitive.
A separate, dedicated chat service offers better privacy. They can be more secure when used with third party clients, and the fact it's separated from the browser means it doesn't track your history or associate your chat with an online dossier like facebook. Obviously this is the reason yahoo is pulling the plug on the desktop client but keeping the service alive through the browser and mobile client: The latter two leak data like sieves.
Also, its competitors (skype and google), insist on chat windows that waste screen real estate and mimic sms clients. They're terrible.
For the moment, what's left that's sane is AIM/ICQ and IRC. Too bad.
If we were invaded by outside forces you bet the government would want its populace armed.. That was the point. A well armed populace with a culture that understands the necessity is much harder to impose upon. Nowadays, it seems like governments lean on each other instead of their citizens to consolidate their powerbases. Things like extradition treaties and cooperative surveillance agreements that edge around constitutional protections come to mind. Militarization of police forces is also becoming a serious threat. They're inculcating us-vs-them cultures that make them dangerous to the people they're supposed to protect. Now is not the time to disarm everyone and embrace some hippie peace initiative.
I know. Communist ideology conflicts with reality and with human nature. That's why it devolves into oppressive regimes. Really, the state was stomping out criticism of its mandates and anything which competed with its authority. There were plenty of others sharing the gulags with religious sorts.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the extremely high probability of more security fixes in the future, is the system truly ever secure?
They don't want old titles competing with their $60+60 DLC model. Idiots keep buying though, so they keep charging..
Who actually uses that site and why is their gullibility to marketing relevant to slashdot readers?
It's the intentions behind the people who build it. Even the automation we have now has taken on user-hostile aspects.
source --> bytecode --> native still incurs a large penalty.
..or maybe they graduated highschool and it takes more than crappy soap operas to entertain them. Face it, a huge percentage of today's tv now uses that model. It's all about feelings and who's doing who. There's nothing smug about moving on from highschool drama.
Perhaps that's part of why certain political views are held in esteem while others are demonized without a rational basis. People let tv tell them what they're 'supposed' to think.
Why's that? Who gets to decide what is 'extreme', 'hate', or 'political etherodoxy'?
Perhaps the tree of liberty needs more blood.
Nothing. Just like making fun of people with imaginary 'genders.'
Nope. It's the ones who want to ban and censor everything that use fear mongering to justify their actions. Really, they just want to silence criticism of their own positions, whatever they are.
Brits are not French, Frenchmen are not German, etc. Borders keep the peace and allow more autonomy to local populations. Taking your position to its logical conclusion, a world government would obliterate individual liberty.
Are they also taught alchemy, voodoo, and homeopathy?
I agree. It should be freer than it is. That's what happens when the constitution is systematically ignored. There are plenty of 'democratic republics' where every government meeting is considered a state secret.
Perhaps they should focus on the factors causing society's violence rather than specifically how it is violent. If society has a violence problem (historically, we're as peaceful as we've ever been), then it must deal with those problems. Infantilizing the environment in order to bury the violent acts themselves without addressing the conflicts that cause them solves nothing and creates its own problems. Politicians have long histories of blaming specific things for the ills of society (music, movies, video games, guns) rather than doing some self-reflection on their ideological convictions. It's like arguing with westboro baptist church over gay rights. If liberal society is to survive, it must force politicians to do their jobs rather than let them use fear to knee jerk us until we have no liberty left.
or better yet, deal with the external threats that radicalize people to shoot up nightclubs and the like.
Well, then the artists should get the shit people are listening to up on youtube legitimately. Vevo does not count.
It's terrible. It's only slightly better than satellite radio.
Nah I'd blame dogmatic belief. In the old days, the left would support this.. Now that they've decreed that muslims are now the newest most victimized class, they're sounding more and more like the christian right in the 80s/90s with their bansticks and censorious policy.
Oh god, get over yourself.. While I'm no fan of today's overly indulgent parenting, insufferable snobs like you are the opposite end of the spectrum and just as bad. Hell, they're probably what today's society is now overcompensating for.
Using your logic, I could make a better claim against eating and talking.. It's uncivilized to talk with your mouth full, after all, as no one wants to see what the food looks like after it's been chewed.
Why can't they just stop passing unreasonable laws? Then they wouldn't have to surveil everyone.
That's ok. When the jackboots you cheer for come for you, there will be no one left to give a shit.
or maybe the laws that make such assumptions about 'threatening' online posting are what's broken.
As I'm sure you're aware, there are blatant privacy issues with fb messenger. You really shouldn't use it at all, especially not for business or anything remotely sensitive.
A separate, dedicated chat service offers better privacy. They can be more secure when used with third party clients, and the fact it's separated from the browser means it doesn't track your history or associate your chat with an online dossier like facebook. Obviously this is the reason yahoo is pulling the plug on the desktop client but keeping the service alive through the browser and mobile client: The latter two leak data like sieves.
Also, its competitors (skype and google), insist on chat windows that waste screen real estate and mimic sms clients. They're terrible.
For the moment, what's left that's sane is AIM/ICQ and IRC. Too bad.
If we were invaded by outside forces you bet the government would want its populace armed.. That was the point. A well armed populace with a culture that understands the necessity is much harder to impose upon. Nowadays, it seems like governments lean on each other instead of their citizens to consolidate their powerbases. Things like extradition treaties and cooperative surveillance agreements that edge around constitutional protections come to mind. Militarization of police forces is also becoming a serious threat. They're inculcating us-vs-them cultures that make them dangerous to the people they're supposed to protect. Now is not the time to disarm everyone and embrace some hippie peace initiative.
I know. Communist ideology conflicts with reality and with human nature. That's why it devolves into oppressive regimes. Really, the state was stomping out criticism of its mandates and anything which competed with its authority. There were plenty of others sharing the gulags with religious sorts.