Does anyone who post links on Slashdot actually fucking read them before doing so?
Re:I'm not a Californian
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I also believe in freedom, but not unlimited freedom. There are no absolutes (except for this one). By making your property look like an eyesore, you are negatively impacting my pocketbook.
Murder, on the other hand, is also illegal. Nothing wrong with breaking the law, huh?
You are missing the point utterly.
Murder isn't wrong because it is against the law; it is (theoretically, at least) against the law because it is wrong. I stipulate "theoretically" because the two are not necessarily connected. Society, or an influential minority within a given society, decides something is wrong, and legislation follows which enforces that belief. The actual wrongness or rightness of an action is a separate, moral issue, not a legal one.
Wow. A lifetime of never being able to see the face of your loved one (and/or that you are fucking), never beng able to experience any of the pleasurable aesthetic qualities that require vision to enjoy (including T&A, sunsets, etc), listening to movies instead of watching them, never being able to drive a car or ride a bicycle or-
Yeah, now that would be a fair trade for a pleasurable sensation in my dong - NOT.
There is no cosmic/karmic balance in which crimes are "paid for," but we are all human and capable of making mistakes, so forgiveness is a trait we should cultivate.
In my own mind, I have not clearly established why prisons exist. Is it to prevent the offenders from offending again? Is it to punish? Is it to rehabilitate? Is it a combination of those three?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't support eye-for-an-eye retribution, but I likewise find it very hard to feel much sympathy for the real hardcore criminal when another hardcore criminal assaults him.
But anyone who believes that prison rape is an equitable punishment for being found guilty for any of the things that are currently on the books
I don't know... rape, for instance? Dismemberment of small children? I agree with you, generally, as shoplifting or smoking a joint certainly don't merit prison rape, but I would say that for some of the things currently on the books (as listed above) prison rape is an equitable punishment.
Unless, of course, we are all just products of our genes and our environment, and not to be blamed or held accountable for any of our actions, but that is another topic entirely.
A "late fee" is a penalty for keeping the video out past the specified time. Blockbuster isn't charging a late fee, they are selling you the video according to a contractual agreement. An enormous difference, in my mind. With a "late fee," Blockbuster keeps the video and I am punished for my own sloth/stupidity/absent-mindedness.
This is the equivalent of the "you break it, you own it" policy in many stores. You knock over a dispaly of china and destroy it, you own it, and the ownership isn't even as attractive an option as Blockbuster offers, as you have only shards. With Blockbusters option -- which you didn't have to agree to -- you at least walk away with the merchandise.
...it failed to clearly disclose that, seven days after a movie or game's return due date, the consumer would be charged its selling price if the item were not yet returned.
I don't live anywhere near a Blockbuster, nor did I do any more than skim the contents of the advertising campaign when it came out, yet these details were sufficiently clear to me.
...also alleged there was insufficient disclosure that not all Blockbuster franchise stores were participating, leaving customers of those stores wrongly believing that they, too, would not have to pay late fees.
See my statement above; it applies in this case as well.
So, we penalize Blockbuster, who were trying to offer a service that I would have been glad to use had I lived within a reasonable distance from one of their outlets, because people are fucking stupid, or illiterate, or both?
This isn't news. This would have been news:
"American public too stupid to understand gist of simple advertising campaign. More news at 11:00."
I don't know how relevant this is, not quite getting the gist of the article, but does this sentence (linked from the word message in the article) make any difference? Or was I not supposed to follow any of the links?
Don't worry about the license, it's a joke. BSD license OK with everyone?
I'll be willing to answer your question, but first I need to know whether you are a troll, or just stupid. If the latter, I am willing to spend the time to enlighten you. If the latter, fuck off.
Cpt, I'm going to concede that you perhaps know more about the legalistic aspects of this than the average poster, myself included.
I respect Free Speech. I'm not fond of skinheads or Nazis or historical revisionists, yet I'm glad that we have organizations like the ACLU which protect their rights to Free Speech. I dislike the philosophy of Fred Phelps, yet I believe that he has a right to expouse the crap for which he and his family are notorious.
Burn flags. Wipe your ass on them. Piss on Bush's effigy. Parade in a Hasidic neigborhood wearing Nazi regalia. No, I'm not noble enough to die for your right to do it, but I'm grateful that others have been so couragous.
I don't know whether all of the acts I've just enumerated are protected; if not, they should be. I think that I've demonstrated that I am a supporter of Free Speech.
Now I want to give you a few anaogies, though I'm not guaranteeing that they are the best analogies. Disect them if you desire.
I purchase a bicycle. I park it in front of my house in plain view of every passerby. I don't lock it. If someone decides to deflate the tires, temporarily depriving me of its use, have they broken any laws? I'm not talking about a specific statute, but generally speaking is what they have done illegal? If so, why? I don't have any "no trespassing" signs up, and maybe it isn't tresspassing if I haven't posted it, but is there anything about their action that is illegal? If not, why not?
As a shopkeeper, the public has an open invitation to enter my store. However, they don't have an invitation to do anything they wish while they are there. They can't shit on my carpet without getting in trouble. They aren't at liberty to steal just because I don't have a "no stealing" sign posted. There is a tacit agreement between myself and the visitors to my store that only certain types of transactions are acceptable there. The store exists specifically to accomodate those transactions, and just because I haven't enumerated which transactions/behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean that they are acceptable.
Why can't the same principles appy to e-mail? E-mail is a sevice that I pay for and I should not have to tell each and every electronic visitor what is aceptable usage and what isn't. To me, the burden should lie with the spammer. If my e-mail address was: chasuk_spam_ok@hotmail.com, then spam away. If I haven't indicated as such, then it should be understood that it is NOT acceptable. The shopkeeper doesn't have to post signs that read: "Do not paint the walls" so why should I? We are both inviting people in, so to speak, but why should I have a burden that the shopkeeper doesn't?
If you have a good answer, please provide it. I'm genuinely curious.
However, they do have a strong right to send it to you. What you do with it is your own affair, however.
They have no right to do anything with my time or property that I do not specifically grant them. Note that I do not care what the law says about this: fuck the law when it does not understand that my right to spend my time and resources any way that I choose -- and I choose not to spend it filtering spam -- automatically trumps the right of the spammer to make money by abusing me.
I do know how crucial free speech is, despite your patronizing assertion that my belief/behavior exhibits otherwise. Our government does NOT understand what it is, otherwise the FCC wouldn't exist, and Howard Stern would have said cunt fuck shit so many times on television and radio that we would all be yawning, and complainants about erotic embraces on Angel would be dismissed without wasting a single dollar of tax-payer money, and the anti-flag burning idiots would be flgged at the stocks just for being stupid and missing the point utterly.
You trivialze the damage that spam does as "prefer[ring] that free speech not exist just so that they don't have to press a delete button." I work at a small ISP that filters hundreds of thousands of spam a week at our customers request. We spend time and quite enormous resources doing this, and yet still often lose customers who are unhappy with our efforts and hope that it might be better elsewhere. This costs us time, money, and resources, and violates the rights of all the customers who are paying for a private service that they don't want polluted with spam.
If you don't get that, then you are another constitutional fanboy who doesn't understand the Constitution, despite any legal training you may have. Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson would have tolerated spam? After he'd spent numerous hours deleting advertisements for glow-in-dark-cock-rings, he would have drafted a bill specifically prohibiting it.
This is not a Free Speech violation, nor can I believe that you or anyone else can claim (whilst being disingenuous) that it is, unless you are a simpleton, and then you have my sympathy and my apologies.
So there are still only "two ways to look at this ruling," at least by your stated reckoning.
Birsmirching the memory of Voltaire is inexcusable.
Enterprise managed to be a Star Trek television series without being a Star Trek television series. The music was awful, the acting was mediocre at best, and it simply didn't feel like Star Trek.
This happens a lot. The new Battlestar Galactica doesn't feel like Battlestar Galactica (not that this is a bad thing: I hated the original series), and I'm terrified that the forthcoming new Dr. Who series won't feel like Dr. Who, but rather some tepid re-imagining.
I join a salad club (one of many) so that I can enjoy salads that are available exclusively to salad club members. I can't enjoy these salads unless I am a salad club member.
Analogous referent: I sign up for Internet access (from one of many ISP's) so that I can play on-line games. I can't play on-line games without an Internet connection.
Out of many varieties of salad, I choose Rudy's Special #6. This is a potato salad. There were many different potato salads availabe, but I chose Rudy's Special #6.
Analogous referent: Out of many on-line games, I choose World of Warcraft. This is a MMORPG. There were many different MMORPG's available, but I chose World of Warcraft.
I discover that Rudy's Special #6 contains onions. I don't like onions. I suggest to Rudy (the maker of Rudy's Special #6) that he modify the ingredients of his salad so that it is more to my liking. Rudy isn't responsive.
Analogous referent: I discover that World of Warcraft contains gameplay issues that I dislike. I suggest to Blizzard (the makers of World of Warcraft) that they modify their game so that it is more to my liking. Blizzard isn't responsive.
What should I do? Should I:
1. Stop buying Rudy's Special #6, and buy a salad which doesn't contain onions? 2. Scream and pout that Rudy didn't make changes to Rudy's Special #6, but continue to order it? 3. Disrupt Rudy's business operations, so that even those who are happy with Rudy's Special #6 suffer?
Analogous referent(s):
1. Stop playing World of Warcraft, and play a MMORPG which doesn't contain gameplay issues that I dislike? 2. Scream and pout that Blizzard didn't modify their game, but continue to play it? 3. Disrupt Blizzard's business operations, so that even those who are happy with World of Warcraft suffer?
Assholes choose #3. The stupid, or the hypocrites (often the same person) choose #2.
I'll be honest, I wouldn't care if I *knew* that the Shroud of Turin had once benn wrapped around Jesus' body.
I am a Star Trek fan, yet I'm not going to get a hard-on knowing that I've touched something that Gene Rodenberry once slept on, defecated in, etc., and, yes, I think the comparison is fair. I know that there are Roman Catholics who get erections when they are in the presence of the bones of dead "Saints," and that just creeps me out.
Greg, thank you for responding to this troll reasonably and eloquently. It is a hard call -- deciding whether to respond to an example of prejudice and bigotry, or to ignore it -- but I think you were right to confront it head on.
Slashdot Mirror
Which they then set alight
And it says this where, exactly?
Does anyone who post links on Slashdot actually fucking read them before doing so?
I also believe in freedom, but not unlimited freedom. There are no absolutes (except for this one). By making your property look like an eyesore, you are negatively impacting my pocketbook.
Murder, on the other hand, is also illegal. Nothing wrong with breaking the law, huh?
You are missing the point utterly.
Murder isn't wrong because it is against the law; it is (theoretically, at least) against the law because it is wrong. I stipulate "theoretically" because the two are not necessarily connected. Society, or an influential minority within a given society, decides something is wrong, and legislation follows which enforces that belief. The actual wrongness or rightness of an action is a separate, moral issue, not a legal one.
Wow. A lifetime of never being able to see the face of your loved one (and/or that you are fucking), never beng able to experience any of the pleasurable aesthetic qualities that require vision to enjoy (including T&A, sunsets, etc), listening to movies instead of watching them, never being able to drive a car or ride a bicycle or-
Yeah, now that would be a fair trade for a pleasurable sensation in my dong - NOT.
I certainly appreciate orgasms, and I hope to have thousands more in my lifetime, but I would score sightedness above orgasms without hesitation.
There is no cosmic/karmic balance in which crimes are "paid for," but we are all human and capable of making mistakes, so forgiveness is a trait we should cultivate.
In my own mind, I have not clearly established why prisons exist. Is it to prevent the offenders from offending again? Is it to punish? Is it to rehabilitate? Is it a combination of those three?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't support eye-for-an-eye retribution, but I likewise find it very hard to feel much sympathy for the real hardcore criminal when another hardcore criminal assaults him.
But anyone who believes that prison rape is an equitable punishment for being found guilty for any of the things that are currently on the books
I don't know... rape, for instance? Dismemberment of small children? I agree with you, generally, as shoplifting or smoking a joint certainly don't merit prison rape, but I would say that for some of the things currently on the books (as listed above) prison rape is an equitable punishment.
Unless, of course, we are all just products of our genes and our environment, and not to be blamed or held accountable for any of our actions, but that is another topic entirely.
A "late fee" is a penalty for keeping the video out past the specified time. Blockbuster isn't charging a late fee, they are selling you the video according to a contractual agreement. An enormous difference, in my mind. With a "late fee," Blockbuster keeps the video and I am punished for my own sloth/stupidity/absent-mindedness.
This is the equivalent of the "you break it, you own it" policy in many stores. You knock over a dispaly of china and destroy it, you own it, and the ownership isn't even as attractive an option as Blockbuster offers, as you have only shards. With Blockbusters option -- which you didn't have to agree to -- you at least walk away with the merchandise.
I don't live anywhere near a Blockbuster, nor did I do any more than skim the contents of the advertising campaign when it came out, yet these details were sufficiently clear to me.
See my statement above; it applies in this case as well.
So, we penalize Blockbuster, who were trying to offer a service that I would have been glad to use had I lived within a reasonable distance from one of their outlets, because people are fucking stupid, or illiterate, or both?
This isn't news. This would have been news:
"American public too stupid to understand gist of simple advertising campaign. More news at 11:00."
And:
next PhotoShop version due on Friday.
The new version is due in May according to the press release which BetaNews saw.
Which is it?
I don't know how relevant this is, not quite getting the gist of the article, but does this sentence (linked from the word message in the article) make any difference? Or was I not supposed to follow any of the links?
Don't worry about the license, it's a joke. BSD license OK with everyone?
I'll be willing to answer your question, but first I need to know whether you are a troll, or just stupid. If the latter, I am willing to spend the time to enlighten you. If the latter, fuck off.
Which is it?
Cpt, I'm going to concede that you perhaps know more about the legalistic aspects of this than the average poster, myself included.
I respect Free Speech. I'm not fond of skinheads or Nazis or historical revisionists, yet I'm glad that we have organizations like the ACLU which protect their rights to Free Speech. I dislike the philosophy of Fred Phelps, yet I believe that he has a right to expouse the crap for which he and his family are notorious.
Burn flags. Wipe your ass on them. Piss on Bush's effigy. Parade in a Hasidic neigborhood wearing Nazi regalia. No, I'm not noble enough to die for your right to do it, but I'm grateful that others have been so couragous.
I don't know whether all of the acts I've just enumerated are protected; if not, they should be. I think that I've demonstrated that I am a supporter of Free Speech.
Now I want to give you a few anaogies, though I'm not guaranteeing that they are the best analogies. Disect them if you desire.
I purchase a bicycle. I park it in front of my house in plain view of every passerby. I don't lock it. If someone decides to deflate the tires, temporarily depriving me of its use, have they broken any laws? I'm not talking about a specific statute, but generally speaking is what they have done illegal? If so, why? I don't have any "no trespassing" signs up, and maybe it isn't tresspassing if I haven't posted it, but is there anything about their action that is illegal? If not, why not?
As a shopkeeper, the public has an open invitation to enter my store. However, they don't have an invitation to do anything they wish while they are there. They can't shit on my carpet without getting in trouble. They aren't at liberty to steal just because I don't have a "no stealing" sign posted. There is a tacit agreement between myself and the visitors to my store that only certain types of transactions are acceptable there. The store exists specifically to accomodate those transactions, and just because I haven't enumerated which transactions/behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean that they are acceptable.
Why can't the same principles appy to e-mail? E-mail is a sevice that I pay for and I should not have to tell each and every electronic visitor what is aceptable usage and what isn't. To me, the burden should lie with the spammer. If my e-mail address was: chasuk_spam_ok@hotmail.com, then spam away. If I haven't indicated as such, then it should be understood that it is NOT acceptable. The shopkeeper doesn't have to post signs that read: "Do not paint the walls" so why should I? We are both inviting people in, so to speak, but why should I have a burden that the shopkeeper doesn't?
If you have a good answer, please provide it. I'm genuinely curious.
Okay, I'll bite.
Yes, I've read Candide, although my favorite work by Voltaire is The Ignorant Philosopher.
Voltaire is one of my heroes.
Explain your point, if you have one.
However, they do have a strong right to send it to you. What you do with it is your own affair, however.
They have no right to do anything with my time or property that I do not specifically grant them. Note that I do not care what the law says about this: fuck the law when it does not understand that my right to spend my time and resources any way that I choose -- and I choose not to spend it filtering spam -- automatically trumps the right of the spammer to make money by abusing me.
I do know how crucial free speech is, despite your patronizing assertion that my belief/behavior exhibits otherwise. Our government does NOT understand what it is, otherwise the FCC wouldn't exist, and Howard Stern would have said cunt fuck shit so many times on television and radio that we would all be yawning, and complainants about erotic embraces on Angel would be dismissed without wasting a single dollar of tax-payer money, and the anti-flag burning idiots would be flgged at the stocks just for being stupid and missing the point utterly.
You trivialze the damage that spam does as "prefer[ring] that free speech not exist just so that they don't have to press a delete button." I work at a small ISP that filters hundreds of thousands of spam a week at our customers request. We spend time and quite enormous resources doing this, and yet still often lose customers who are unhappy with our efforts and hope that it might be better elsewhere. This costs us time, money, and resources, and violates the rights of all the customers who are paying for a private service that they don't want polluted with spam.
If you don't get that, then you are another constitutional fanboy who doesn't understand the Constitution, despite any legal training you may have. Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson would have tolerated spam? After he'd spent numerous hours deleting advertisements for glow-in-dark-cock-rings, he would have drafted a bill specifically prohibiting it.
This is not a Free Speech violation, nor can I believe that you or anyone else can claim (whilst being disingenuous) that it is, unless you are a simpleton, and then you have my sympathy and my apologies.
So there are still only "two ways to look at this ruling," at least by your stated reckoning.
Birsmirching the memory of Voltaire is inexcusable.
No, but this article is about the construction of a computer-controlled COFFEE ROASTER.
Notice:
created a computer-controlled coffee roaster...
Much of this distraction is self-enforced...
That should read:
Much of this distraction is self-imposed...
Enterprise managed to be a Star Trek television series without being a Star Trek television series. The music was awful, the acting was mediocre at best, and it simply didn't feel like Star Trek.
This happens a lot. The new Battlestar Galactica doesn't feel like Battlestar Galactica (not that this is a bad thing: I hated the original series), and I'm terrified that the forthcoming new Dr. Who series won't feel like Dr. Who, but rather some tepid re-imagining.
I join a salad club (one of many) so that I can enjoy salads that are available exclusively to salad club members. I can't enjoy these salads unless I am a salad club member.
Analogous referent: I sign up for Internet access (from one of many ISP's) so that I can play on-line games. I can't play on-line games without an Internet connection.
Out of many varieties of salad, I choose Rudy's Special #6. This is a potato salad. There were many different potato salads availabe, but I chose Rudy's Special #6.
Analogous referent: Out of many on-line games, I choose World of Warcraft. This is a MMORPG. There were many different MMORPG's available, but I chose World of Warcraft.
I discover that Rudy's Special #6 contains onions. I don't like onions. I suggest to Rudy (the maker of Rudy's Special #6) that he modify the ingredients of his salad so that it is more to my liking. Rudy isn't responsive.
Analogous referent: I discover that World of Warcraft contains gameplay issues that I dislike. I suggest to Blizzard (the makers of World of Warcraft) that they modify their game so that it is more to my liking. Blizzard isn't responsive.
What should I do? Should I:
1. Stop buying Rudy's Special #6, and buy a salad which doesn't contain onions?
2. Scream and pout that Rudy didn't make changes to Rudy's Special #6, but continue to order it?
3. Disrupt Rudy's business operations, so that even those who are happy with Rudy's Special #6 suffer?
Analogous referent(s):
1. Stop playing World of Warcraft, and play a MMORPG which doesn't contain gameplay issues that I dislike?
2. Scream and pout that Blizzard didn't modify their game, but continue to play it?
3. Disrupt Blizzard's business operations, so that even those who are happy with World of Warcraft suffer?
Assholes choose #3. The stupid, or the hypocrites (often the same person) choose #2.
I'll be honest, I wouldn't care if I *knew* that the Shroud of Turin had once benn wrapped around Jesus' body.
I am a Star Trek fan, yet I'm not going to get a hard-on knowing that I've touched something that Gene Rodenberry once slept on, defecated in, etc., and, yes, I think the comparison is fair. I know that there are Roman Catholics who get erections when they are in the presence of the bones of dead "Saints," and that just creeps me out.
Anyone care to explain this particular fetish?
Greg, thank you for responding to this troll reasonably and eloquently. It is a hard call -- deciding whether to respond to an example of prejudice and bigotry, or to ignore it -- but I think you were right to confront it head on.
Thank you (sincerely).
This despite the addition of over 88 servers in the last week.
/. submitters apparently RTFA?
Why do none of the
From the *LINKED* article:
To keep up with the demand from our players, 47 new servers were made available, increasing the total number of servers to 88.
Is the above sentence really that difficult to comprehend?
I've thought about becoming a paid subscriber many times, but goofs like this always prevent me.
I shopped at a Sony store in Cambridge, England, nearly 15 years ago.
They even had a section devoted to kids, with banner advertising above the kidified products proclaiming: "My First Sony."
I didn't realize that there weren't Sony stores in the US until seeing this article...