If you start verbally berating someone at my house, I will eject you. No censorship involved. Censorship is about government suppressing freedom of expression. Same goes for blogs and gaming sites.
Correct. For those who don't believe this, go out in a field and catch a rabbit bare handed.
As for the bronto, it's not really possible to know because we do not know what type of myelin sheathing they had on their nerves. It could be that their nerves propagated signals at 2mph (Iow end) or 200mph (highest). We don't know.
If 2mph, a sixty foot animal's brain would get the signal in about three seconds, at 200 mph at.03sec. Or anywhere in between.
Not really relevant though as the bronts had ganglia along their spines that did the reactions. Say the tail was 25 of that 60 and you have a little under a second low end perception time.
Schools are currently known to consider expression of religious views as being bullying to others not of their religion. If I were to post on my FB that I thought that Islam was dangerous and should be stomped out, you can bet your ass they could consider that bullying.
Christianity? Not so much.
DIsclaimer: I'm atheist. I criticize all religions.
We are not complaining about some Joe on the street reading your 24/7 postings and getting a chuckle or posting a vitriol laden response. We are talking about a governmental agency reading them and then intruding into your life with government backing if *they* deem what you post is unacceptable to them.
You say NSA snooping is bad and yet a school's snooping isn't. Yet both are doing the exact same thing and claiming it's "for you protection".
By the way, your using all caps and my using bold and italic are appeals to emotion.
You're a troll (obviously the reason you AC), but for anyone else who has followed this far:
It's relevant to the article because they are "searching for possible violence, drug use, bullying, truancy and suicidal threats.". Got that, you stupid bastard? They are searching for evidence with no crime, crime outside of school not being in their job description in the first place.
The 24/7 is an reference obvious to the literate and non-troll of the fact that a child's FaceBook account is accessed by them for them to post their personal thoughts 24/7. You purposely conflate that to the spy working 24/7. You do this because you know it to be untrue, yet it vaguely sounds as if it supports your screed. Note to you: it does not.
To educate your obviously fascist ass, in the US your personal time is of no business to an outside agency NOT involved with law enforcement and (ideally) not even them without PRIOR reason.
Regardless of their reasoning , it's called intrusion. As has become painfully obvious to anyone with their head out in the open air, our government employees from the pres to the schoolteacher have decided that they are our keepers instead of servants and that their self-appointed duty to oversee us is to our benefit. No, it is not. As relates to 'educators', this stance presents itself in their deciding what political t-shirts are allowed, which hero (God, in one case) an elementary school child may write about, which political candidate to support by having them sing creepy songs of praise ala Kim and other various dispicable acts hitting the newslines daily. And, of course, their thinking that they should surviel you for "your protection".
Simply put Snookums, it is not their fucking job.
But you either already knew all that and you're simply fascistic or you are ignorant and simply a damned fool. Both of those states of being deserve derision.
Got all that Sparky?
Am I being all mean and cndescending to you? Bet your ass. Go tell your teacher.
"We want to see humanoid aliens with humanoid expressions on their humanoid faces."
Who is this "we" you refer too? I would have zero problem dealing with - or empathizing with - a centipede life form. Like, say, in A Mission of Gravity, where all but one of the main characters were alien centipedes. Very engrossing.
I read that sentence and 'heard' the words. I may not have interpreted them correctly phoenitcally, but that's of no relevance to the point - I heard them. They did not impede my reading of the sentence. YES, you have to provide explanations in prior passages, but that's a common occurrence in everyday reading anyway. This is why acronyms are typically expanded in parens the first time they're used in an article.
What if the bwyell and neidr are not an axe and snake, but a weapon specific to that culture and an animal specific to that realm of fiction? Now you've got "Dai swung his large bladed weapon and chopped the furry serpentine creature in half." I'd argue that's easily a step down in IQ and writing down is a bad thing (in my opinion).
What you're essentially saying is that an author should never develop a language or race with it's own language's name. I heartily disagree and you wouldn't care for my fiction either.
Imagination is key to all reading, but the text should connect as directly as possible to the reader's imagination -- understanding should be passive with as little effort as possible.
Yes and no. Is the "secure" information actually a security risk or was it simply declared "secure"?
Many of the things released by Snowden point to the NSA blatantly disregarding controls on their operations and then knowingly and purposefully trying to hide and obfuscate their illegal actions, making subsequent information NOT "secure", as it was illegally obtained.
"Tell a typical author that copyright should be abolished, and most of them will instantly, and with great histrionics, accuse you of wanting a free ride..."
That would be because they are correct. You ALWAYS have the option of not purchasing something with a copyright attached. Instead, you argue that you should have free access and the author should find some means of support ***other than you***.
Lot of words, same shallow message - I don't want to pay for my entertainment.
Considering that point and that point alone, so would I. Those wanting to "share" your cake invariably bring not one damned thing to the table. *All* they want to do is share *your* cake.
Pray tell, is there a coherent argument as to why I must 'share' my cake instead of enjoying it myself?
To be fair, your point doesn't at all address his. He's arguing her report shows the opposite conclusion as she says it does. Your argument is someone else entirely is lying.
Slashdot Mirror
When you post anonymously or with a moniker THIS ^^^ is how you do it with civility, not using flameboi tactics.
"At present there are few for the latter remaining..."
That is utterly untrue. I have many sites I visit where I use my moniker.
If you start verbally berating someone at my house, I will eject you. No censorship involved. Censorship is about government suppressing freedom of expression. Same goes for blogs and gaming sites.
Correct. For those who don't believe this, go out in a field and catch a rabbit bare handed.
.03sec. Or anywhere in between.
As for the bronto, it's not really possible to know because we do not know what type of myelin sheathing they had on their nerves. It could be that their nerves propagated signals at 2mph (Iow end) or 200mph (highest). We don't know.
If 2mph, a sixty foot animal's brain would get the signal in about three seconds, at 200 mph at
Not really relevant though as the bronts had ganglia along their spines that did the reactions. Say the tail was 25 of that 60 and you have a little under a second low end perception time.
How dare you criticize such a well thought out and rational point of argument?
Shhhh. This does not fit the narrative.
How fortunate we are to have a long distance and temporal mind reader on SlashDot.
To make this truly effective, post a disclaimer one month before you start doing it.
Apparently Shakespeare was a little shortsighted. He only wanted to hang lawyers.
Schools are currently known to consider expression of religious views as being bullying to others not of their religion. If I were to post on my FB that I thought that Islam was dangerous and should be stomped out, you can bet your ass they could consider that bullying.
Christianity? Not so much.
DIsclaimer: I'm atheist. I criticize all religions.
Note the use of the word "may" to justify the snooping.
What the fuck world did you grow up in? That is a blatant lie.
Speaking of false analogies....
We are not complaining about some Joe on the street reading your 24/7 postings and getting a chuckle or posting a vitriol laden response. We are talking about a governmental agency reading them and then intruding into your life with government backing if *they* deem what you post is unacceptable to them.
You say NSA snooping is bad and yet a school's snooping isn't. Yet both are doing the exact same thing and claiming it's "for you protection".
By the way, your using all caps and my using bold and italic are appeals to emotion.
I agree with you except for your first statement. It's only been in the last two. Prior to that, schools did not act like this. I was there.
You're a troll (obviously the reason you AC), but for anyone else who has followed this far:
It's relevant to the article because they are "searching for possible violence, drug use, bullying, truancy and suicidal threats.". Got that, you stupid bastard? They are searching for evidence with no crime, crime outside of school not being in their job description in the first place.
The 24/7 is an reference obvious to the literate and non-troll of the fact that a child's FaceBook account is accessed by them for them to post their personal thoughts 24/7. You purposely conflate that to the spy working 24/7. You do this because you know it to be untrue, yet it vaguely sounds as if it supports your screed. Note to you: it does not.
To educate your obviously fascist ass, in the US your personal time is of no business to an outside agency NOT involved with law enforcement and (ideally) not even them without PRIOR reason.
Regardless of their reasoning , it's called intrusion. As has become painfully obvious to anyone with their head out in the open air, our government employees from the pres to the schoolteacher have decided that they are our keepers instead of servants and that their self-appointed duty to oversee us is to our benefit. No, it is not. As relates to 'educators', this stance presents itself in their deciding what political t-shirts are allowed, which hero (God, in one case) an elementary school child may write about, which political candidate to support by having them sing creepy songs of praise ala Kim and other various dispicable acts hitting the newslines daily. And, of course, their thinking that they should surviel you for "your protection".
Simply put Snookums, it is not their fucking job.
But you either already knew all that and you're simply fascistic or you are ignorant and simply a damned fool. Both of those states of being deserve derision.
Got all that Sparky?
Am I being all mean and cndescending to you? Bet your ass. Go tell your teacher.
If one guy writes the software, his salary is the price of said software.
"We want to see humanoid aliens with humanoid expressions on their humanoid faces."
Who is this "we" you refer too? I would have zero problem dealing with - or empathizing with - a centipede life form. Like, say, in A Mission of Gravity, where all but one of the main characters were alien centipedes. Very engrossing.
"but have about as much atmosphere as Excel."
I friggin' love that phrase.
What if the bwyell and neidr are not an axe and snake, but a weapon specific to that culture and an animal specific to that realm of fiction? Now you've got "Dai swung his large bladed weapon and chopped the furry serpentine creature in half." I'd argue that's easily a step down in IQ and writing down is a bad thing (in my opinion).
What you're essentially saying is that an author should never develop a language or race with it's own language's name. I heartily disagree and you wouldn't care for my fiction either.
Depends on just who your target audience is.
Much simpler - he was fully aware that NSA "disappears" people and he wanted the most antithetical NSA base he could go to.
Yes and no. Is the "secure" information actually a security risk or was it simply declared "secure"?
Many of the things released by Snowden point to the NSA blatantly disregarding controls on their operations and then knowingly and purposefully trying to hide and obfuscate their illegal actions, making subsequent information NOT "secure", as it was illegally obtained.
Yeah, pretty obvious.
Most of the people on this site would agree that 100,000 years is shorter than one million. You shot your own foot.
"Tell a typical author that copyright should be abolished, and most of them will instantly, and with great histrionics, accuse you of wanting a free ride..."
That would be because they are correct. You ALWAYS have the option of not purchasing something with a copyright attached. Instead, you argue that you should have free access and the author should find some means of support ***other than you***.
Lot of words, same shallow message - I don't want to pay for my entertainment.
Considering that point and that point alone, so would I. Those wanting to "share" your cake invariably bring not one damned thing to the table. *All* they want to do is share *your* cake.
Pray tell, is there a coherent argument as to why I must 'share' my cake instead of enjoying it myself?
To be fair, your point doesn't at all address his. He's arguing her report shows the opposite conclusion as she says it does. Your argument is someone else entirely is lying.