Do you also think jet engines and cars, and hell, campfires are rapidly depleting oxygen at a potentially alarming rate too? Perhaps using garden sprinklers will increase air humidity enough to cause hurricanes as well?
The same one they started an empire with, then later had the "three day week" and endless terrible economic decisions. Then tried to restore their greatness with selling arms and shutting down coal mines. And then even later trying to fight American economic power with more freedom in The City leading to at least two huge economic recessions/panics that come to mind.
I almost forgot to mention they had to re-apply to join European market multiple times because their economy was such shit and then after being let in wanted to pretend as though they were too good for it.
But I'm sure this time, by further isolating and shrinking themselves they'll do better, this time it will work for sure!
I say this and I don't even like the EU and I do like the UK, but it doesn't change the truth.
Or, maybe he's talking about Elizabeth I and the Spanish, or maybe one of the three or so wars with the Dutch, certainly I don't know of any recent events.
My thought is that perhaps one could argue a something akin to: if one writes or even uses a program to generate art in a random way, they could likely claim (IANAL) it's their creation, certainly sell it as their own and possibly sue someone who copies it in an unauthorised way. This may work especially well as an argument due to a common lack of understanding amongst lawyers, government, etc.
As a thought though, I wouldn't try to argue that it'd belong to the creator of the program since anyone can run it and then suddenly that creator would own an insane amount of code.
Child soldiers made to walk over landmines in the Iran-Iraq war, death fatwas on authors, forced sex changes for homosexuals or death, gunning down protesters, fixing elections... I don't think you know much about Iran, or Ireland for that matter.
Not just that, but the after Janet (Miss Jackson, if you're nast-ay) flashed her nipple people really flipped out and standards clamped down even more. This is talked about to no end in commentaries of The Simpsons where they talk about how they went from being able to show an entire animated butt to being barred from, in most cases, showing even plumber's-style butt crack as being too indecent. Ironically it doesn't count on syndicated re-broadcasts for some reason. Further it's not just nudity, it's "bad words" which evidently have just as much horrific impact on young minds as hardcore sex acts, i.e. a woman's nipple.
A while back there was an article here that said a study showed that there was likely no other life in the observable universe because it isn't blatantly obvious, so this is obviously a fool's errand... or perhaps I can take the crisis du jour and explain that as what happened to them. Like when it was the Cold War, well obviously they blew themselves up, and now it's maybe aliens died off due to climate change (I can't find that article, but I know I read it before).
In all seriousness, it's good to have some approach rather than simply throw your hands up and assume aliens are exactly like us, have our problems, or our socioeconomic issues, or for good measure care about the White House lawn to announce themselves.
AOL also had an unsend feature for mail so long as the other end was an AOL customer. Tech really is like the film industry or fashion, it just repeats over and over, just with minor variation. I imagine there's plenty of other services that had this way back when or even now I'm sure.
As an aside, I often wondered how many people sent something regrettable to a non-AOL customer and expected to see that unsend button yet it was not to be found.
If we can't find out when we're wrong because not every minority has the "access to the same infrastructure and audience", then how did we find out the things listed in the last panel were ever wrong in the first place? During the Japanese Internment Camps, McCarthyism, Trail of Tears, first and second wave feminism, the civil rights movement all happened when there was not only a lot fewer types of media, but while they had more owners, they certainly didn't cater to minority opinions anymore than a newsletter or party newspaper did compared to blogs or sites today.
Plus, let's get real, such laws would be used by advertisers far more than noble people minority opinions. And also where does it stop? If I have a free registration web forum and it becomes very popular do I have to allow anyone to post literally anything too at risk of violating the law? How popular do I need to be? What if I don't call myself a public square, which evidently makes a huge difference, and say it's a private business, am I then exempt? What about people promoting violence or hatred rather than wonderful opinions that help us know when we're wrong? Who is liable if something happens? What's to stop someone from suing the web site and making them have to pay tons of money over lawsuits because they weren't allowed to censor?
I'm not for limiting freedom of speech, but I am against forcing people to promote speech just because they get popular enough. Not all minority opinions are noble nor are all crazy opinions just ignored because you think they're obviously crazy.
It reminds me of those really poor analogies about space travel in general, things like "standing on either side of a house and throwing balls up and trying to make them hit in an exact spot" or something with two bullets fired blindly needing to hit each other exactly right, not realising there's still a fundamental difference from just throwing/shooting something, letting it go, and being able to use your thrusters to re-position yourself.
It just makes it seem like they're trying to make something which is difficult and dangerous sound yet more difficult and dangerous, and in fact insanely reckless and blind. I've had to explain to quite a few of people over the last few decades that, no, going to the moon is not like trying to shoot two guns and have the bullets hit each other. It was really bad when the Apollo 13 movie came out, there's at least a couple of these bad analogies in the script or in media coverage about the film.
The media loves these simple analogies even if they're totally wrong though, asking them to come up with new language, all you can do is provide them with a nonsensical analogy that sounds vaguely correct so long as you don't think about it.
That's true unless you are of the mindset that only governments create monopolies. This tends to be a mindset that unless it's a 100% pure monopoly, that's not a monopoly and should be left alone to bully tiny competitors and so on... but since there are tiny competitors, there's no monopoly and it's all anti-capitalist propaganda or some shit.
They're not pointless if they teach you to speak in front of 20-30 peers without having a fucking breakdown-bitch-fest about it, just look at the countless comments here from people talking about how it helped them. Speaking to people, well, that's just life, you have to learn to talk to people unless you want to be isolated, but I'm sure you'll find a way to complain about how everyone's isolating you because you won't speak to anyone.
Anyway, you're complaining to the wrong damn crowd, this is slashdot, not... I don't know, the comments on some normal person site... so there's tons of shy ass nerds here, so don't pretend like you've got a unique situation.
On that topic: it's not rigged to say that literally the entire world relies on social interaction, often times with one person talking to more than one other person. In fact plenty of places are far, far more socially interactive than American high schools. If you can't stomach stumbling through a 3 minute speech about your summer vacation in front of 20 peers, you realistically need to either be on powerful medication or be home schooled. It's hard, but it's not that damn hard.
Perhaps a Christian*, but not a good one, unless you're a Calvinist or a related dogma which believes that you go to heaven no matter what you do just by believing in Jesus, and "accepting him into your heart" whatever that means.
Salvation in the next life in Roman and Eastern Catholic traditions and most Protestant ones is obtained by being a good Christian and that typically would be defined as someone who tries to be like Jesus, you know, help the poor, don't be a dick, etc -- though being divine is rarely included in this of course.;-)
Plus Christianity has a history of revering martyrdom of true believers and those who died trying to help others either by saving their lives or their souls. It isn't condemned, I guess that's different if your messiah and savour is Ayn Rand though.
*Some of the more extreme ones don't even include you unless you believe and do as they do, but these aren't the mainstream of course.
You mean you don't like a History Channel devoid of history, or Discovery channel all about... whatever the hell they talk about now, I honestly haven't watched it in years, or the similar shift happening on the Science Channel and History Channel 2, or remember when TLC, the Learning Channel, had shit about learning, then started Trading Spaces and now it's all fat people, like looking in a mirror, but that's why I watch TV, or used to, now I just download everything selectively. It takes the fun out of discovering new programs to watch, because it's like radio now.
Privacy aside, I imagine the reason TV channels don't truly go knee deep into seeing what people are watching is because the current ratings system makes them all look fairly OK, and if the total truth were to ever get out, some channels would be seen as essentially be devoid of watchers, and thus advertisers would stop paying.
I'm not sure why you're being modded down, I'm curious about this myself. Despise is a word, it's the proper spelling, it's not used incorrectly, it's in a grammatically correct position... so wtf [sic]?
I get why people want to mindlessly downvote parent, but in reality Firefox has a lot of problems. It's to the point where I still use it everyday, but only for development because it has superior development tools and control over things like cache, where as even in Chrome all the tools suck and I swear when you clear the cache it somehow doesn't clear everything.
It is, however, very slow compared to Chrome. Too many times does it seemingly lock up for a few moments out of nowhere. This is a problem with the Mozilla platform in general as with Thunderbird, a few times, though rarely, it will also freeze up while I am typing and that's not so bad except for the fact that for some reason it takes the key presses made during the freeze up to be essentially CTRL + key, so I've accidentally sent emails by even typing something and then it freezes, I stop instantly, but on no, I hit "s" and now it's sent. What the fuck is that? A lot of times I honestly type things in notepad and just copy/paste them in a new email just to avoid the bullshit.
Not to mention the memory leaks. Chrome has them too, and Chrome has a really bizarre issue with HTML5 video sometimes breaking, but at least I can kill separate threads in Chrome. With Firefox, I'm SOL, I gotta exit the whole browser, and when I do, about 50% of the time I get a notification that Firefox has crashed. How? Why? What the hell?
So sure, let's praise it for being the origin of the first decent browser, let's praise it for having a good history, but let's not just ignore its problems because it's not Google Chrome or Microsoft IE/Edge.
Address the problems before whining about "oh no, people don't want to use it anymore." If it were better, people would use it more often. It used to be that my IT friends would install Firefox on new machines or just to avoid dealing with IE on Windows Servers and general PCs, but most switched to Chrome not because it was better, the fact it doesn't have a full install without having to download over the damn Internet is irritating as hell, but because it was just faster and easier to deal with.
I'm at a loss as to why you replied to a nonsensical comment about Japanese rockets with actual useful information. I'm also at a loss as to why I'm even bringing it up.
Granted it's not remotely the same platform, but definitely on Windows I get a lot of (Not Responding) if I try to use Firefox a little too quickly after it's been open for more than a little while. And regardless of OS, if I type too quickly on Thunderbird, every once in a while it'll just sort of sit there and then finally treat all my keys at hot keys, often doing tons of shit, sometimes even sending the email I was working on, because for whatever reason it decided to remove focus from the actual message body text box.
Firefox is still the best browser for web development, as any other version of Firebug except the one for Firefox sucks, and Thunderbird is still largely a great mail client, but overall, what the hell is the deal with Mozilla as a framework/software stack/etc that it never seems to get less shitty or have less memory leaks? I get tracking that stuff down can take a long time, but it's only increased over the last decade since I first remember complaining about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you also think jet engines and cars, and hell, campfires are rapidly depleting oxygen at a potentially alarming rate too? Perhaps using garden sprinklers will increase air humidity enough to cause hurricanes as well?
The same one they started an empire with, then later had the "three day week" and endless terrible economic decisions. Then tried to restore their greatness with selling arms and shutting down coal mines. And then even later trying to fight American economic power with more freedom in The City leading to at least two huge economic recessions/panics that come to mind.
I almost forgot to mention they had to re-apply to join European market multiple times because their economy was such shit and then after being let in wanted to pretend as though they were too good for it.
But I'm sure this time, by further isolating and shrinking themselves they'll do better, this time it will work for sure!
I say this and I don't even like the EU and I do like the UK, but it doesn't change the truth.
Or, maybe he's talking about Elizabeth I and the Spanish, or maybe one of the three or so wars with the Dutch, certainly I don't know of any recent events.
My thought is that perhaps one could argue a something akin to: if one writes or even uses a program to generate art in a random way, they could likely claim (IANAL) it's their creation, certainly sell it as their own and possibly sue someone who copies it in an unauthorised way. This may work especially well as an argument due to a common lack of understanding amongst lawyers, government, etc.
As a thought though, I wouldn't try to argue that it'd belong to the creator of the program since anyone can run it and then suddenly that creator would own an insane amount of code.
Child soldiers made to walk over landmines in the Iran-Iraq war, death fatwas on authors, forced sex changes for homosexuals or death, gunning down protesters, fixing elections... I don't think you know much about Iran, or Ireland for that matter.
Yeah Iran has no Muslims or Islamic agenda of any kind.
Not just that, but the after Janet (Miss Jackson, if you're nast-ay) flashed her nipple people really flipped out and standards clamped down even more. This is talked about to no end in commentaries of The Simpsons where they talk about how they went from being able to show an entire animated butt to being barred from, in most cases, showing even plumber's-style butt crack as being too indecent. Ironically it doesn't count on syndicated re-broadcasts for some reason. Further it's not just nudity, it's "bad words" which evidently have just as much horrific impact on young minds as hardcore sex acts, i.e. a woman's nipple.
I disagree, I murder all the time and I'm perfectly healthy.
Reminds me of the surface of Venus. Based on those pollution levels it sounds like that's what they're aiming for.
A while back there was an article here that said a study showed that there was likely no other life in the observable universe because it isn't blatantly obvious, so this is obviously a fool's errand... or perhaps I can take the crisis du jour and explain that as what happened to them. Like when it was the Cold War, well obviously they blew themselves up, and now it's maybe aliens died off due to climate change (I can't find that article, but I know I read it before).
In all seriousness, it's good to have some approach rather than simply throw your hands up and assume aliens are exactly like us, have our problems, or our socioeconomic issues, or for good measure care about the White House lawn to announce themselves.
AOL also had an unsend feature for mail so long as the other end was an AOL customer. Tech really is like the film industry or fashion, it just repeats over and over, just with minor variation. I imagine there's plenty of other services that had this way back when or even now I'm sure.
As an aside, I often wondered how many people sent something regrettable to a non-AOL customer and expected to see that unsend button yet it was not to be found.
If we can't find out when we're wrong because not every minority has the "access to the same infrastructure and audience", then how did we find out the things listed in the last panel were ever wrong in the first place? During the Japanese Internment Camps, McCarthyism, Trail of Tears, first and second wave feminism, the civil rights movement all happened when there was not only a lot fewer types of media, but while they had more owners, they certainly didn't cater to minority opinions anymore than a newsletter or party newspaper did compared to blogs or sites today.
Plus, let's get real, such laws would be used by advertisers far more than noble people minority opinions. And also where does it stop? If I have a free registration web forum and it becomes very popular do I have to allow anyone to post literally anything too at risk of violating the law? How popular do I need to be? What if I don't call myself a public square, which evidently makes a huge difference, and say it's a private business, am I then exempt? What about people promoting violence or hatred rather than wonderful opinions that help us know when we're wrong? Who is liable if something happens? What's to stop someone from suing the web site and making them have to pay tons of money over lawsuits because they weren't allowed to censor?
I'm not for limiting freedom of speech, but I am against forcing people to promote speech just because they get popular enough. Not all minority opinions are noble nor are all crazy opinions just ignored because you think they're obviously crazy.
That's actually a much better analogy, consider it officially stolen, sir!
It reminds me of those really poor analogies about space travel in general, things like "standing on either side of a house and throwing balls up and trying to make them hit in an exact spot" or something with two bullets fired blindly needing to hit each other exactly right, not realising there's still a fundamental difference from just throwing/shooting something, letting it go, and being able to use your thrusters to re-position yourself.
It just makes it seem like they're trying to make something which is difficult and dangerous sound yet more difficult and dangerous, and in fact insanely reckless and blind. I've had to explain to quite a few of people over the last few decades that, no, going to the moon is not like trying to shoot two guns and have the bullets hit each other. It was really bad when the Apollo 13 movie came out, there's at least a couple of these bad analogies in the script or in media coverage about the film.
The media loves these simple analogies even if they're totally wrong though, asking them to come up with new language, all you can do is provide them with a nonsensical analogy that sounds vaguely correct so long as you don't think about it.
That's true unless you are of the mindset that only governments create monopolies. This tends to be a mindset that unless it's a 100% pure monopoly, that's not a monopoly and should be left alone to bully tiny competitors and so on... but since there are tiny competitors, there's no monopoly and it's all anti-capitalist propaganda or some shit.
Soon they'll have their own damn satellite to confirm violations of their smug, I mean, smog rules.
Mod up parent! He's a gorgeous genius and totally not me.
See, it's totally obvious it's not really me.
"he/she" totally is not referring to yourself.
They're not pointless if they teach you to speak in front of 20-30 peers without having a fucking breakdown-bitch-fest about it, just look at the countless comments here from people talking about how it helped them. Speaking to people, well, that's just life, you have to learn to talk to people unless you want to be isolated, but I'm sure you'll find a way to complain about how everyone's isolating you because you won't speak to anyone.
Anyway, you're complaining to the wrong damn crowd, this is slashdot, not ... I don't know, the comments on some normal person site... so there's tons of shy ass nerds here, so don't pretend like you've got a unique situation.
On that topic: it's not rigged to say that literally the entire world relies on social interaction, often times with one person talking to more than one other person. In fact plenty of places are far, far more socially interactive than American high schools. If you can't stomach stumbling through a 3 minute speech about your summer vacation in front of 20 peers, you realistically need to either be on powerful medication or be home schooled. It's hard, but it's not that damn hard.
Perhaps a Christian*, but not a good one, unless you're a Calvinist or a related dogma which believes that you go to heaven no matter what you do just by believing in Jesus, and "accepting him into your heart" whatever that means.
Salvation in the next life in Roman and Eastern Catholic traditions and most Protestant ones is obtained by being a good Christian and that typically would be defined as someone who tries to be like Jesus, you know, help the poor, don't be a dick, etc -- though being divine is rarely included in this of course. ;-)
Plus Christianity has a history of revering martyrdom of true believers and those who died trying to help others either by saving their lives or their souls. It isn't condemned, I guess that's different if your messiah and savour is Ayn Rand though.
*Some of the more extreme ones don't even include you unless you believe and do as they do, but these aren't the mainstream of course.
You mean you don't like a History Channel devoid of history, or Discovery channel all about ... whatever the hell they talk about now, I honestly haven't watched it in years, or the similar shift happening on the Science Channel and History Channel 2, or remember when TLC, the Learning Channel, had shit about learning, then started Trading Spaces and now it's all fat people, like looking in a mirror, but that's why I watch TV, or used to, now I just download everything selectively. It takes the fun out of discovering new programs to watch, because it's like radio now.
Privacy aside, I imagine the reason TV channels don't truly go knee deep into seeing what people are watching is because the current ratings system makes them all look fairly OK, and if the total truth were to ever get out, some channels would be seen as essentially be devoid of watchers, and thus advertisers would stop paying.
I'm not sure why you're being modded down, I'm curious about this myself. Despise is a word, it's the proper spelling, it's not used incorrectly, it's in a grammatically correct position... so wtf [sic]?
I get why people want to mindlessly downvote parent, but in reality Firefox has a lot of problems. It's to the point where I still use it everyday, but only for development because it has superior development tools and control over things like cache, where as even in Chrome all the tools suck and I swear when you clear the cache it somehow doesn't clear everything.
It is, however, very slow compared to Chrome. Too many times does it seemingly lock up for a few moments out of nowhere. This is a problem with the Mozilla platform in general as with Thunderbird, a few times, though rarely, it will also freeze up while I am typing and that's not so bad except for the fact that for some reason it takes the key presses made during the freeze up to be essentially CTRL + key, so I've accidentally sent emails by even typing something and then it freezes, I stop instantly, but on no, I hit "s" and now it's sent. What the fuck is that? A lot of times I honestly type things in notepad and just copy/paste them in a new email just to avoid the bullshit.
Not to mention the memory leaks. Chrome has them too, and Chrome has a really bizarre issue with HTML5 video sometimes breaking, but at least I can kill separate threads in Chrome. With Firefox, I'm SOL, I gotta exit the whole browser, and when I do, about 50% of the time I get a notification that Firefox has crashed. How? Why? What the hell?
So sure, let's praise it for being the origin of the first decent browser, let's praise it for having a good history, but let's not just ignore its problems because it's not Google Chrome or Microsoft IE/Edge.
Address the problems before whining about "oh no, people don't want to use it anymore." If it were better, people would use it more often. It used to be that my IT friends would install Firefox on new machines or just to avoid dealing with IE on Windows Servers and general PCs, but most switched to Chrome not because it was better, the fact it doesn't have a full install without having to download over the damn Internet is irritating as hell, but because it was just faster and easier to deal with.
I'm at a loss as to why you replied to a nonsensical comment about Japanese rockets with actual useful information. I'm also at a loss as to why I'm even bringing it up.
This was after he had originally insisted it was FuchGNUsia, but changed it after so many complaints at how "awkward" the term was.
Granted it's not remotely the same platform, but definitely on Windows I get a lot of (Not Responding) if I try to use Firefox a little too quickly after it's been open for more than a little while. And regardless of OS, if I type too quickly on Thunderbird, every once in a while it'll just sort of sit there and then finally treat all my keys at hot keys, often doing tons of shit, sometimes even sending the email I was working on, because for whatever reason it decided to remove focus from the actual message body text box.
Firefox is still the best browser for web development, as any other version of Firebug except the one for Firefox sucks, and Thunderbird is still largely a great mail client, but overall, what the hell is the deal with Mozilla as a framework/software stack/etc that it never seems to get less shitty or have less memory leaks? I get tracking that stuff down can take a long time, but it's only increased over the last decade since I first remember complaining about it.