I really didn't get what you were trying to say above, or if you were arguing for or against something, but one comment:
But what if I don't care about human lives either? Then would have the right to kill suffering people?
"Rights" are a human invention, mostly dictated by the society. And answer to this specific question in almost all societies is: "the question is a non-sequitur, caring or not caring doesn't affect what rights somebody has".
As a Vegan, I'm always interested when these issues come up on my usual websites.
Hey, maybe you can give your personal opinion, if you've thought about it. What do you think should happen to animals that currently earn their living by being eaten by humans, like pigs? Should humans stop breeding them and let them go extinct? Should they be preserved in some kind of "domesticated animal zoos" in small numbers, so they could earn their upkeep by playing with kids or whatever? What should happen to them?
I personally find eating ethically raised animals just fine morally. The animal gets to live very comfortable (compared to how a wild animal has to live) life fed by humans, and then it gets killed by human to pay for all the food and shelter it received. Actually I find that much more ethical, than hunting, even though hunting is more "natural". Of course then it becomes a question of what kind of conditions the animal should have, so we can consider it's life and death summed together is better than it having never existed... And in practical terms it also becomes question of price of the meat, but then why not just eat less meat and more veggies, if meat is more expensive.
If a domesticated animal has been abandoned and unwanted, the most humane thing to do is end its suffering as quickly and painlessly as possible. Keeping it caged in hopes that someone will come and adopt it may feel nice, but it isn't in the animal's best interest.
It's still an interesting question who gets to determine when death is in your best interest.
Yeah, philosophically interesting question sure, but practically easy to answer: the one with the biggest gun gets to decide. Wether it's biggest antlers on a moose, or most comprehensive ICBM 2nd strike capability, it's the same story all over "animal kingdom".
So this "other stuff" is there, does not interact with itself, but does interact with OTHER matter (light in this case) to create a gravity lens?
I may miss something but to me it seems to contradict. How can its gravity interact with light, but not with itself or the non-dark matter in those colliding galaxies? If it produces that much gravity to create a gravitational lens, why doesn't it pull the rest of the galaxy with it?
Dark matter interacts only through gravity, both with itself and with normal matter. It does not collide with itself or normal matter, nor does it absorb radiation (well, we don't know for sure of course, but it doesn't seem to do that, at least).
In bullet cluster, colliding normal matter (clouds of gas and dust basically) slows down, while dark matter just passes through itself and normal matter. Once past each others, two clouds of dark matter will start to slow down due to gravity of course, but normal matter slows down more because of collisions, radiation pressure and such.
But it really seems odd that so many Slashdotters are so rabidly against the idea of dark matter.
I don't think they're many, they're just vocal... Applies to anybody who has a strong opinion, especially when evidence doesn't really support that opinion.
I mean, there's evidence for dark matter, and no good alternative explanations (ie. the alternatives have much bigger gaps in them). No need to get vocal about it, let the evidence speak for itself. But if you oppose dark matter, evidence is quiet, so you must take care of making noise:-)
Of course working on the assumption that Dark Matter even exists. Unless I am mistaken there is no actual direct evidence to its existence and it is used mostly to explain phenomena not fully understood. It may be the modern equivalent of luminiferous ether and disproved in the future.
Well, there's the classic Bullet Cluster. There's something that bends light but is otherwise completely invisible. It's not necessarily dark matter, but other explanations sound even more far-fetched.
It's clearly the exact Apple logo, and intended to be so.
Of course, but that isn't necessarily trademark infringement. For example a newspaper can use Apple logo in an article about Apple company.
So printing an image of Steve Jobs standing on Apple logo in a newspaper would be fine . Wether this figurine case is covered by same rules or not, well, I guess that'll be determined in court now, unless they settle.
And actually, it's using Apple logo when not meaning specifically Apple, which is almost automatically trademark infringement, and must be defended against or trademark may get diluted and eventually become invalid.
No, most of what makes water by mass (oxygen) came from supernovas that happened 10-5 billion years ago, where it was made from primordial hydrogen and helium. Smaller part by mass (hydrogen) came "directly" from Big Bang. These combined to become water probably in the early stages of solar system formation, mostly. That water was all mixed up with rock and metal forming the "rocky" planets. Most of the water in the mix was probably lost from inner planets (boiled out of the then molten balls of rock). TFA claims that not all was lost, and the part that was not lost was enough to later form the oceans of the Earth.
This makes The Habitable Zone into The Really Very Habitable More Like Life Sprouting Zone.
Not really.
For example, it may be that what was once much thicker crust, and is now Moon, would have contained the water, and there would be only dry surface, slowly seeping water vapour into the atmosphere, where it would be promptly broken down by Sun and hydrogen escaping.
We really have no idea, no big picture. We have just one sample, and even though we're literally standing on it, we don't even know how things went that fourish billion years ago.
Actually, your toothbrush can be one of the easier ways to get sick in the bathroom. Fecal particulate matter gets in the air and can collect on your toothbrush. Surely not a lot, but every now and then...
Citation needed.
My guess of the easiest way of getting sick in the bathroom is the shower head. moist, often warm, practically never hot enough to kill bacteria, lot's of surface protected from physical cleaning, getting splashes of dirty water regularly... And it is used to spray water over the eyes, nose, mouth...
Yes, next time you take a shower, just think for a while what the inside of the shower head and handle probably look like...;-)
On the other hand, it's still probably cleaner than human skin just before taking a shower...;-)
Indeed, at least not much was lost, since he wouldn't have made many movies in any case any more, and his existing work will endure time, much like, say... Charlie Chaplin's work.
Any copyright/trademark/patent zealot, please explain us, whether we have hit the rock bottom yet, or not.
If not being sued for legally defending yourself against a private interest is not rock bottom, then explain us 'rock bottom'.
Ha, that's not even near rock bottom. First of all, your sentence has this crazy concept of "legally defending yourself". All those three words need to go, and then we might have rock bottom at least visible. At rock bottom, they wouldn't even need to sue.
Progress, technology and infrastructure are not pick-and choose propositions. You get the whole package, good and bad, or nothing. If you want no change, you get no change, and soon enough, no improvement either. This is fine, but then don't get envious of those that took the leap.
Uh... Open source is very much about being able to pick-and-choose.
Anyway, I'm hoping either Meego or Ubuntu Unity will bring something new, that's actually usable for my tastes.
So what's the point of the boycott? The station (not owned by BP) has to spend money to change their advertising, then they continue to buy just as much petrol from BP and BP gets just as much money as before.
I don't think BP supports or just allows a chain of BP brand stations just for fun, or as some kind of charity...
Hurting the brand hurts the owner of the brand, especially so if the brand name is the company name.
BP gas stations are independently owned and operated... and they don't necessarily sell BP gas.
Then it should be relatively cheap for them to re-brand. Not free, but they made a mistake when choosing a brand to operate under, and a mistake costing just some money is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Or if BP can tell them not to change brand, then they're not really independent, are they?
It's time to abandon GNOME. It was useful for a short while during the 1990s, when Qt's licensing was problematic, but that's no longer an issue. GNOME has stagnated, and is of little value these days. KDE is offers more features, better performance, greater reliability, and just an overall better experience in every way.
You're obviously trolling, but you raise a valid point. However, the problem with KDE is, the desktop experience just sucks, for some people. These people, me included, start to get annoyed with KDE as soon as they try to use it. Give us an alternative desktop experience, something GNOME-like, and I'm sure KDE would have tons of converts.
I don't see how anyone in this day and age could be insulted by a symbol.
It's not the symbol itself, it's what using it implies. Either the user is ignorant of history (not insulting, but unlikely, and fixable), or the person tries to make fun of events that happened under that symbol, or the person actually thinks there's something cool about it. You can always say "but I have my own meaning for that symbol!", but that only goes so far: saying "I have may own meaning for 'Fire! Fire!'" after causing a deadly stampede in a movie theatre is no excuse.
There's a large chunk of people, whose grandparents and parents suffered from acts done under that symbol. Most native Europeans older than around 70 have personal memories of it, even.
In fact, let ban all cross type symbols. Most were use, in the past, by despicable peoples. And all the remaining will be use by others despicable peoples in the future. We might as well ban them all right now.
That's actually an excellent example of what happens when enough time passes. Eventually also the swastika will no longer be any more objectionable (possibly less), than crusaders' or conquistadors' symbols are today.
For them, preserving us will be roughly analogous to us preserving chimpanzees and gorillas and their habitats.
Not quite - chimpanzees and gorillas are parallel branches, not our ancestors. The latter do live in a way, in us. And considering probably quite rapid (if ever), on evolutionary scale, shift to "AI" - but still gradual - there's a possibility those type of descendants will be us in a much stronger sense than good old biological lineages. Making the question of what "they" will do with "us" a bit moot.
Well, that's way I said roughly analogous, because that was the closes analogy I could think of. Though slightly better real analogy might be us preserving Neanderthals... oops.
Any non-biologically evolving AI or other kind of super-intelligence would have it's origins in humanity, but would very rapidly evolve into something quite different. I'd say such being(s) would soon be "us" about as much as we're the last common ancestor of human and chimp... or maybe human and shrimp.
Anyway, asking what "they" will do with the 10+++ billions of old-fashioned non-enhanced biologically evolving and breeding humans is not moot (just extremely hypothetical). They wouldn't be breeding with "us", so they'd be different... "species".
This is a classic failure of the imagination on your part.
Its also devoid of facts, or historic perspective.
I'm unable to imagine what I'm unable to imagene? Well, duh.
However, you appear to be even more devoid of imagination, because you replied, but only complained about lack of imagination, facts or historic perspective in my post, thus actually contributing nothing useful. Good job.
It's a certainty, that humanity will either exploit itself to extinction, or be surpassed by AI creatures of our own making.
Neither one of those are a "certainty".
There may be a few oscillations (like a global war, but so mild that human race survives it), but I don't really see any other endpoints.
Maybe a world that is so starved of resources that developing AI just can't happen is a possiblity, but I doubt even that. As long as there's energy (even if it's just sun & short-delay derivatives like wind and hydro), there's potential for recycling ancient waste if nothing else is available. It's not like matter disappears when we use it (except in nuclear fission).
I find the alternative that humans evolve so much dumber that computers/AI will be out of reach very unlikely. Evolving smaller brain is about as hard as evolving a bigger brain, there's the same barrier of having too big head to be practical, yet still too small to be technologically smart. Just look how long it took until natural evolution got over that barrier (like a quarter of a billion years, depending when you start counting). And there were probably many potentially smart species that went extinct before humans made it, but there's just one species to evolve "stupider", so it's virtually certain that result is extinction.
Conclusion: either we eventually develop the AI that leaves us to eat dust, or we go extinct very very soon in evolutionary time-scale.
This is Slashdot, dammit, we're supposed to be talking about the tech the car uses, the sensor fields, blind spots, known bugs, and so forth. What do we get? A typical journalist "the narrative" story, where humanity is in a race against robots which will surely supplant us. Guh, it's like a rejected 1950s sci-fi manuscript. Bonus points for using the tech-y "benchmark" phrase like the car is some sort of Crysis.
Yeah, like that's news. It's a certainty, that humanity will either exploit itself to extinction, or be surpassed by AI creatures of our own making.
All we can hope for, is that those AI creatures will find us amusing, and perhaps, wether out of pity, curiosity or boredom,will guide us in our otherwise futile attempt to keep this planet habitable for human-like life forms. Of course we must remember, that those AI creatures will be the "humanity" of that era, and if anybody will carry human/Earth legacy to to the stars, it will be them. For them, preserving us will be roughly analogous to us preserving chimpanzees and gorillas and their habitats.
I think this probably will not happen in our lifetime, unless there are major advances in life-prolonging technologies, but it will happen unless humanity goes extinct first.
This is Slashdot, dammit, we're supposed to be talking about the tech the car uses, the sensor fields, blind spots, known bugs, and so forth. What do we get? A typical journalist "the narrative" story, where humanity is in a race against robots which will surely supplant us. Guh, it's like a rejected 1950s sci-fi manuscript.
Well, an automated journalist could be programmed to write about the facts, the technology, like you said. Maybe we should face off a/. writer with a computer to see who writes the most compelling story? As a prize, the winner could enslave the loser's race.
As a member of the same race as current/. editors, I strongly object to this idea. But if it comes to pass, I'll strive to be the first to personally welcome our new automated journalist overlords, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
I really didn't get what you were trying to say above, or if you were arguing for or against something, but one comment:
But what if I don't care about human lives either? Then would have the right to kill suffering people?
"Rights" are a human invention, mostly dictated by the society. And answer to this specific question in almost all societies is: "the question is a non-sequitur, caring or not caring doesn't affect what rights somebody has".
As a Vegan, I'm always interested when these issues come up on my usual websites.
Hey, maybe you can give your personal opinion, if you've thought about it. What do you think should happen to animals that currently earn their living by being eaten by humans, like pigs? Should humans stop breeding them and let them go extinct? Should they be preserved in some kind of "domesticated animal zoos" in small numbers, so they could earn their upkeep by playing with kids or whatever? What should happen to them?
I personally find eating ethically raised animals just fine morally. The animal gets to live very comfortable (compared to how a wild animal has to live) life fed by humans, and then it gets killed by human to pay for all the food and shelter it received. Actually I find that much more ethical, than hunting, even though hunting is more "natural". Of course then it becomes a question of what kind of conditions the animal should have, so we can consider it's life and death summed together is better than it having never existed... And in practical terms it also becomes question of price of the meat, but then why not just eat less meat and more veggies, if meat is more expensive.
If a domesticated animal has been abandoned and unwanted, the most humane thing to do is end its suffering as quickly and painlessly as possible. Keeping it caged in hopes that someone will come and adopt it may feel nice, but it isn't in the animal's best interest.
It's still an interesting question who gets to determine when death is in your best interest.
Yeah, philosophically interesting question sure, but practically easy to answer: the one with the biggest gun gets to decide. Wether it's biggest antlers on a moose, or most comprehensive ICBM 2nd strike capability, it's the same story all over "animal kingdom".
So this "other stuff" is there, does not interact with itself, but does interact with OTHER matter (light in this case) to create a gravity lens?
I may miss something but to me it seems to contradict. How can its gravity interact with light, but not with itself or the non-dark matter in those colliding galaxies? If it produces that much gravity to create a gravitational lens, why doesn't it pull the rest of the galaxy with it?
Dark matter interacts only through gravity, both with itself and with normal matter. It does not collide with itself or normal matter, nor does it absorb radiation (well, we don't know for sure of course, but it doesn't seem to do that, at least).
In bullet cluster, colliding normal matter (clouds of gas and dust basically) slows down, while dark matter just passes through itself and normal matter. Once past each others, two clouds of dark matter will start to slow down due to gravity of course, but normal matter slows down more because of collisions, radiation pressure and such.
But it really seems odd that so many Slashdotters are so rabidly against the idea of dark matter.
I don't think they're many, they're just vocal... Applies to anybody who has a strong opinion, especially when evidence doesn't really support that opinion.
I mean, there's evidence for dark matter, and no good alternative explanations (ie. the alternatives have much bigger gaps in them). No need to get vocal about it, let the evidence speak for itself. But if you oppose dark matter, evidence is quiet, so you must take care of making noise :-)
Of course working on the assumption that Dark Matter even exists. Unless I am mistaken there is no actual direct evidence to its existence and it is used mostly to explain phenomena not fully understood. It may be the modern equivalent of luminiferous ether and disproved in the future.
Well, there's the classic Bullet Cluster. There's something that bends light but is otherwise completely invisible. It's not necessarily dark matter, but other explanations sound even more far-fetched.
It's clearly the exact Apple logo, and intended to be so.
Of course, but that isn't necessarily trademark infringement. For example a newspaper can use Apple logo in an article about Apple company.
So printing an image of Steve Jobs standing on Apple logo in a newspaper would be fine . Wether this figurine case is covered by same rules or not, well, I guess that'll be determined in court now, unless they settle.
And actually, it's using Apple logo when not meaning specifically Apple, which is almost automatically trademark infringement, and must be defended against or trademark may get diluted and eventually become invalid.
It falls under straightforward trademark infringement for the shape of the base of the figurine.
Does Apples trademark cover figurines? I mean, it certainly doesn't cover for instance McIntosh apples...
So it's far from clear if putting a figurine of a CEO standing on the logo of the company is trademark infringement or not.
The water appeared out of nowhere?
No, most of what makes water by mass (oxygen) came from supernovas that happened 10-5 billion years ago, where it was made from primordial hydrogen and helium. Smaller part by mass (hydrogen) came "directly" from Big Bang. These combined to become water probably in the early stages of solar system formation, mostly. That water was all mixed up with rock and metal forming the "rocky" planets. Most of the water in the mix was probably lost from inner planets (boiled out of the then molten balls of rock). TFA claims that not all was lost, and the part that was not lost was enough to later form the oceans of the Earth.
This makes The Habitable Zone into The Really Very Habitable More Like Life Sprouting Zone.
Not really.
For example, it may be that what was once much thicker crust, and is now Moon, would have contained the water, and there would be only dry surface, slowly seeping water vapour into the atmosphere, where it would be promptly broken down by Sun and hydrogen escaping.
We really have no idea, no big picture. We have just one sample, and even though we're literally standing on it, we don't even know how things went that fourish billion years ago.
Actually, your toothbrush can be one of the easier ways to get sick in the bathroom. Fecal particulate matter gets in the air and can collect on your toothbrush. Surely not a lot, but every now and then...
Citation needed.
My guess of the easiest way of getting sick in the bathroom is the shower head. moist, often warm, practically never hot enough to kill bacteria, lot's of surface protected from physical cleaning, getting splashes of dirty water regularly... And it is used to spray water over the eyes, nose, mouth...
Yes, next time you take a shower, just think for a while what the inside of the shower head and handle probably look like... ;-)
On the other hand, it's still probably cleaner than human skin just before taking a shower... ;-)
and nothing of value was lost.
Indeed, at least not much was lost, since he wouldn't have made many movies in any case any more, and his existing work will endure time, much like, say... Charlie Chaplin's work.
Any copyright/trademark/patent zealot, please explain us, whether we have hit the rock bottom yet, or not.
If not being sued for legally defending yourself against a private interest is not rock bottom, then explain us 'rock bottom'.
Ha, that's not even near rock bottom. First of all, your sentence has this crazy concept of "legally defending yourself". All those three words need to go, and then we might have rock bottom at least visible. At rock bottom, they wouldn't even need to sue.
Progress, technology and infrastructure are not pick-and choose propositions. You get the whole package, good and bad, or nothing. If you want no change, you get no change, and soon enough, no improvement either. This is fine, but then don't get envious of those that took the leap.
Uh... Open source is very much about being able to pick-and-choose.
Anyway, I'm hoping either Meego or Ubuntu Unity will bring something new, that's actually usable for my tastes.
So what's the point of the boycott? The station (not owned by BP) has to spend money to change their advertising, then they continue to buy just as much petrol from BP and BP gets just as much money as before.
I don't think BP supports or just allows a chain of BP brand stations just for fun, or as some kind of charity...
Hurting the brand hurts the owner of the brand, especially so if the brand name is the company name.
BP gas stations are independently owned and operated... and they don't necessarily sell BP gas.
Then it should be relatively cheap for them to re-brand. Not free, but they made a mistake when choosing a brand to operate under, and a mistake costing just some money is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Or if BP can tell them not to change brand, then they're not really independent, are they?
It's time to abandon GNOME. It was useful for a short while during the 1990s, when Qt's licensing was problematic, but that's no longer an issue. GNOME has stagnated, and is of little value these days. KDE is offers more features, better performance, greater reliability, and just an overall better experience in every way.
You're obviously trolling, but you raise a valid point. However, the problem with KDE is, the desktop experience just sucks, for some people. These people, me included, start to get annoyed with KDE as soon as they try to use it. Give us an alternative desktop experience, something GNOME-like, and I'm sure KDE would have tons of converts.
I don't see how anyone in this day and age could be insulted by a symbol.
It's not the symbol itself, it's what using it implies. Either the user is ignorant of history (not insulting, but unlikely, and fixable), or the person tries to make fun of events that happened under that symbol, or the person actually thinks there's something cool about it. You can always say "but I have my own meaning for that symbol!", but that only goes so far: saying "I have may own meaning for 'Fire! Fire!'" after causing a deadly stampede in a movie theatre is no excuse.
There's a large chunk of people, whose grandparents and parents suffered from acts done under that symbol. Most native Europeans older than around 70 have personal memories of it, even.
The Crusades were far worse.
There is no comparison. Ban the christian cross!
In fact, let ban all cross type symbols. Most were use, in the past, by despicable peoples. And all the remaining will be use by others despicable peoples in the future. We might as well ban them all right now.
That's actually an excellent example of what happens when enough time passes. Eventually also the swastika will no longer be any more objectionable (possibly less), than crusaders' or conquistadors' symbols are today.
For them, preserving us will be roughly analogous to us preserving chimpanzees and gorillas and their habitats.
Not quite - chimpanzees and gorillas are parallel branches, not our ancestors. The latter do live in a way, in us. And considering probably quite rapid (if ever), on evolutionary scale, shift to "AI" - but still gradual - there's a possibility those type of descendants will be us in a much stronger sense than good old biological lineages. Making the question of what "they" will do with "us" a bit moot.
Well, that's way I said roughly analogous, because that was the closes analogy I could think of. Though slightly better real analogy might be us preserving Neanderthals... oops.
Any non-biologically evolving AI or other kind of super-intelligence would have it's origins in humanity, but would very rapidly evolve into something quite different. I'd say such being(s) would soon be "us" about as much as we're the last common ancestor of human and chimp... or maybe human and shrimp.
Anyway, asking what "they" will do with the 10+++ billions of old-fashioned non-enhanced biologically evolving and breeding humans is not moot (just extremely hypothetical). They wouldn't be breeding with "us", so they'd be different... "species".
..but I don't really see any other endpoints.
This is a classic failure of the imagination on your part.
Its also devoid of facts, or historic perspective.
I'm unable to imagine what I'm unable to imagene? Well, duh.
However, you appear to be even more devoid of imagination, because you replied, but only complained about lack of imagination, facts or historic perspective in my post, thus actually contributing nothing useful. Good job.
It's a certainty, that humanity will either exploit itself to extinction, or be surpassed by AI creatures of our own making.
Neither one of those are a "certainty".
There may be a few oscillations (like a global war, but so mild that human race survives it), but I don't really see any other endpoints.
Maybe a world that is so starved of resources that developing AI just can't happen is a possiblity, but I doubt even that. As long as there's energy (even if it's just sun & short-delay derivatives like wind and hydro), there's potential for recycling ancient waste if nothing else is available. It's not like matter disappears when we use it (except in nuclear fission).
I find the alternative that humans evolve so much dumber that computers/AI will be out of reach very unlikely. Evolving smaller brain is about as hard as evolving a bigger brain, there's the same barrier of having too big head to be practical, yet still too small to be technologically smart. Just look how long it took until natural evolution got over that barrier (like a quarter of a billion years, depending when you start counting). And there were probably many potentially smart species that went extinct before humans made it, but there's just one species to evolve "stupider", so it's virtually certain that result is extinction.
Conclusion: either we eventually develop the AI that leaves us to eat dust, or we go extinct very very soon in evolutionary time-scale.
This is Slashdot, dammit, we're supposed to be talking about the tech the car uses, the sensor fields, blind spots, known bugs, and so forth. What do we get? A typical journalist "the narrative" story, where humanity is in a race against robots which will surely supplant us. Guh, it's like a rejected 1950s sci-fi manuscript. Bonus points for using the tech-y "benchmark" phrase like the car is some sort of Crysis.
Yeah, like that's news. It's a certainty, that humanity will either exploit itself to extinction, or be surpassed by AI creatures of our own making.
All we can hope for, is that those AI creatures will find us amusing, and perhaps, wether out of pity, curiosity or boredom,will guide us in our otherwise futile attempt to keep this planet habitable for human-like life forms. Of course we must remember, that those AI creatures will be the "humanity" of that era, and if anybody will carry human/Earth legacy to to the stars, it will be them. For them, preserving us will be roughly analogous to us preserving chimpanzees and gorillas and their habitats.
I think this probably will not happen in our lifetime, unless there are major advances in life-prolonging technologies, but it will happen unless humanity goes extinct first.
This is Slashdot, dammit, we're supposed to be talking about the tech the car uses, the sensor fields, blind spots, known bugs, and so forth. What do we get? A typical journalist "the narrative" story, where humanity is in a race against robots which will surely supplant us. Guh, it's like a rejected 1950s sci-fi manuscript.
Well, an automated journalist could be programmed to write about the facts, the technology, like you said. Maybe we should face off a /. writer with a computer to see who writes the most compelling story? As a prize, the winner could enslave the loser's race.
As a member of the same race as current /. editors, I strongly object to this idea. But if it comes to pass, I'll strive to be the first to personally welcome our new automated journalist overlords, of course.
You don't think that the honcho of Microsoft Russia is a capitalist himself, then?
Are you implying that is a reason to not say "Die, capitalist pig" to somebody else?