You and others who share this viewpoint are the reason oppression is allowed to happen. Turning a blind eye to others' suffering or injustice simply because you disagree with their causes, appearance, or perceived lack of hygiene is something Edmund Burke would have denounced as "despicable."
I'd fight for your right to protest the gathering of "dirty squatters," and the founding principles of our country expect you to do the same for them.
"They have tabled no viable proposals or suggestions." - Define "viable." Did you not see the signs and hear the "I propose..." statements of their general assemblies? There are plenty more proposals and suggestions that they've posted on the internet, too, and some of them make far more sense than anything I've seen from our "representatives" lately.
"They have no speakers informing the public." - So all the youtube videos from Anon, the protestors with signs, the country-wide gatherings to SPEAK and INFORM the public don't count?
"And they have no respect for those they claim kinship with (like the Arab Spring protesters), because while they cry about their "rights" being violated, the people they claim kinship with WERE BEING SHOT AT." - Oh, where to start with this one... So, if someone's not being shot at, their rights aren't being violated? Do rubber bullets count? Does tear gas or pepper spray count? I can think of a few people (including several war veterans) involved in the protests that might disagree with you. Perhaps the woman whose unborn child was killed by police who kicked her in the belly and pepper sprayed her - with no reports or evidence that she was in any way involved in illegal activity might have something to say to you.
Did you watch the live feed? We had several chances to receive live video from Arab Spring protestors, and they didn't seem to think we were disrespecting them. In fact, they seemed overcome with solidarity, happy that they weren't the only ones standing up, even if our circumstances are different. They seemed to think that the police brutality and abuse of the legal system against protestors was a very serious issue, and they did not take it lightly. Perhaps you shouldn't, either.
How often does someone have to just sit there and accept being kicked in the face before responding is acceptable?
I believe you're making my point for me, to some extent. Your beliefs (or professed lack thereof) should not require the extermination of everyone else's.
Sure, militantly fundamentalist posts turn up at -1 in searches (so do plenty of militantly atheist posts). I came right out and said that my evidence is anecdotal, after all:P I don't see how any of it belongs on Slashdot in the first place.
To address your point about the "special earth" topic being religious in nature, I have to disagree. It's statistically improbable that our world is unique (or nearly so) in its hospitality to the emergence of life, but that doesn't mean it's a religious argument. The question is whether or not the Earth is on the far end of the statistical curve among the galaxy's population of planets, not "intelligent design" vs. "random chance".
It's anecdotal, true, but I don't see an "atheists are sooo stupid, can't even see the hand of god in the universe" post on every other Slashdot article - but I *do* see "christians are sooo stupid with their imaginary invisible magic man" posts everywhere. I'm not sure how this makes atheists more generally tolerant than christians. In fact, multiple public posts on unrelated articles calling people stupid for the things they believe in is pretty much the opposite of tolerance...
If you consider pepper spray to be "weaksauce", there are a few people who were still coughing up blood 45 minutes afterward who'd like to have a word with you. There are a few marines who might want to tell you about their war veteran friend who was shot in the head and almost killed, while the police tossed concussion grenades at the people trying to get him to medical care. The fact that the methods used "aren't as bad as X" doesn't make them any less heinous.
Don't take a job based on shares. Just assume they're going to make them worthless in the long run. Yeah, it makes it harder to join a startup early on, but it's the funded startups you want to work for, anyway.
They fire the engine into a torrent of running water, so it doesn't melt the test platform (and to keep down toxic combustion products). The smoke was actually steam. Lots of steam.
Another thing to think about: Let's say some random dude downloads a content provider's work, and, by your argument, deprives said provider of exclusivity. At that point, the exclusivity is gone, so what further crime remains if *I* download the work?
Are you going to make the case for "levels of exclusivity"? If so, how will you objectively define those levels, and how many copies will it take to get to "level zero"?
The copyright owner still has the right to distribute his material as he sees fit. You're merely obtaining the material through a side channel. Do you think the copyright owner wakes up one morning and says, "Gee, I'd really like to sell this material to you, but someone downloaded it on the internet. This means I no longer have rights to distribute my material, so I can't sell it to you. Sorry! Woe is me!"
That doesn't mean "copyright infringement" is a good thing, but you're going to have to come up with a better argument than that.
Lawsuits have been filed, and they've been dismissed on the basis of national security. The government and its civilian "agencies" are adept at circumventing the spirit of the law while following it *technically* to the letter (or blanketing it with national security when they can't find a legal workaround).
Signed releases are only necessary if the photographs are A) identifiable and used for commercial purposes, or B) in a place where there is an expectation of privacy.
There are laws specifically against stealing. There are not laws specifically against installing software on computers available for public use.
Stealing directly (and provably) perpetrates harm. Photography (even by automated means, using equipment provided to the public) in a public place, given that there's no expected privacy in public, does not directly or provably perpetrate harm. If he took pictures of "someone who shouldn't be photographed," the mistake is theirs, not his.
Your argument is fallacious, and the fact that you're posting as AC suggests that you already know it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Not much of a risk, if you ask me. They don't really accept anyone unless they're absolutely sure they have a >50% chance they'll make money off 'em.
You'd prefer to go without civil liberties?
If there's a pattern to it, it's barristry.
You and others who share this viewpoint are the reason oppression is allowed to happen. Turning a blind eye to others' suffering or injustice simply because you disagree with their causes, appearance, or perceived lack of hygiene is something Edmund Burke would have denounced as "despicable."
I'd fight for your right to protest the gathering of "dirty squatters," and the founding principles of our country expect you to do the same for them.
"They have tabled no viable proposals or suggestions." - Define "viable." Did you not see the signs and hear the "I propose..." statements of their general assemblies? There are plenty more proposals and suggestions that they've posted on the internet, too, and some of them make far more sense than anything I've seen from our "representatives" lately.
"They have no speakers informing the public." - So all the youtube videos from Anon, the protestors with signs, the country-wide gatherings to SPEAK and INFORM the public don't count?
"And they have no respect for those they claim kinship with (like the Arab Spring protesters), because while they cry about their "rights" being violated, the people they claim kinship with WERE BEING SHOT AT." - Oh, where to start with this one... So, if someone's not being shot at, their rights aren't being violated? Do rubber bullets count? Does tear gas or pepper spray count? I can think of a few people (including several war veterans) involved in the protests that might disagree with you. Perhaps the woman whose unborn child was killed by police who kicked her in the belly and pepper sprayed her - with no reports or evidence that she was in any way involved in illegal activity might have something to say to you.
Did you watch the live feed? We had several chances to receive live video from Arab Spring protestors, and they didn't seem to think we were disrespecting them. In fact, they seemed overcome with solidarity, happy that they weren't the only ones standing up, even if our circumstances are different. They seemed to think that the police brutality and abuse of the legal system against protestors was a very serious issue, and they did not take it lightly. Perhaps you shouldn't, either.
...it shouldn't be all that hard to use the kindle-for-pc version and OCR software to pull them out of the proprietary format...
Actually, that sounds kinda hard to me :P
How often does someone have to just sit there and accept being kicked in the face before responding is acceptable?
I believe you're making my point for me, to some extent. Your beliefs (or professed lack thereof) should not require the extermination of everyone else's.
:P I don't see how any of it belongs on Slashdot in the first place.
Sure, militantly fundamentalist posts turn up at -1 in searches (so do plenty of militantly atheist posts). I came right out and said that my evidence is anecdotal, after all
To address your point about the "special earth" topic being religious in nature, I have to disagree. It's statistically improbable that our world is unique (or nearly so) in its hospitality to the emergence of life, but that doesn't mean it's a religious argument. The question is whether or not the Earth is on the far end of the statistical curve among the galaxy's population of planets, not "intelligent design" vs. "random chance".
It's anecdotal, true, but I don't see an "atheists are sooo stupid, can't even see the hand of god in the universe" post on every other Slashdot article - but I *do* see "christians are sooo stupid with their imaginary invisible magic man" posts everywhere. I'm not sure how this makes atheists more generally tolerant than christians. In fact, multiple public posts on unrelated articles calling people stupid for the things they believe in is pretty much the opposite of tolerance...
Psssh, like *that* matters these days...
It looks like someone stared down at the tiled office floor and said, "These squares of color would make a GREAT interface paradigm!"
If you consider pepper spray to be "weaksauce", there are a few people who were still coughing up blood 45 minutes afterward who'd like to have a word with you. There are a few marines who might want to tell you about their war veteran friend who was shot in the head and almost killed, while the police tossed concussion grenades at the people trying to get him to medical care. The fact that the methods used "aren't as bad as X" doesn't make them any less heinous.
Don't take a job based on shares. Just assume they're going to make them worthless in the long run. Yeah, it makes it harder to join a startup early on, but it's the funded startups you want to work for, anyway.
Didn't they make a movie about this? It looked like an answering machine, but it was really a [REDACTED] in disguise.
They fire the engine into a torrent of running water, so it doesn't melt the test platform (and to keep down toxic combustion products). The smoke was actually steam. Lots of steam.
Another thing to think about: Let's say some random dude downloads a content provider's work, and, by your argument, deprives said provider of exclusivity. At that point, the exclusivity is gone, so what further crime remains if *I* download the work?
Are you going to make the case for "levels of exclusivity"? If so, how will you objectively define those levels, and how many copies will it take to get to "level zero"?
The copyright owner still has the right to distribute his material as he sees fit. You're merely obtaining the material through a side channel. Do you think the copyright owner wakes up one morning and says, "Gee, I'd really like to sell this material to you, but someone downloaded it on the internet. This means I no longer have rights to distribute my material, so I can't sell it to you. Sorry! Woe is me!"
That doesn't mean "copyright infringement" is a good thing, but you're going to have to come up with a better argument than that.
No, we still have G+
Lawsuits have been filed, and they've been dismissed on the basis of national security. The government and its civilian "agencies" are adept at circumventing the spirit of the law while following it *technically* to the letter (or blanketing it with national security when they can't find a legal workaround).
Did the "hellooooooo" continue on the back of the card and end in a phone number?
Signed releases are only necessary if the photographs are A) identifiable and used for commercial purposes, or B) in a place where there is an expectation of privacy.
Stealing directly (and provably) perpetrates harm. Photography (even by automated means, using equipment provided to the public) in a public place, given that there's no expected privacy in public, does not directly or provably perpetrate harm. If he took pictures of "someone who shouldn't be photographed," the mistake is theirs, not his.
Your argument is fallacious, and the fact that you're posting as AC suggests that you already know it is.
Apparently TFA could!
Can you say "still-suits?"
Stars.
They call it "bacn", and it's almost as big a problem for me as spam used to be.