The more insidious ones are those that purport to increase freedom. (In the following case, the "right" to get into the business of your neighbors.)
"We have a right to know if the person in front of us in the grocery store is carrying a gun, so the media must be allowed to publish the names and residence information of concealed license holders!"...and then the information of women who are trying to hide and safeguard themselves from an abusive ex is published in the Sunday paper. (Ohio)
There are plenty of other examples, but this is the one that comes to mind.
I'd like to think Reagan was teaching: tax less, spend more, force a bigger deficit, cut spending, repeat. Unfortunately, politicians like their pork, so the taxes just go up.
It's unfortunte that so few people seem to understand that the only way to prevent a government from abusing broad reaching powers is to take away its ability to use those powers. People argue for tax increases and then wonder why new and more efficiently intrusive government agencies pop up. The only way to non-violently ensure things like this won't happen is to starve the beast, i.e., cut taxes and then slash them some more.
it's pretty trivial for those who can use the coral cache to type it in by hand?...except this doesn't work when the site has already been smoked, which what happened for the screenshots here and which is why people should put a (coral) cache link in the actual submission.
Wow, Microsoft can't get away with anything on Slashdot. A little less knee-jerk bashing, please.
Why do we have this attitude that "what's good for consumers is bad for shareholders?" It smells of zero-sum economics, which I think is a load of crock. Could it possibly be that Microsoft, in persona J. Allard, recognizes a demand (i.e., an opportunity to make money) and wishes to supply that demand?
To me, that's that mark of a great business leader, to take advantage of the market's demand, as opposed to trying to twist demand to match supply. A good example of the latter, I think, would be the RIAA et al.
I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't/doesn't do some bad business, but come on, people! Give credit where credit is due.
Obligatory MS bash: M$ is probably just touting a feature they plan never to implement. w00t! I called them out!
Used correctly for scientific purposes, Photoshop is little more than giving artificial coloring to the subject. Scientific photographs and images do this _all_the_time_. Ever see an image from an electron microscope? Photographs/images of just about anything cellular? All artificially colored, either through use of dyes or photoshop techniques. The reason for artificial coloring is to aid in visually distinguishing between different parts/whatever. That's not to say sometimes they don't go overboard, just to make it look pretty, but if they're using photoshop to accurately describe/represent what's actually there (or what they hypothesize is actually there to make it easier to peer review), then I'd say that's fine.
So there's a difference between "Good free speech" and "bad free speech"?
There's a difference between speech that matters and speech that doesn't. Pornography doesn't matter, so this "speech" is very low on my list of priorities to defend. It seems that, for some people and civil liberties organizations, pornography and NAMBLA take priority over political discourse.
Your access to pornography and your right to bugger little boys is no different, on the scale of "things that actually matter," as your neighbor's ability to speak in favor of a political candidate without fear of being fined or thrown in jail for it?
BTW please remember me which government is trying to censor the.xxx tld!
Who the hell cares?
Is this argument supposed to have any credibility?... Oh, right, this is slashdot.
Pornography is a poor use of free speech, to say the least. To hear you carping about how ".xxx is being censored!" doesn't do the cause of liberty any favors. Who the hell needs pornography? A bunch of teenagers too socially inept to interact with people instead of images?
I, and many others I'm sure, really couldn't give half of a rat's stinking hindquarters if pornography is censored into oblivion, as it has practically zero impact on anything of any import. I fear that those who so fanatically fight pointless battles on behalf of pornographers have so completely lost sight of the true importance of free speech that they are entirely ineffective at recognizing, let alone successfully defending, speech that actually matters. (I give you McFeingold... The ACLU sure stopped that one dead in its tracks, and still they're able to keep NAMBLA up and running! Great multi-taskers, those lawyers.)
It seems, though, that RIAA and company are particularly thick-skulled monopolists - almost as bad as SCO. For all the "progressive" content they push, you'd think they'd have a clue.
I really hope we don't see this deterioration of the internet, though.
Please bear in mind that Germany, France, et al. are the same countries that are trying, through the UN, to forcibly take control of the internet's root servers.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I do want to emphasize that the structure of the internet today makes it very easy for powerful organizations (governments, in particular, but telcos in this case) to regulate and control the flow of information, no matter how legitimate.
Frequently "drink" is understood as "drink alcohol." For example, I used to wait on tables at a private club, and we were told to ask, "would you like a beverage?" instead of "would you like a drink" because the manager didn't want to give our members the impression that we were only offering alcohol. Also, someone who "drinks a lot" usually isn't constantly carrying around a bottle of water, someone with a "drinking problem" is an alcoholic and not in need of a sippy cup (that's what makes it a joke when you spill pepsi down your front and say "I have a drinking problem"). Yeah, yeah, the ambiguity is still a little funny.:)
I concur. Does anyone remember those "listen to a twenty second ad and talk for a minute" schemes? It was so infuriating to listen to those ads, I couldn't even use it just to make a quick "I need to be picked up" call from a payphone. There not a ghost of a chance something like this would survive, unless they had some way of making *far* less obnoxious ads. VoIP telephone service is cheap enough even now that this doesn't make any sense.
My karma can stand it, too
on
Homer Becomes Omar
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm interested to see what they do about Krusty, who's Jewish.
Remember that episode where Sideshow Bob programs Bart, while wearing a suicide bomber's belt, to hug Krusty and blow him up? In the original version:...yet another "kill Krusty" scheme, this time by hypnotizing Bart into becoming a suicide bomber and killing Krusty on the show. However, at the last minute, Krusty makes an on-air apology to Sideshow Bob for all the pain he's caused him, causing Sideshow Bob to have a change of heart. Sideshow Bob warns everybody that Bart is a bomb, prompting Krusty's monkey to swoop in and throw the bomb away (the only people hurt are the evil network executives, whose body parts merge into a T-1000 like monster).
With "Badr" as the new protagonist, what happens in that episode now?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're saying that government and science are the new suppressors (because they're the ones in power), I think you're not mixed up.
The more insidious ones are those that purport to increase freedom. (In the following case, the "right" to get into the business of your neighbors.)
...and then the information of women who are trying to hide and safeguard themselves from an abusive ex is published in the Sunday paper. (Ohio)
"We have a right to know if the person in front of us in the grocery store is carrying a gun, so the media must be allowed to publish the names and residence information of concealed license holders!"
There are plenty of other examples, but this is the one that comes to mind.
They want institutions to stop hiding facts and to pay attention to science.
If they're anything like Slashdot's mods, they'll also try, at times, to suppress facts that contradict their position.
Long before then, it'll likely be used for stuff like this... or master race ala carte.
I'd like to think Reagan was teaching: tax less, spend more, force a bigger deficit, cut spending, repeat. Unfortunately, politicians like their pork, so the taxes just go up.
It's unfortunte that so few people seem to understand that the only way to prevent a government from abusing broad reaching powers is to take away its ability to use those powers. People argue for tax increases and then wonder why new and more efficiently intrusive government agencies pop up. The only way to non-violently ensure things like this won't happen is to starve the beast, i.e., cut taxes and then slash them some more.
What is a load of crock?
:)
A mixed metaphor. I did mix them, you know. Now let us discuss the permissibility mixed metaphors.
it's pretty trivial for those who can use the coral cache to type it in by hand? ...except this doesn't work when the site has already been smoked, which what happened for the screenshots here and which is why people should put a (coral) cache link in the actual submission.
What kind of idiot submits an article containing screenshots without a coral cache link, anyhow?
Forgive me for quoting myself: "I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't/doesn't do some bad business..."
Wow, Microsoft can't get away with anything on Slashdot. A little less knee-jerk bashing, please.
Why do we have this attitude that "what's good for consumers is bad for shareholders?" It smells of zero-sum economics, which I think is a load of crock. Could it possibly be that Microsoft, in persona J. Allard, recognizes a demand (i.e., an opportunity to make money) and wishes to supply that demand?
To me, that's that mark of a great business leader, to take advantage of the market's demand, as opposed to trying to twist demand to match supply. A good example of the latter, I think, would be the RIAA et al.
I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't/doesn't do some bad business, but come on, people! Give credit where credit is due.
Obligatory MS bash: M$ is probably just touting a feature they plan never to implement. w00t! I called them out!
Used correctly for scientific purposes, Photoshop is little more than giving artificial coloring to the subject. Scientific photographs and images do this _all_the_time_. Ever see an image from an electron microscope? Photographs/images of just about anything cellular? All artificially colored, either through use of dyes or photoshop techniques. The reason for artificial coloring is to aid in visually distinguishing between different parts/whatever. That's not to say sometimes they don't go overboard, just to make it look pretty, but if they're using photoshop to accurately describe/represent what's actually there (or what they hypothesize is actually there to make it easier to peer review), then I'd say that's fine.
For those too lacking in curiosity to browse through the other neat photos, here's the pea weevil
that someone just wanted to say "panspermia."
So there's a difference between "Good free speech" and "bad free speech"?
There's a difference between speech that matters and speech that doesn't. Pornography doesn't matter, so this "speech" is very low on my list of priorities to defend. It seems that, for some people and civil liberties organizations, pornography and NAMBLA take priority over political discourse.
Your access to pornography and your right to bugger little boys is no different, on the scale of "things that actually matter," as your neighbor's ability to speak in favor of a political candidate without fear of being fined or thrown in jail for it?
You're an idiot; get some perspective.
BTW please remember me which government is trying to censor the .xxx tld!
... Oh, right, this is slashdot.
Who the hell cares?
Is this argument supposed to have any credibility?
Pornography is a poor use of free speech, to say the least. To hear you carping about how ".xxx is being censored!" doesn't do the cause of liberty any favors. Who the hell needs pornography? A bunch of teenagers too socially inept to interact with people instead of images?
I, and many others I'm sure, really couldn't give half of a rat's stinking hindquarters if pornography is censored into oblivion, as it has practically zero impact on anything of any import. I fear that those who so fanatically fight pointless battles on behalf of pornographers have so completely lost sight of the true importance of free speech that they are entirely ineffective at recognizing, let alone successfully defending, speech that actually matters. (I give you McFeingold... The ACLU sure stopped that one dead in its tracks, and still they're able to keep NAMBLA up and running! Great multi-taskers, those lawyers.)
of course, that SCO is just about the furthest thing from a monopoly as you can get...
the way that a monopoly does business
It seems, though, that RIAA and company are particularly thick-skulled monopolists - almost as bad as SCO. For all the "progressive" content they push, you'd think they'd have a clue.
I really hope we don't see this deterioration of the internet, though.
Please bear in mind that Germany, France, et al. are the same countries that are trying, through the UN, to forcibly take control of the internet's root servers.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I do want to emphasize that the structure of the internet today makes it very easy for powerful organizations (governments, in particular, but telcos in this case) to regulate and control the flow of information, no matter how legitimate.
I hardly think Google is an underdog. Perhaps they are, by comparison to Microsoft, but Google has not a small amount of weight to throw around.
Just out of curiosity, did you root for Microsoft in its early days? By all reasonable accounts I've seen, MS was the underdog then.
/me waits for someone to sincerely suggest Google can cure cancer.
:)
Seriously, Google seems to have a cult following at times.
Now watch me get modded down.......
Q.E.D.
I suppose this isn't the best article in which to pimp my free iPod nano referral link.
:-D
But it will still get me a slice of the class action settlement!
Oh yeah, and see my sig for more details.
Frequently "drink" is understood as "drink alcohol." For example, I used to wait on tables at a private club, and we were told to ask, "would you like a beverage?" instead of "would you like a drink" because the manager didn't want to give our members the impression that we were only offering alcohol. Also, someone who "drinks a lot" usually isn't constantly carrying around a bottle of water, someone with a "drinking problem" is an alcoholic and not in need of a sippy cup (that's what makes it a joke when you spill pepsi down your front and say "I have a drinking problem"). Yeah, yeah, the ambiguity is still a little funny. :)
I concur. Does anyone remember those "listen to a twenty second ad and talk for a minute" schemes? It was so infuriating to listen to those ads, I couldn't even use it just to make a quick "I need to be picked up" call from a payphone. There not a ghost of a chance something like this would survive, unless they had some way of making *far* less obnoxious ads. VoIP telephone service is cheap enough even now that this doesn't make any sense.
I'm interested to see what they do about Krusty, who's Jewish.
...yet another "kill Krusty" scheme, this time by hypnotizing Bart into becoming a suicide bomber and killing Krusty on the show. However, at the last minute, Krusty makes an on-air apology to Sideshow Bob for all the pain he's caused him, causing Sideshow Bob to have a change of heart. Sideshow Bob warns everybody that Bart is a bomb, prompting Krusty's monkey to swoop in and throw the bomb away (the only people hurt are the evil network executives, whose body parts merge into a T-1000 like monster).
Remember that episode where Sideshow Bob programs Bart, while wearing a suicide bomber's belt, to hug Krusty and blow him up? In the original version:
With "Badr" as the new protagonist, what happens in that episode now?
Did I just give away the ending?