Gee, if only there was a "Do-Not-Disturb" on my phone -- oh wait, there is!
Moreover, just because more and more people can't focus on something longer then 10 seconds doesn't imply _everyone_ is this neurotic.
Hmm, if only there was a word for this... I guess no one remembers the term: Self-Discipline
> swipe or tap their phone 2,617 times a day. Holy shit are these people insecure and slaves to their addictions. Let me guess, this is because of "Social Media."
Guess what, you have a CHOICE. Start living your own life instead of following someone's virtual life.
You can still have an "online" presence and live a balanced life. i.e. Check your email / facebook / etc. 3 times a day -- morning, noon, and evening.
Anything more then 3-7 times a day and you probably should seek professional help.
99% of games are nothing more then a glorified, re-skinned, Skinner Box.
-- One of the Lies of Judaism: Murdering an innocent animal magically takes away sin. In fact the exact _opposite_ is true. Isaiah 66:3: But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a person, and whoever offers a lamb is like one who breaks a dog's neck; whoever makes a grain offering is like one who presents pig's blood, and whoever burns memorial incense is like one who worships an idol.
One of the reasons Netflix streaming sucks is that if you search for a movie and it isn't available there is NO way to provide feedback along the lines:
* Add it to my favorites! * [x] Notify me when it becomes available!
Instead they show some bullshit "Titles related to _x_" instead...
> I was claiming there are only two ways to fund websites and that you're obliged to pick one of them
That is indeed what you were doing when you rejected the answer "Neither"
... would you prefer ads or background JS running Bitcoin miners funding the websites you visit?
Here is an example:
Q. Would you like Cake or Pie? A. Neither, I would like Ice-cream.
Now what part of OR do you not understand?? There are AT LEAST 4 different permutations: A=Ads B=Bitcoin A=0 B=0 I'm NOT OK with either one. A=0 B=1 I'm OK with Bitcoin A=1 B=0 I'm OK with Ads A=1 B=1 I'm OK with either Ads or Bitcoin
Gee, if only there was MORE then 2 options to crowdfunding.
What you should have asked is this:
Q. For funding the websites you visit would you prefer -- pick all that apply:
[ ] Ads, or [ ] Background JS running Bitcoin miners OR [ ] Patreon, OR [ ] Donate button, OR [ ] Other. Please specify _ _ _ _ OR [ ] Nothing. I don't want to financially support you.
> would you prefer ads or background JS running Bitcoin miners funding the websites you visit?
False Dichotomy, much?
The answer is: Neither:
* Ads are immoral -- they don't respect my time, space, bandwidth, or money, so Fuck-Off with your blatant greed, * Stealing my CPU resources is just as heinous.
> What I don't understand is why so many of you are afraid of logging yourselves. What the heck are you doing that you're so terrified of governments hacking into your data and stealing it?
Quit trolling. We aren't afraid of logging ourselves. So _you_ found a valid use for your data. Good for you. _Your_ usage scenario is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Namely:
"I don't want / need my data being data-mined / sold without my consent by some 3rd party who knows fuck-all about security."
If you never voluntarily give them that data in the first place then they can't sell it now, can they Einstein.
/Oblg. "STD is so bad it isn't even worth pirating!"
Well, I wasn't going to watch either (Yet-Another-Stupid-Paywall) but a friend had CBS access and they _still_ chose to download the torrents so they could watch it across ALL their devices. (Go Figure!) I borrowed their USB stick so I could watch it on my 60" Plasma.
I 99% agree with Midnight's Edge's analysis, and RedLetterMedia's review about STD:ADHD.
If CBS hadn't been trying to leech onto the Star Trek name I think more fans would be wiling to cut it some slack as just another "Sci-Fi" show. But going back and rewriting history is a slap in the face to many fans. This is one of the same reasons Enterprise failed -- show us something NEW _past_ Picard.
It is interesting to note that according to Rotten Tomatoes fans only give it 60% while the spiritual successor to Trek, The Orville has 90%.
-- Censorship is NOT the Solution, it is precisely the Problem.
> I guess I don't think we're living in a time when Star Trek could be successful,
Are you talking Financially? Hollywood accounting aside, they mademoney off the Reboot.
* Star Trek (2019) = $257 million (US) + $385 million (world) - $150 million (budget) = $492 million * Into Darkness (2013) = $228 million (US), $467 million (world) - $190 million (budget) = $505 million * Beyond (2016) = $158 million (US), $343 million (world) - $185 million (budget) = $316 million
That said, even though Beyond made money it was considered a flop. It remains doubtful if there will be a sequel -- people are getting tired of STD:ADHD.
Midnight's Edge did a fantastic analysis, and Red Letter Media (of Mr. Plinkett Phantom Menace review fame) detailing the LONG list of problems with STD:ADHD. (STOP with the fucking lens flare and visual diarrhea already!)
Like many/.'ers, I grew up with TOS / TNG. The problem with Star Trash: Disaster is that isn't Trek by Alex Kurtzman's own admission:
Alex Kurtzman (executive producer): First and foremost, the defining factor of Roddenberry's vision is the optimistic view of the future and the idea that he envisioned a world where all species, all races came together not only to make our world better, but to make every world better. I think that that's something that can never be lost in Trek. I think once you lose that, you lose the essence of what Star Trek is.
That being said, we live in a very troubled times and every day we look at the news and it's hard. It's hard to see what we see and I think that now more than ever, Trek is needed as a reminder and a buoy for what we can be, the best of who we can be.
That mantle has been given to The Orville which is the spiritual successor to Trek IMHO. Episodes 3 and 4 of the Orville are classic Trek themes.
> Why would anyone want to buy a MacBook Pro when an Acer will do the job for 1/4 the price?
That's not _quite_ the same thing. For most tasks yes, but for some tasks you are comparing Apples and Oranges.
I have a MBP so I don't have to waste time trying to getting a Hackintosh to "just work." There is software for OSX that just isn't available for Windows or Linux -- and vice versus. When I need to use Windows I use my Win7 dev box; when I want to test Linux I fire up my dedicated Linux box. VM just don't cut it for real-time 3D applications.
Considering Microsoft had a 17 year head start (they have been doing phones since 2000 with Windows Mobile or if you WinCE 1996) -- in all that they time they STILL can't produce a phone that wasn't crap.
Give it up Microsoft -- because you SUCK at phones.
> I notice you ignored the bit about calls to violence. Incorrect. In my first posted I mentioned "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD."
Let's pretend we make "Yelling 'Fire' in a (full) theater (not-on-fire) illegal" with the justification "because it incites violence."
WHERE does it stop??? _Who_ decides what incites violence??? Because this quickly becomes a slippery slope.
Guess what -- I can incite violence with almost ANY word. For example, if I jump out and scare an old lady with "Boo!" and she has a heart attack and dies due to the stress do we now make "Boo!" illegal??? What if someone shouts "BOObies!" because they have Tourette syndrome but she only heard the first syllable? What if I am telling a joke "What bees make milk? BOO-BEES!" What if I use ANY word in a very LOUD context to scare someone to death???
Banning/Making the entire English language "illegal" because it _might_ be mis-used is utteraly retarded.
This is _completely_ backwards thinking. Words don't DO anything. PEOPLE do. The _specific_ word is NOT the problem. The _intent_ or the _act_ of destruction is the problem -- NOT the specific phonemes. All we've done is attempt to shift the cause of the problem to an inanimate object. Notice that this same stupidity is made with gun laws. The fact that some guns are legal while others are illegal is complete bullshit. You can kill a person with either one.Taking the life of someone IS the problem -- not _what_ weapon of choice they used!! Hell, they could have used THEIR HANDS. Furthermore, more people are killed by cars then guns (!) but we don't ban cars because a few idiots mis-use them.
It is all about the context. If I am writing an essay on an old book am I allowed to quote phrases that have "illegal" words? Making words OK in one context and not in another is dumb. George Carlin eloquently and beautifully pointing out "What you resist, persists." with his 7 Words You Can't Say On TV on the stupidity of making words "Taboo" monologue.
The problem with social contracts is that they are implicit and not explicit. We should be looking at the spirit of the law not the letter of the law. We should be striving for simplicity in our laws, over-engineering them. As Publius Tacitussaid before 120 AD.
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.
Stop with all the fucking corner cases, edge cases, and just allow people to say whatever the fuck they want. Because when there is no "stigma" attached then everyone will quickly lose interest in them and go back to their lives.
> I was asking if downvoting is censorship and runs afoul of your "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD" idea.
Why would it? You are not stopping the person from commenting. The fact that no one agrees with them is beside the point.
> Businesses discriminate on all sorts of things You are conflating a Contract with Discrimination. They are not the same thing.
First, ALL Law is based on Contract Law.
Second, when a business has a sign that says "No Shirt, No Service" they are NOT violating your rights. They are legally allowed to put additional qualifiers onto the Contract between them and you (as long as none of them are illegal.) The reason they can't say "Race _x_ not served" is because the Business derives its permission (aka power) from the Government. And the government has said "We will give you a business license IF you accept these Terms of the Contract. Violate the terms and we revoke your permission. The terms include you can't refuse service based on someone's race, gender, religion, etc."
That example always gets trotted out but is is actually false -- for two reasons:
1. if the theater actually IS on fire -- informing others of a problem is NOT illegal,
2. That ISN'T a free speech issue -- it is a property rights issue. i.e. The theater is NOT public property. If there is NO fire then yelling that would cause a riot which would inflict _property damage_ -- THAT is the real the reason theaters don't want people yelling if there is no fire.
Part of the problem is that the "social contract" is implicit instead of being explicit -- which is the source of confusion -- but we must always go back to "first principles."
> Is downvoting something below most people's threshold censorship? I believe the issue is quite different. You are "yelling", but with moderation everyone else is just yelling more -- effectively drowning you out.
Also, sometimes the truth hurts and people get butthurt over it. Downvoting is a knee-jerk reaction. I would hate to apply any sort of legal consequences to that. We have enough "real" problems to worry about that we don't need to worry about First World Problems.
> No one should force companies to host material they don't want to host. That's a very dangerous party line to tow. Where does it stop? Refusing to serve food to someone who is a known Nazi sympathesizer?
Business are not allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Censoring others just because you don't agree with what they say is immature, stupid, and illegal.
We need to take a look at the bigger picture. So someone is hosting nazi propoganda on a website. Who gives a fuck. Really. Speech ISN'T the problem -- it is the corresponding _behavior_ that could be.
> I think your statement was CRAP....Now are you wearing your big boy pants?
There will always be problems regardless of the "solution(s)." There is no perfect solution -- something must give -- and I would rather error on the side of being liberal then conservative.
Calling it crap is recognizing and acknowledging that fact that is always about a compromise so I'm not offended. I put my big boy pants on a LONG time ago.:-)
McDonalds serves _billions._ No one is arguing that their quantity is even remotely comparably to quality. McDonalds excels at selling A LOT of cheap, shit food.
Likewise, the analogy to Operating Systems on the desktop is applicable:
* Windows = Quantity * Linux = Quality
Although I would argue that Linux on the Desktop was NEVER about quantity, but about Freedom. Quality was always an afterthought.
Linux has failed to gain any serious traction on the desktop because:
1. "Windows is Good Enough" and "Momentum" a) Disrupting the Windows desktop is almost impossible because the _casual_ Windows user doesn't give a fuck about freedom. b) Likewise, game developers don't give a fuck about Linux because there is (almost) zero money in compared to Windows. Everyone and their dog is chasing after the "Fee-to-Play" bullshit model because whales and dolphins are where the _real_ money is.
2. Linux has never had anyone understand _good_ UI design. Linux's core philosophy has aways been to copy what others are doing. What innovation it has done was never in the GUI space. The complete clusterfucks of KDE and GNOME, year and year, prove that they people are out of touch with Function and instead focus on Form at the expense of Function.
3. There is no one to enforce "standards" Windows succeeded as game machines because everyone bought into the DirectX bullshit. And while we can debate the politics of Microsoft all day, the fact remains that there is nothing equivalent on the Linux side. The LSB, Linux Base Standard, is a step in the right direction, but there needs to be _standard_ APIs _across_ kernel version. The clusterfuck of PulseAudio is another example. Linux has "too many chefs in the kitchen with the majority re-inventing the oven". Instead we get half-assed implementations of everyone doing things their own way because "the other guys suck."
OpenGL ES has been a success because it provided a _standard_ across almost every device. Apple has always had Not-Invented-Here syndrome so they, like MS, have been pushing their proprietary APIs. If developers AND _users_ weren't morons they would _insist_ on ONE API across EVERY platform. But again, most people don't give a fuck about doing things "right" so we end with a shitty heterogeneous environment instead of a homogenous environment where implementation is held accountable to a the design specifications.
Using a bullshit metric of "popularity" as success nullifies the facts where Linux HAS been successful:
* Android has over 2 BILLION devices, again running Linux./sarcasm Again, I wish I could "fail" like that.
I've been using Linux off and on since the Slackware days. These days I have a dedicated Linux box, (along with Windows and OSX machines.) The fact of the matter is that _every_ Operating System sucks -- no one cares about switching from one crappy OS to another crappy OS. There are always strengths and weaknesses of every platform.
Apple, Google, and Microsoft are NOT interested in freedom. All they care about is profit and their hawking their proprietary crap. NOTHING will ever change until _everyone_ else decides there needs to be a better system and I don't ever see that happening. The problem is no one has the time, money, expertise, or status to pull this off, so we are stuck with crappy OS's that "sort of" do the job but suck in some way or another.
The rest of us just go back to using these crappy platforms complaining about it.:-/
Slashdot Mirror
I'm calling BULLSHIT on this claim.
Gee, if only there was a "Do-Not-Disturb" on my phone -- oh wait, there is!
Moreover, just because more and more people can't focus on something longer then 10 seconds doesn't imply _everyone_ is this neurotic.
Hmm, if only there was a word for this ... I guess no one remembers the term: Self-Discipline
> swipe or tap their phone 2,617 times a day.
Holy shit are these people insecure and slaves to their addictions. Let me guess, this is because of "Social Media."
Guess what, you have a CHOICE. Start living your own life instead of following someone's virtual life.
You can still have an "online" presence and live a balanced life.
i.e.
Check your email / facebook / etc. 3 times a day -- morning, noon, and evening.
Anything more then 3-7 times a day and you probably should seek professional help.
Indeed. The technical term is a Skinner Box
99% of games are nothing more then a glorified, re-skinned, Skinner Box.
--
One of the Lies of Judaism: Murdering an innocent animal magically takes away sin. In fact the exact _opposite_ is true.
Isaiah 66:3: But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a person, and whoever offers a lamb is like one who breaks a dog's neck; whoever makes a grain offering is like one who presents pig's blood, and whoever burns memorial incense is like one who worships an idol.
Indeed.
One of the reasons Netflix streaming sucks is that if you search for a movie and it isn't available there is NO way to provide feedback along the lines:
* Add it to my favorites!
* [x] Notify me when it becomes available!
Instead they show some bullshit "Titles related to _x_" instead ...
It would help if search wasn't broken. :-/
As another /.'er points out, use google via:
Looks like you registered before me. :-) Some of my oldest comments are:
* September 16th, 1999 talking about the lack of SSN Law.
* November 18th, 1999 talking about coding.
> when all I've done is ask which of two options is better.
You are assuming that either option is better. I disagree with your premise.
Analogy(*) Time!
Q. Would you like to be:
* Raped first, then murdered? OR
* Murdered first, then Raped?
A. The response NEITHER is a VALID answer.
There are at LEAST _four_ different answers -- some sick fucko might go "Both?"
(*) I neither approve nor condone. This imaginary example is just for illustration purposes only to make a point how stupid some people's logic is.
> I was claiming there are only two ways to fund websites and that you're obliged to pick one of them
That is indeed what you were doing when you rejected the answer "Neither"
Here is an example:
Q. Would you like Cake or Pie?
A. Neither, I would like Ice-cream.
Now what part of OR do you not understand?? There are AT LEAST 4 different permutations:
A=Ads B=Bitcoin
A=0 B=0 I'm NOT OK with either one.
A=0 B=1 I'm OK with Bitcoin
A=1 B=0 I'm OK with Ads
A=1 B=1 I'm OK with either Ads or Bitcoin
Gee, if only there was MORE then 2 options to crowdfunding.
What you should have asked is this:
Q. For funding the websites you visit would you prefer -- pick all that apply:
[ ] Ads, or
[ ] Background JS running Bitcoin miners OR
[ ] Patreon, OR
[ ] Donate button, OR
[ ] Other. Please specify _ _ _ _ OR
[ ] Nothing. I don't want to financially support you.
QED.
--
You can't fix stupid, but you can fix ignorant
What part of ...
> would you prefer ads or background JS running Bitcoin miners funding the websites you visit?
False Dichotomy, much?
The answer is: Neither:
* Ads are immoral -- they don't respect my time, space, bandwidth, or money, so Fuck-Off with your blatant greed,
* Stealing my CPU resources is just as heinous.
Your monetization problem is not my problem.
> It doesn't directly pull you out, but if you have ever taken a marketing class or worked in marketing it is very distracting.
^^ THIS.
Almost as bad as the shitty laugh track
> What I don't understand is why so many of you are afraid of logging yourselves. What the heck are you doing that you're so terrified of governments hacking into your data and stealing it?
Quit trolling. We aren't afraid of logging ourselves. So _you_ found a valid use for your data. Good for you. _Your_ usage scenario is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Namely:
"I don't want / need my data being data-mined / sold without my consent by some 3rd party who knows fuck-all about security."
If you never voluntarily give them that data in the first place then they can't sell it now, can they Einstein.
I work in software, not hardware, you insensitive clod! :-)
So WTF did Obama actually _do_ that he got one?
/Oblg. "STD is so bad it isn't even worth pirating!"
Well, I wasn't going to watch either (Yet-Another-Stupid-Paywall) but a friend had CBS access and they _still_ chose to download the torrents so they could watch it across ALL their devices. (Go Figure!) I borrowed their USB stick so I could watch it on my 60" Plasma.
I 99% agree with Midnight's Edge's analysis, and RedLetterMedia's review about STD:ADHD.
If CBS hadn't been trying to leech onto the Star Trek name I think more fans would be wiling to cut it some slack as just another "Sci-Fi" show. But going back and rewriting history is a slap in the face to many fans. This is one of the same reasons Enterprise failed -- show us something NEW _past_ Picard.
It is interesting to note that according to Rotten Tomatoes fans only give it 60% while the spiritual successor to Trek, The Orville has 90%.
--
Censorship is NOT the Solution, it is precisely the Problem.
Yup, I 100% agree with your analysis about constantly running IP into the ground.
It is sad how "Greed becomes a cancer that destroys everything it touches." :-/
--
Only Cowards Censor
WTF.
> I guess I don't think we're living in a time when Star Trek could be successful,
Are you talking Financially? Hollywood accounting aside, they made money off the Reboot.
* Star Trek (2019) = $257 million (US) + $385 million (world) - $150 million (budget) = $492 million
* Into Darkness (2013) = $228 million (US), $467 million (world) - $190 million (budget) = $505 million
* Beyond (2016) = $158 million (US), $343 million (world) - $185 million (budget) = $316 million
That said, even though Beyond made money it was considered a flop. It remains doubtful if there will be a sequel -- people are getting tired of STD:ADHD.
Midnight's Edge did a fantastic analysis, and Red Letter Media (of Mr. Plinkett Phantom Menace review fame) detailing the LONG list of problems with STD:ADHD. (STOP with the fucking lens flare and visual diarrhea already!)
Like many /.'ers, I grew up with TOS / TNG. The problem with Star Trash: Disaster is that isn't Trek by Alex Kurtzman's own admission:
That mantle has been given to The Orville which is the spiritual successor to Trek IMHO. Episodes 3 and 4 of the Orville are classic Trek themes.
> There was a period of time when it was used alongside assembler.
Assembly, noun, is the LANGUAGE.
Assembler, noun is the TOOL that translates from Assembly (Language) to Machine Code.
Uh, you just might want to re-check your facts there buddy:
http://www.informationisbeauti...
--
Only Cowards Censor.
Censorship is not the solution, it is precisely The Problem.
> Why would anyone want to buy a MacBook Pro when an Acer will do the job for 1/4 the price?
That's not _quite_ the same thing. For most tasks yes, but for some tasks you are comparing Apples and Oranges.
I have a MBP so I don't have to waste time trying to getting a Hackintosh to "just work." There is software for OSX that just isn't available for Windows or Linux -- and vice versus. When I need to use Windows I use my Win7 dev box; when I want to test Linux I fire up my dedicated Linux box. VM just don't cut it for real-time 3D applications.
Agree 100%.
Considering Microsoft had a 17 year head start (they have been doing phones since 2000 with Windows Mobile or if you WinCE 1996) -- in all that they time they STILL can't produce a phone that wasn't crap.
Give it up Microsoft -- because you SUCK at phones.
> I notice you ignored the bit about calls to violence.
Incorrect. In my first posted I mentioned "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD."
Let's pretend we make "Yelling 'Fire' in a (full) theater (not-on-fire) illegal" with the justification "because it incites violence."
WHERE does it stop??? _Who_ decides what incites violence??? Because this quickly becomes a slippery slope.
Guess what -- I can incite violence with almost ANY word. For example, if I jump out and scare an old lady with "Boo!" and she has a heart attack and dies due to the stress do we now make "Boo!" illegal??? What if someone shouts "BOObies!" because they have Tourette syndrome but she only heard the first syllable? What if I am telling a joke "What bees make milk? BOO-BEES!" What if I use ANY word in a very LOUD context to scare someone to death???
Banning/Making the entire English language "illegal" because it _might_ be mis-used is utteraly retarded.
This is _completely_ backwards thinking. Words don't DO anything. PEOPLE do. The _specific_ word is NOT the problem. The _intent_ or the _act_ of destruction is the problem -- NOT the specific phonemes. All we've done is attempt to shift the cause of the problem to an inanimate object. Notice that this same stupidity is made with gun laws. The fact that some guns are legal while others are illegal is complete bullshit. You can kill a person with either one. Taking the life of someone IS the problem -- not _what_ weapon of choice they used!! Hell, they could have used THEIR HANDS. Furthermore, more people are killed by cars then guns (!) but we don't ban cars because a few idiots mis-use them.
It is all about the context. If I am writing an essay on an old book am I allowed to quote phrases that have "illegal" words? Making words OK in one context and not in another is dumb. George Carlin eloquently and beautifully pointing out "What you resist, persists."
with his 7 Words You Can't Say On TV on the stupidity of making words "Taboo" monologue.
The problem with social contracts is that they are implicit and not explicit. We should be looking at the spirit of the law not the letter of the law. We should be striving for simplicity in our laws, over-engineering them. As Publius Tacitus said before 120 AD.
Stop with all the fucking corner cases, edge cases, and just allow people to say whatever the fuck they want. Because when there is no "stigma" attached then everyone will quickly lose interest in them and go back to their lives.
> I was asking if downvoting is censorship and runs afoul of your "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD" idea.
Why would it? You are not stopping the person from commenting. The fact that no one agrees with them is beside the point.
> Businesses discriminate on all sorts of things
You are conflating a Contract with Discrimination. They are not the same thing.
First, ALL Law is based on Contract Law.
Second, when a business has a sign that says "No Shirt, No Service" they are NOT violating your rights. They are legally allowed to put additional qualifiers onto the Contract between them and you (as long as none of them are illegal.) The reason they can't say "Race _x_ not served" is because the Business derives its permission (aka power) from the Government. And the government has said "We will give you a business license IF you accept these Terms of the Contract. Violate the terms and we revoke your permission. The terms include you can't refuse service based on someone's race, gender, religion, etc."
> Shouting fire in a theater, ... are illegal,
That example always gets trotted out but is is actually false -- for two reasons:
1. if the theater actually IS on fire -- informing others of a problem is NOT illegal,
2. That ISN'T a free speech issue -- it is a property rights issue. i.e. The theater is NOT public property. If there is NO fire then yelling that would cause a riot which would inflict _property damage_ -- THAT is the real the reason theaters don't want people yelling if there is no fire.
Part of the problem is that the "social contract" is implicit instead of being explicit -- which is the source of confusion -- but we must always go back to "first principles."
> Is downvoting something below most people's threshold censorship?
I believe the issue is quite different. You are "yelling", but with moderation everyone else is just yelling more -- effectively drowning you out.
Also, sometimes the truth hurts and people get butthurt over it. Downvoting is a knee-jerk reaction. I would hate to apply any sort of legal consequences to that. We have enough "real" problems to worry about that we don't need to worry about First World Problems.
> No one should force companies to host material they don't want to host.
That's a very dangerous party line to tow. Where does it stop? Refusing to serve food to someone who is a known Nazi sympathesizer?
Business are not allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Censoring others just because you don't agree with what they say is immature, stupid, and illegal.
We need to take a look at the bigger picture. So someone is hosting nazi propoganda on a website. Who gives a fuck. Really. Speech ISN'T the problem -- it is the corresponding _behavior_ that could be.
> I think your statement was CRAP. ...Now are you wearing your big boy pants?
There will always be problems regardless of the "solution(s)." There is no perfect solution -- something must give -- and I would rather error on the side of being liberal then conservative.
Calling it crap is recognizing and acknowledging that fact that is always about a compromise so I'm not offended. I put my big boy pants on a LONG time ago. :-)
> In America we let people violate the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter all the damn time.
Uhm, Hello McFly, Rosa Parks anyone.
There is this minor thing in history called Civil Disobedience -- you might want to look it up.
--
Only Cowards Censor
Analogy time:
McDonalds serves _billions._ No one is arguing that their quantity is even remotely comparably to quality. McDonalds excels at selling A LOT of cheap, shit food.
Likewise, the analogy to Operating Systems on the desktop is applicable:
* Windows = Quantity
* Linux = Quality
Although I would argue that Linux on the Desktop was NEVER about quantity, but about Freedom. Quality was always an afterthought.
Linux has failed to gain any serious traction on the desktop because:
1. "Windows is Good Enough" and "Momentum"
a) Disrupting the Windows desktop is almost impossible because the _casual_ Windows user doesn't give a fuck about freedom.
b) Likewise, game developers don't give a fuck about Linux because there is (almost) zero money in compared to Windows. Everyone and their dog is chasing after the "Fee-to-Play" bullshit model because whales and dolphins are where the _real_ money is.
2. Linux has never had anyone understand _good_ UI design.
Linux's core philosophy has aways been to copy what others are doing. What innovation it has done was never in the GUI space. The complete clusterfucks of KDE and GNOME, year and year, prove that they people are out of touch with Function and instead focus on Form at the expense of Function.
3. There is no one to enforce "standards"
Windows succeeded as game machines because everyone bought into the DirectX bullshit. And while we can debate the politics of Microsoft all day, the fact remains that there is nothing equivalent on the Linux side. The LSB, Linux Base Standard, is a step in the right direction, but there needs to be _standard_ APIs _across_ kernel version. The clusterfuck of PulseAudio is another example. Linux has "too many chefs in the kitchen with the majority re-inventing the oven". Instead we get half-assed implementations of everyone doing things their own way because "the other guys suck."
OpenGL ES has been a success because it provided a _standard_ across almost every device. Apple has always had Not-Invented-Here syndrome so they, like MS, have been pushing their proprietary APIs. If developers AND _users_ weren't morons they would _insist_ on ONE API across EVERY platform. But again, most people don't give a fuck about doing things "right" so we end with a shitty heterogeneous environment instead of a homogenous environment where implementation is held accountable to a the design specifications.
Using a bullshit metric of "popularity" as success nullifies the facts where Linux HAS been successful:
* Gee, 99.6% of the Top 500 supercomputers in the world run Linux. /sarcasm I wish I could "fail" like that!
* Android has over 2 BILLION devices, again running Linux. /sarcasm Again, I wish I could "fail" like that.
I've been using Linux off and on since the Slackware days. These days I have a dedicated Linux box, (along with Windows and OSX machines.) The fact of the matter is that _every_ Operating System sucks -- no one cares about switching from one crappy OS to another crappy OS. There are always strengths and weaknesses of every platform.
Apple, Google, and Microsoft are NOT interested in freedom. All they care about is profit and their hawking their proprietary crap. NOTHING will ever change until _everyone_ else decides there needs to be a better system and I don't ever see that happening. The problem is no one has the time, money, expertise, or status to pull this off, so we are stuck with crappy OS's that "sort of" do the job but suck in some way or another.
The rest of us just go back to using these crappy platforms complaining about it. :-/