Not only would I prefer not to see people with negative reputations, but I'd actually prefer to filter on a relative basis in terms of people who are clearly much better than me.
You've got a game theory problem there: why would those better people want to see you?
Why should any random asshat running a website expect to be compensated? It used to be the case -- before the sociopathic marketing droids invaded -- that people put up websites because they wanted to, not because they expected to profit. And the Internet was better that way.
Take off your rose colored glasses for minute. First of all, no-reply emails are a means to notify a customer of something. They are one-way.
I am writing to "notify" you that any business using with this attitude is run by shitty people and deserves to fail. You don't get to dictate what I'm "meant" to do!
Please direct all responses to no-reply@gofuckyourself.com
Sometimes when I have a choice of companies to buy a product from, Ill send an email or fill out the web form asking the same question to multiple companies.
And that's the other asinine thing about bullshit web forms: they force you to send the message to one recipient at a time. As a slightly different example, say I want to write my Congressmen about something. Instead of just writing an email and putting three names in the To: field, now I have to answer a slightly disjoint set of (potentially) invasive questions three times over. It's not that it's hard or even that time-consuming; it's that it's galling because I shouldn't have to jump through hoops like that.
Think about it - if you were running a very large company, would you rather: a) have a catch-all email that runs the gamut of issues, feedback, etc. b) have a way to submit categorized feedback via web forms?
If I were running a very large company, I would want everyone to be forced to just give me their money instead of having to go through the trouble of actually selling something to them in return.
But I wouldn't be entitled to that -- just like how companies are not entitled to be able to dictate communications terms to their customers, either!
Nope. Fuck that class of company too, because it's ultimately the same damn thing. Fundamentally, companies are either willing to engage on the customer's terms... or they aren't. And the latter don't deserve anyone's business.
A person's civil rights should not change just because they are on one side of an imaginary line or the other. State's right are a vestige of a bygone age, when we couldn't travel across the country in a matter of hours. They have no place in our modern political system..
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. It's true that no government (regardless of level) should have the power to infringe on the rights of the People. But, of the powers that government can have, it is not necessarily true that the Federal government must have all of them instead of only a subset.
In fact, this is exactly what the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution affirms: that all valid governmental powers (and by "valid" I mean powers which do not infringe on human rights) which are not specifically delegated to the Federal government are instead reserved for State or local governments. In other words (to make a technology analogy to firewalls or ACLs), the Federal government is supposed to operate on a default-deny policy: the Federal government is prohibited from exercising any authority except for the powers explicitly whitelisted in Article 1, Section 8.
Hey, I'd be perfectly happy for this ruling to greatly limit the Interstate Commerce Clause -- if the same reasoning was applied to every other issue too. There are many, many Federal regulations -- including everything from drug prohibition to the Obamacare individual mandate -- that rely on decisions about the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause that conflict with this one.
So, since this effectively overturns Wickard v. Filburn, the next order of business is abolishing the DEA (since the entire concept of Federal drug prohibition relies on it), right?
I don't mind this maybe being an additional venue...
I do. The fact is, Facebook is incredibly dangerous to democracy for reasons entirely unrelated to politicians using it to ignore other methods of constituent feedback. Take this article on how Facebook-based data-mining is enabling micro-targeted propaganda, for instance.
You know, phones were and still are a proprietary communication network
The phone network is run by COMMON CARRIERS. That's the opposite of proprietary. Facebook is absolutely nothing like the phone network. In fact, the difference is so obvious that I question the sincerity and motivations of anyone who tries to conflate them!
Because it's WRONG! The entire GODDAMN FUCKING CONCEPT of political parties is WRONG! It is absolutely asinine that those private corporations are even allowed to field candidates, or restrict which candidates may be fielded. Primary elections are fundamentally a misuse of public resources and should be abolished altogether, and all candidates should be required to meet the exact same requirements to get on the ballot, regardless of affiliation -- which itself should not even be disclosed on the candidate qualifying form and which should be prohibited from being listed on ballots.
What they're doing now - attacking soft targets by ramming into crowds with trucks and shit - can only be meant to do one thing: terrify morons and get them to overreact, just like the morons are doing.
TL;DR: the terrorists won the day the USAPATRIOT Act was signed into law.
Well how the fuck do I build a rapport and relationship with my colleagues without being a fucking mind reader, if harassment is possible when you're trying to give someone a genuine compliment?
By complimenting her work instead of her shoes. After all, you don't go around complimenting your male coworkers' fucking shoes, do you?
Hey dipshit, you're so ignorant you've got your "wealth transfer" argument backwards.
In reality, the only inequitable transfer of wealth comes from the fact that polluters are free-riders, able to inflict expensive damage on everyone else with impunity.
They have no right to fuck up everyone else's air, and it is exactly the 100% correct "free market" solution to make them pay for it!
Every free-market libertarian should support abolishing the SUBSIDY on pollution.
Same here with browser design -> Google simplifies their design, and Firefox decides "Yeah, let's pitch {popular feature} overboard."
You do realize that was the point of Firefox in the first place, right? Firefox exists as an attempt to pitch all the junk out of Netscape Navigator/Mozilla Seamonkey.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it is! It just happens to be an orbit with a periapsis smaller than the Earth's radius.
Fucking DRM is a whole 'nother problem!
Fuck off, fascist. There's a HUGE FUCKING ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between a spy agency spying on other countries and it spying on its own citizens.
You've got a game theory problem there: why would those better people want to see you?
Why should any random asshat running a website expect to be compensated? It used to be the case -- before the sociopathic marketing droids invaded -- that people put up websites because they wanted to, not because they expected to profit. And the Internet was better that way.
I am writing to "notify" you that any business using with this attitude is run by shitty people and deserves to fail. You don't get to dictate what I'm "meant" to do!
Please direct all responses to no-reply@gofuckyourself.com
And that's the other asinine thing about bullshit web forms: they force you to send the message to one recipient at a time. As a slightly different example, say I want to write my Congressmen about something. Instead of just writing an email and putting three names in the To: field, now I have to answer a slightly disjoint set of (potentially) invasive questions three times over. It's not that it's hard or even that time-consuming; it's that it's galling because I shouldn't have to jump through hoops like that.
If I were running a very large company, I would want everyone to be forced to just give me their money instead of having to go through the trouble of actually selling something to them in return.
But I wouldn't be entitled to that -- just like how companies are not entitled to be able to dictate communications terms to their customers, either!
Nope. Fuck that class of company too, because it's ultimately the same damn thing. Fundamentally, companies are either willing to engage on the customer's terms... or they aren't. And the latter don't deserve anyone's business.
LOL, as if $1.99 and closed-source weren't strings!
On a real "no-strings-attached" system you can just do:
I'd call that even easier, since you don't have to screw around with a payment processor.
Why?
On devices with a large enough screen for the UI to work well, I like using uMatrix instead of uBlock + NoScript.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. It's true that no government (regardless of level) should have the power to infringe on the rights of the People. But, of the powers that government can have, it is not necessarily true that the Federal government must have all of them instead of only a subset.
In fact, this is exactly what the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution affirms: that all valid governmental powers (and by "valid" I mean powers which do not infringe on human rights) which are not specifically delegated to the Federal government are instead reserved for State or local governments. In other words (to make a technology analogy to firewalls or ACLs), the Federal government is supposed to operate on a default-deny policy: the Federal government is prohibited from exercising any authority except for the powers explicitly whitelisted in Article 1, Section 8.
Hey, I'd be perfectly happy for this ruling to greatly limit the Interstate Commerce Clause -- if the same reasoning was applied to every other issue too. There are many, many Federal regulations -- including everything from drug prohibition to the Obamacare individual mandate -- that rely on decisions about the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause that conflict with this one.
So, since this effectively overturns Wickard v. Filburn, the next order of business is abolishing the DEA (since the entire concept of Federal drug prohibition relies on it), right?
I do. The fact is, Facebook is incredibly dangerous to democracy for reasons entirely unrelated to politicians using it to ignore other methods of constituent feedback. Take this article on how Facebook-based data-mining is enabling micro-targeted propaganda, for instance.
The phone network is run by COMMON CARRIERS. That's the opposite of proprietary. Facebook is absolutely nothing like the phone network. In fact, the difference is so obvious that I question the sincerity and motivations of anyone who tries to conflate them!
That's an oxymoron. An enlightened state would allow every voter to vote in every primary, for all parties.
Because it's WRONG! The entire GODDAMN FUCKING CONCEPT of political parties is WRONG! It is absolutely asinine that those private corporations are even allowed to field candidates, or restrict which candidates may be fielded. Primary elections are fundamentally a misuse of public resources and should be abolished altogether, and all candidates should be required to meet the exact same requirements to get on the ballot, regardless of affiliation -- which itself should not even be disclosed on the candidate qualifying form and which should be prohibited from being listed on ballots.
TL;DR: the terrorists won the day the USAPATRIOT Act was signed into law.
You write that as if it wasn't equally true on the day the TSA was invented...
That would be great, except for all the broken shit like GTK 3 that throws out the EDID-reported value and just blindly uses 96 DPI instead!
(I just installed Debian Stretch on a PC with a 27" 4k monitor, and I'm a kinda pissed off about this issue right now.)
By complimenting her work instead of her shoes. After all, you don't go around complimenting your male coworkers' fucking shoes, do you?
Hey dipshit, you're so ignorant you've got your "wealth transfer" argument backwards.
In reality, the only inequitable transfer of wealth comes from the fact that polluters are free-riders, able to inflict expensive damage on everyone else with impunity.
They have no right to fuck up everyone else's air, and it is exactly the 100% correct "free market" solution to make them pay for it!
Every free-market libertarian should support abolishing the SUBSIDY on pollution.
You do realize that was the point of Firefox in the first place, right? Firefox exists as an attempt to pitch all the junk out of Netscape Navigator/Mozilla Seamonkey.