Let's not act like Russia and Syria couldn't have been together on this from the beginning. Russia has proven rather adept at making America come across as the fool we are, recently. Just think back to the fake story about the Brazilian president's plane being ordered to land because of Snowden, by the USA? . . . that never happened, if you listen to the actual audio (which, strangely, no news organization ever bothered to play).
As an American, I find it all rather amusing. Finally time for us to look as stupid and impotent as we actually are.
Agreed. It sounds promising. I mean, what could go wrong with giving the Russians chemical weapons when they have a history of not keeping track of anything else that is weaponized, as it is?
And, hey, getting whatever Assad may or may not have will totally be the solution if it turns out that it was actually the rebels who were using chemical weapons, as has been asserted.
Right, because they're so innocent and have no ulterior motives. It's not like Germany totally fucked over Greece while pretending to be its salvation the last few years, right?
Exactly. This isn't so much about sexism (unless we're not going to pay attention to what the definitions of words are). It's an issue of not using your brain and being inconsiderate. And no, acknowledging that it was inconsiderate isn't an admission of guilt or an admission that sexism was involved.
It is reasonable to suspect that this content could make some people in an audience feel uncomfortable. Just because you feel uncomfortable or awkward about something does not mean that thing is sexist. Not being sexist is not a justification to ignore the sensibilities of others who may be in attendance.
In other words, we could all do with a little maturity when we do these things. There are a lot of people you alter your behavior or content around, using your personal judgement. There is nothing wrong with swearing and yet I try to avoid swearing around my new quite religious neighbors. It is a simple gesture that keeps us both from feeling awkward. It's just a simple human decency.
If you know your audience is going to be a bunch of fun-loving, light-hearted, edgy, hard-to-offend people, then maybe sexual content or humorous content trading in breasts and genitals is reasonable. When your audience is more general and you should perhaps take that into account.
Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that those who feel awkward or are put off by something can't help themselves but to label it as sexism and misogyny. It must be something awful that has a label that shades an entire group of people negatively with a great deal of shame and that must be stopped at all costs. And those who are not put off by it or even who traded in that content can't help themselves but to assert that since there is no malice or sexism (the actual kind, not the kind everyone throws the word blindly around for) then those who are offended should shut the fuck up and they should just continue to keep doing the same content in the same situations and fuck everyone else.
Maybe if we all acted a little closer to our ages, we could acknowledge that it's okay to be offended or even just uncomfortable about something without it being "sexism" or some other "super evil thing" and that just because something is not "sexism" or another "super evil thing" doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise some tact and consider finding ways to be more inclusive and make for less awkwardness so that more people can enjoy events and content. Being able to sense the discomfort of another human being and being willing to adjust yourself to accommodate that discomfort is simple human decency.
Exactly. And in this case of the polygraph information, what he's being prosecuted for is exercising free speech that upsets the government. The same people supporting this or justifying it should have no problem the next time the government shoves everyone into fenced-in-razor-wire free-speech pens or shuts down a protest or otherwises silences someone. After all, you only have "free speech" to the extent that someone in government doesn't take it away from you and . . . I guess that's just fucking okay?
I mean, really, that kind of shit from the Slashdot crowd? I don't even know who these people are anymore. Then again, why do I expect more from the same people who have suddenly turned into right-wing religious nuts over the last few years.
And you are right. That is exactly what happened here. He is free to give people information about beating lie detector tests. He can even tell them "don't tell anyone that you know about these tricks". And then he was charged for doing exactly that. He was charged and prosecuted for exercising exactly that free speech in exactly that way.
What the fuck is with you people? The "fire in a theater" bullshit that you repeatedly parrot, itself, is about imminent predictable or intentional harm and YOU are using it to justify the government trying to fucking shut people up.
It isn't merely an issue of "recklessly endangering others".
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." and "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.” -- Justice Holmes
Apologists for the infringement of free speech like to forget the point that was being made. The issue has to do with making false statements that are uttered with the intention (or at least clear knowledge and expectation) of creating a "clear and present danger".
Apologists like the crowd on Slashdot sickly pervert this to justify all of the situations where the government infringes on speech in which there is no immediate harm to anyone whatsoever. These apologists are the reason there are people out there who will suggest that the government should shut protestors down, because eventually it might turn into some degree of violence. These apologists are the idiots out there suggesting that telling people how to trick an oogady-boogady detector should be illegal, simply because the government doesn't like it. (Does telling someone how to "fool" an oogady-boogady detector or how to make a gun or a bomb put anyone in immediate danger like causing a stampede in a crowded space or telling a police officer that that guy over there has a loaded gun and is waving it around at people? Of course not!).
You also can't falsely accuse someone of rape or murder, that doesn't involve the concept of free speech. A crime is a crime; using speech in the process of committing a crime doesn't mean it has anything to do with speech.
You CAN sell tap water with claims that it cures cancer and erectile dysfunction. People go around making false claims for cancer cures and other kinds of cures all the fucking time. Ever heard of fucking alternative medicine? Herbal medicine? You can walk right into an herbal store and get something over the counter that claims to cure cancer or prolong your life. You can stand on a stage and claim that you are healing people standing in line of their poor eyesight, lame limbs, heart conditions, asthma and any other number of things. You can have a parade through town promoting your skin color or deriding another. You can claim that Pepsi is better than Coke. You can claim that rubbing a special ointment on your cock will make it grow ten inches. Medical malpractice is another issue, however, and that has nothing to do with speech. That has to do with the licensing and oversight of your profession and drugs and procedures.
Finally, just because the government has established a record of infringing upon and violating people's free speech (with whatever justification they claim) does not mean you don't have the right.
Thank you for illustrating my point. Nobody's free speech touches your nose. There is no allegorical measure to your comment, because speech is a thing that never in any way directly damages or harms you, other than bad feelings. I suppose the next step is to bring up "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, if there isn't a fire". To which I would point out that even Justice Holmes, himself, later regretted his position on the decision that instigated that metaphor.
There is a separation between words and thoughts and any action actions. The only time I could even see a remote pause of confusion is when it comes to slander and libel, where speech (malicious lies) are not simply unpopular opinions or thoughts and are not simply mean words that a person has the choice to shrug off, but have actual real damages to a person or their business the same as falsely accusing someone of a crime.
Once you can justify shutting someone up about something, you can manage to find an equally justifiable reason for shutting them up about other things.
If you hang out around Slashdot long enough, you'll find out that there is a whole segment of society who claims that "free speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want".
However, this is relatively worthless, since all the polygraph comes down to is a meaningless chart interpreted by a biased administrator. They might as well give someone prison time for teaching you how to avoid being abducted by UFOs... or for teaching you how to fool phrenologists.
You can't blame him. At first glance, it looks like a game and it sounds like a game. Even after reading some of the text, I wasn't sure if it was an actual pentest suite or if it was meant as a "visual simulation of pentesting". That is, for a minute, I thought the guy was selling a sort of pre-packaged solution for filmmakers that wanted to have a 31337 hax0r interface tos how on a computer in their movies.
If he really wants to get more people to buy his software, he should sell it on his website.
I know it really pisses *me* off when I want to go to a site and buy a piece of software and not only don't they give me an option for it, but they make me fill out a form, email them, and wait around for a response to even get a price. Is it any wonder there might be a chunk of people who say "fuck it, I'll just go download it and use it immediately", when you put hurdles up and can't even tell someone the price up front? (I suspect people then assume the price will be too high for them to even remotely pay for -- kind of like Photoshop).
Not saying it is justified or that changing that would solve everything, but it sure would likely help a bit.
When someone says "nobody is willing to do this work/labor/whatever", what they really mean is "we're too cheap to pay a wage that will attract people to doing this job". Money is king and if you pay enough, you will find someone to perform any job on earth. People make very little money doing a hell of a lot worse jobs than moving some plants around.
It will eventually be a disorder. The DSM is clearly intended to eventually classify every human being as having a disorder. Preferably, one that requires oversight, medication, or both.
Since I haven't used either environment in so many years, I'd just construed the news back then that KDE was totally on the outs. Didn't realize it was just Canonical sponsorship.
I always preferred KDE to GNOME, because it felt like it had more configuration and control options available to me than GNOME did. I know that, ultimately, that isn't the case, but at default, GNOME always felt like it was constricting and limiting and sort of . . . toyish. Plus . . AmaroK!
That said, KDE was far from ideal, too. I haven't used either in about five years, though. I might play around with both for kids, soon. I presume they're still squibbling over goofy flashy-desktop-presentation stuff? I seem to remember them (or was it just ubuntu's flavor) pushing a kind of goofy often-crashy-breaky desktop graphical layer enhancement that did all sorts of glitzy stuff. . . when it worked?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not act like Russia and Syria couldn't have been together on this from the beginning. Russia has proven rather adept at making America come across as the fool we are, recently. Just think back to the fake story about the Brazilian president's plane being ordered to land because of Snowden, by the USA? . . . that never happened, if you listen to the actual audio (which, strangely, no news organization ever bothered to play).
As an American, I find it all rather amusing. Finally time for us to look as stupid and impotent as we actually are.
Agreed. It sounds promising. I mean, what could go wrong with giving the Russians chemical weapons when they have a history of not keeping track of anything else that is weaponized, as it is?
And, hey, getting whatever Assad may or may not have will totally be the solution if it turns out that it was actually the rebels who were using chemical weapons, as has been asserted.
Right, because they're so innocent and have no ulterior motives. It's not like Germany totally fucked over Greece while pretending to be its salvation the last few years, right?
Exactly. This isn't so much about sexism (unless we're not going to pay attention to what the definitions of words are). It's an issue of not using your brain and being inconsiderate. And no, acknowledging that it was inconsiderate isn't an admission of guilt or an admission that sexism was involved.
It is reasonable to suspect that this content could make some people in an audience feel uncomfortable. Just because you feel uncomfortable or awkward about something does not mean that thing is sexist. Not being sexist is not a justification to ignore the sensibilities of others who may be in attendance.
In other words, we could all do with a little maturity when we do these things. There are a lot of people you alter your behavior or content around, using your personal judgement. There is nothing wrong with swearing and yet I try to avoid swearing around my new quite religious neighbors. It is a simple gesture that keeps us both from feeling awkward. It's just a simple human decency.
If you know your audience is going to be a bunch of fun-loving, light-hearted, edgy, hard-to-offend people, then maybe sexual content or humorous content trading in breasts and genitals is reasonable. When your audience is more general and you should perhaps take that into account.
Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that those who feel awkward or are put off by something can't help themselves but to label it as sexism and misogyny. It must be something awful that has a label that shades an entire group of people negatively with a great deal of shame and that must be stopped at all costs. And those who are not put off by it or even who traded in that content can't help themselves but to assert that since there is no malice or sexism (the actual kind, not the kind everyone throws the word blindly around for) then those who are offended should shut the fuck up and they should just continue to keep doing the same content in the same situations and fuck everyone else.
Maybe if we all acted a little closer to our ages, we could acknowledge that it's okay to be offended or even just uncomfortable about something without it being "sexism" or some other "super evil thing" and that just because something is not "sexism" or another "super evil thing" doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise some tact and consider finding ways to be more inclusive and make for less awkwardness so that more people can enjoy events and content. Being able to sense the discomfort of another human being and being willing to adjust yourself to accommodate that discomfort is simple human decency.
Exactly. And in this case of the polygraph information, what he's being prosecuted for is exercising free speech that upsets the government. The same people supporting this or justifying it should have no problem the next time the government shoves everyone into fenced-in-razor-wire free-speech pens or shuts down a protest or otherwises silences someone. After all, you only have "free speech" to the extent that someone in government doesn't take it away from you and . . . I guess that's just fucking okay?
I mean, really, that kind of shit from the Slashdot crowd? I don't even know who these people are anymore. Then again, why do I expect more from the same people who have suddenly turned into right-wing religious nuts over the last few years.
And you are right. That is exactly what happened here. He is free to give people information about beating lie detector tests. He can even tell them "don't tell anyone that you know about these tricks". And then he was charged for doing exactly that. He was charged and prosecuted for exercising exactly that free speech in exactly that way.
What the fuck is with you people? The "fire in a theater" bullshit that you repeatedly parrot, itself, is about imminent predictable or intentional harm and YOU are using it to justify the government trying to fucking shut people up.
It isn't merely an issue of "recklessly endangering others".
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." and "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.” -- Justice Holmes
Apologists for the infringement of free speech like to forget the point that was being made. The issue has to do with making false statements that are uttered with the intention (or at least clear knowledge and expectation) of creating a "clear and present danger".
Apologists like the crowd on Slashdot sickly pervert this to justify all of the situations where the government infringes on speech in which there is no immediate harm to anyone whatsoever. These apologists are the reason there are people out there who will suggest that the government should shut protestors down, because eventually it might turn into some degree of violence. These apologists are the idiots out there suggesting that telling people how to trick an oogady-boogady detector should be illegal, simply because the government doesn't like it. (Does telling someone how to "fool" an oogady-boogady detector or how to make a gun or a bomb put anyone in immediate danger like causing a stampede in a crowded space or telling a police officer that that guy over there has a loaded gun and is waving it around at people? Of course not!).
Talking of failed education:
You also can't falsely accuse someone of rape or murder, that doesn't involve the concept of free speech. A crime is a crime; using speech in the process of committing a crime doesn't mean it has anything to do with speech.
You CAN sell tap water with claims that it cures cancer and erectile dysfunction. People go around making false claims for cancer cures and other kinds of cures all the fucking time. Ever heard of fucking alternative medicine? Herbal medicine? You can walk right into an herbal store and get something over the counter that claims to cure cancer or prolong your life. You can stand on a stage and claim that you are healing people standing in line of their poor eyesight, lame limbs, heart conditions, asthma and any other number of things. You can have a parade through town promoting your skin color or deriding another. You can claim that Pepsi is better than Coke. You can claim that rubbing a special ointment on your cock will make it grow ten inches. Medical malpractice is another issue, however, and that has nothing to do with speech. That has to do with the licensing and oversight of your profession and drugs and procedures.
Finally, just because the government has established a record of infringing upon and violating people's free speech (with whatever justification they claim) does not mean you don't have the right.
Sure, if the way you want to look at it is an apologist.
Thank you for illustrating my point. Nobody's free speech touches your nose. There is no allegorical measure to your comment, because speech is a thing that never in any way directly damages or harms you, other than bad feelings. I suppose the next step is to bring up "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, if there isn't a fire". To which I would point out that even Justice Holmes, himself, later regretted his position on the decision that instigated that metaphor.
There is a separation between words and thoughts and any action actions. The only time I could even see a remote pause of confusion is when it comes to slander and libel, where speech (malicious lies) are not simply unpopular opinions or thoughts and are not simply mean words that a person has the choice to shrug off, but have actual real damages to a person or their business the same as falsely accusing someone of a crime.
Once you can justify shutting someone up about something, you can manage to find an equally justifiable reason for shutting them up about other things.
If you hang out around Slashdot long enough, you'll find out that there is a whole segment of society who claims that "free speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want".
However, this is relatively worthless, since all the polygraph comes down to is a meaningless chart interpreted by a biased administrator. They might as well give someone prison time for teaching you how to avoid being abducted by UFOs... or for teaching you how to fool phrenologists.
You can't blame him. At first glance, it looks like a game and it sounds like a game. Even after reading some of the text, I wasn't sure if it was an actual pentest suite or if it was meant as a "visual simulation of pentesting". That is, for a minute, I thought the guy was selling a sort of pre-packaged solution for filmmakers that wanted to have a 31337 hax0r interface tos how on a computer in their movies.
Then why not offer a free or steeply discounted personal license and then a commercial license?
If he really wants to get more people to buy his software, he should sell it on his website.
I know it really pisses *me* off when I want to go to a site and buy a piece of software and not only don't they give me an option for it, but they make me fill out a form, email them, and wait around for a response to even get a price. Is it any wonder there might be a chunk of people who say "fuck it, I'll just go download it and use it immediately", when you put hurdles up and can't even tell someone the price up front? (I suspect people then assume the price will be too high for them to even remotely pay for -- kind of like Photoshop).
Not saying it is justified or that changing that would solve everything, but it sure would likely help a bit.
Will this increase piracy of his software, or will it discourage would-be pirates from downloading cracked versions?"
You're not using that word correctly.
Yeah, The Color of Mickey was one of my favorite pool hustling movies.
Infinitely+1?
When someone says "nobody is willing to do this work/labor/whatever", what they really mean is "we're too cheap to pay a wage that will attract people to doing this job". Money is king and if you pay enough, you will find someone to perform any job on earth. People make very little money doing a hell of a lot worse jobs than moving some plants around.
It will eventually be a disorder. The DSM is clearly intended to eventually classify every human being as having a disorder. Preferably, one that requires oversight, medication, or both.
Ah! Thanks for the . . . Enlightenment.
Since I haven't used either environment in so many years, I'd just construed the news back then that KDE was totally on the outs. Didn't realize it was just Canonical sponsorship.
I always preferred KDE to GNOME, because it felt like it had more configuration and control options available to me than GNOME did. I know that, ultimately, that isn't the case, but at default, GNOME always felt like it was constricting and limiting and sort of . . . toyish. Plus . . AmaroK!
That said, KDE was far from ideal, too. I haven't used either in about five years, though. I might play around with both for kids, soon. I presume they're still squibbling over goofy flashy-desktop-presentation stuff? I seem to remember them (or was it just ubuntu's flavor) pushing a kind of goofy often-crashy-breaky desktop graphical layer enhancement that did all sorts of glitzy stuff. . . when it worked?
I always preferred it to GNOME, but felt dirty for having used it. Of course, I ultimately decided to move to XFCE, anyway.
I haven't touched ubuntu in quite awhile, but I thought they dropped Kubuntu several years ago?
Until stack-ranking time comes around, then cut their turkey-neck fucking throats!