The amusing part is that 867-5309 is an oft-requested vanity number. The even more amusing part is that the people requesting it often change it soon after.
Not just Cubs fans--the joke was in the Blues Brothers, so I've known the address of Wirgley Field since I was a kid, despite never having set foot in the greater Chicago metro outside of O'Hare or Midway.
Its called Dunkin Donuts. It came way before your cheap knock-off.
Speaking as a transplanted Yankee (NYC) living deep in the heart of the Krispy Kreme belt (Knoxville, TN) and believes that Dunkin is the ultimate expression of the donut (unless the sign is on at Krispy Kreme... when those things are warm and the sugar is still semi-liquid, they are like crack. Once they warm up, I find them fairly inedible) I have to point out that the Krispy Kreme is, in fact, about 15 years older than the Dunkin Donut.:(
I'm not suggesting some opinions are more valid than others--what I am saying is that if you don't care enough about the site to actually log into it, then you're not actually a member of this community, pseudonymous or otherwise.
Really, I don't care if you're a 3-digit uid, or a 8-digit uid, but have a damned uid before you act all wounded about how this site has gone down hill.
So here are two ACs lamenting what a shithole this site is. As I asked the guy above, why should your opinions count if you don't even bother putting a pseudonym behind them? Like it or not, "politics" has a rather large intersection between "the people who read slashdot have an interest in this topic" and "stuff that matters." As someone else (who did bother to log in) pointed out above: if you don't like these stories, don't read them. There's even a handy mechanism for helping you do this... if you bother to log in.
in the noble land of theory; hasn't it always been the case that military agents are supposed to refuse to carry out unlawful orders
Only since 1946, and then only if you're on the losing side of a war. People on the winning side that disobey orders (lawful or unlawful) get to see first hand what the inside of a military prison looks like.
Uhh, okay. I dislike the FBI as much as the next guy, but if you seriously think this, I don't think you understand the scale of the crimes committed by the SS and SA.
I hear Godwin calling...
You realize that everything starts somewhere, yes? The US is turning into a police state. The outrages suffered thus far are relatively small scale and sporadic, but the tools are all being put into place. If you cannot imagine the FBI as tomorrow's SA or STASI then you simply lack imagination.
LOL, yup, that's freedom... adhere to this long list of restrictions, or don't use it.
Whereas, something like a BSD or Apache license places very few limitations on your 'freedom".
GPL means you are "free" to be enslaved by a certain ideological view of "free", by telling you the ways in which you're not really free.
It has its place, but it's by no means perfect, and it certainly has a restricted definition of "free".
Every time I see this philosophical argument, I shake my head, because the proponents of both licenses tend to completely ignore the viewpoint of the other and get bogged down in the definition of "freedom." BSD is free in the sense of anarchy. Here's our code, do with it what you will. "Fork it? Clone it and close it? Go for it, man, be free." There is a lot of good in this, and some bad. GPL is free in the sense of the picnic pavilion down at the local park. "We have some good rules in place here to make sure that everyone can freely enjoy this today, and in the future." There is a lot of good in this, and some bad.
I tend to come down on the GPL (v2, that is--v3 is a mess) side for "community projects" and the BSD side for pure utility projects. If you have a shared vision for something you really want to build than GPL's "you have to give back" philosophy is wonderful. You need look no further than the current state of Linux to see why. On the other hand, if you really just need a standard for everyone to adhere to so we can all go and get some other work done then BSD type licenses are almost always superior, because there is no problem incorporating them into closed source projects (which is great, because you want all those products to interop in some way).
tl;dr: both are good for some things, and bad for other things. Quit your bitching and pick the right one for your project, and pick the right project for your need.
Manhattan Island is not Long Island, and Long Island is not densely populated (well, it is in some areas, but for the most part it has lots of empty space). Manhattan Island is surrounded on three sides at relatively close proximity by other densely populated areas (Queens and Brooklyn (which ARE on Long Island), the Bronx, and the part of New Jersey west of the Hudson) so the idea that "half the pollution" magically leaves the area without being inhaled by anyone is nonsensical.
You could try looking at a map next time, it might help.
You don't have to shut down a damn thing. It's called "off peak" and you have the work crews doing maintenance on one track of a given line at a time, every night until the work is complete. While work is going on, you run both directions down the single available track. When rush hour comes, work stops and you use both tracks again. It's not rocket science.
I understand the problem. You were replying to someone who replied to me. Their post was below my threshold, and yours looked like a direct response to my post. Sorry for the confusion.
You may want to clarify your response a bit, because it doesn't make any sense in the context of what you're replying to. I agree with you that if the government were censoring this, it would be a first amendment violation (i.e. "protected speech") but we're talking about a private venue which has every right to prevent whatever they want from being screened there.
I mean is it really so hard top understand that it's government who is supposed to be forbidden from censorship. It's not a difficult concept, but people fail to comprehend it all the time.
The thing people fail to comprehend all the time is the idea that only the government is prevented from allowing you to exercise your right of free speech. In this instance, the event is censoring this film, because of public backlash against the idea. They're perfectly free to censor the film, of course, and I fully support their right to do so, but just because it's a private venue doesn't magically make it "not censorship."
You're confusing "censorship" with "first amendment violation." This is not the latter, but it most certainly is the former. A private party is not required to allow the airing of an idea--I think we can all agree that there is no problem with that. But the case we're talking about is specifically banning a movie based on the fact that many people find the point it makes to be objectionable. This is the very definition of censorship.
You realize that your generalization above is of great insult to goat-fucking shit eaters, who consider "shit eating goat fucker" to be an epithet with massive historical significance, don't you?
Most men do not object to being called "guys" or "boys." MANY women object to being called "girls." Some object to "ladies." A very small minority of women object to being called "women" and insist on "womyn." "Females" does tend to short circuit any possible claims of "you're a misogynist bastard," but this thread proves that it doesn't prevent 100% of them.
We must never forget St. Mary's and Three Waters! All good citizens should remember the Articles of Allegiance, and that Chancellor Sutler only wants to keep us safe from degenerates.
Not really - saying that a corporation may not make political donations is not the same as saying the CEO, employees, board members, stockholders, etc., may not make political donations. I have stock in 3M, so I'll use that as an example. It's none of my business whether the CEO of 3M wants to contribute to a political campaign, and it's none of his business whether I do. We both have that freedom. However, there is money in 3M's bank accounts, and a really teeny slice of that is mine in a sense, and Citizen's United means the CEO can use that money on political campaigning, whether I like it or not. I happen to think that that's a really bad thing overall.,
You're conflating "free speech" and "corporate governance." If you, as a shareholder of 3M do not want your CEO using corporate funds to lobby politicians, then why are you allowing him to? You don't need a LAW to control that, you need to change your corporate charter. If, on the other hand, a majority of shareholders DO want the CEO to do that, well, that's their view of how your shared investment should operate. If you can't change their minds, maybe you should invest in a different company? "This is too hard for me to bother with, so the government should outlaw it" is not a defensible position.
A corporation is a specific legal construct, not a human. It needs certain rights in order to function (like the right to sign contracts, and the right to own things), but doesn't need others.
I know that this opens up a can of worms, but I think it's a can of worms worth looking at. The New York Times is in the business of publishing, and we'd all be in trouble if it didn't have the freedom of the press. I contribute to some political organizations with the specific intent that they use the money I send them for political campaigning, among other things, and I'd like to see that continue to be possible.
With the first part, I agree completely. Corporations are certainly NOT people. As far as rights go, that's a harder argument to make, and your second paragraph illustrates why: The NYT, WaPo, CNN, FoxNews, etc, need to publish. The Republican Party, The Democratic Party, The Tea Party, MoveOn, etc need to campaign. General Electric, 3M, Pfizer, etc, need to own capital equipment and pay taxes and enter into contracts. But you don't want 3M to campaign or publish, you don't want FoxNews to campaign, and you don't want the Tea Party to sell consumer goods.
You're very right that this is a giant can of worms, and you're even right that this can of worms is worth looking at, but at some point, you are going to end up giving the government (i.e. that group that the constitution places limits on) the power to decide who gets to exercise which constitutionally protected rights, and when. That's a VERY dangerous road to be going down. Who makes these rules that control who gets to do what, when? How do we keep THOSE people from being corrupt? Recent history shows that we can't keep tax bureaucrats from messing with various organizations whose politics they may disagree with. Is it desirable that we open up even more organizations and more speech to these kinds of obstructions?
"Sorry, NYT, but that story you wrote last November is too much like political campaigning to us, you'll need to be fined/shutdown/etc." "Sorry, Pfizer, but you can't ask the county government to rezone that property from agricultural to commercial to build your new office complex." That's where i see this eventually leading.
I'm not jumping into the middle of this fight (I'm not educated enough on the subject) but I will say that there is nothing inherently wrong with an executive order. Many laws that congress writes delegate various powers to the executive--this is why we have a Code of Federal Regulations to go along with US code (USC enables the executive branch to do something, and the CFR is the details of that something... at least in theory). An executive order is a reasonable way for the President (the head of the executive branch) to direct HOW the executive branch does something. The problem arises when executive orders purport to enable or forbid something the executive branch has no power to enable or forbid.
Simply counting how many executive orders a president issues is meaningless in a vacuum. One has to actually ANALYZE those orders to determine if "screw the laws and precedents" is accurate with regard to a particular president.
My PAFSI example above is a perfect example of "citizens having a voice." Your solution would silence that voice. Those full page ads along the lines of "xxx scientists all agree that global warming is a massive threat?" Gone. Move On's 2007 ad, "General Betray Us?" Gone. In the end, that's all "corporate speech" because a corporation is, in the end, footing the bill.
A "corporation" is a group of people. You are threatening the civil liberties of those people with your position. If you're ok with that, let's just agree to disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
The amusing part is that 867-5309 is an oft-requested vanity number. The even more amusing part is that the people requesting it often change it soon after.
Not just Cubs fans--the joke was in the Blues Brothers, so I've known the address of Wirgley Field since I was a kid, despite never having set foot in the greater Chicago metro outside of O'Hare or Midway.
Its called Dunkin Donuts.
It came way before your cheap knock-off.
Speaking as a transplanted Yankee (NYC) living deep in the heart of the Krispy Kreme belt (Knoxville, TN) and believes that Dunkin is the ultimate expression of the donut (unless the sign is on at Krispy Kreme... when those things are warm and the sugar is still semi-liquid, they are like crack. Once they warm up, I find them fairly inedible) I have to point out that the Krispy Kreme is, in fact, about 15 years older than the Dunkin Donut. :(
I'm not suggesting some opinions are more valid than others--what I am saying is that if you don't care enough about the site to actually log into it, then you're not actually a member of this community, pseudonymous or otherwise.
Really, I don't care if you're a 3-digit uid, or a 8-digit uid, but have a damned uid before you act all wounded about how this site has gone down hill.
To quote my own post: why should your opinions count if you don't even bother putting a pseudonym behind them?
Trolls gotta troll, I guess.
So here are two ACs lamenting what a shithole this site is. As I asked the guy above, why should your opinions count if you don't even bother putting a pseudonym behind them? Like it or not, "politics" has a rather large intersection between "the people who read slashdot have an interest in this topic" and "stuff that matters." As someone else (who did bother to log in) pointed out above: if you don't like these stories, don't read them. There's even a handy mechanism for helping you do this... if you bother to log in.
in the noble land of theory; hasn't it always been the case that military agents are supposed to refuse to carry out unlawful orders
Only since 1946, and then only if you're on the losing side of a war. People on the winning side that disobey orders (lawful or unlawful) get to see first hand what the inside of a military prison looks like.
So, question: you didn't even bother to log in to post the above. Exactly why should anyone here care what your story preferences are?
You realize that everything starts somewhere, yes? The US is turning into a police state. The outrages suffered thus far are relatively small scale and sporadic, but the tools are all being put into place. If you cannot imagine the FBI as tomorrow's SA or STASI then you simply lack imagination.
Subpoenas count as "required by law."
FWIW, the date on TFA is yesterday.
I knew a guy with colon cancer who ended up in a comma.
LOL, yup, that's freedom ... adhere to this long list of restrictions, or don't use it.
Whereas, something like a BSD or Apache license places very few limitations on your 'freedom".
GPL means you are "free" to be enslaved by a certain ideological view of "free", by telling you the ways in which you're not really free.
It has its place, but it's by no means perfect, and it certainly has a restricted definition of "free".
Every time I see this philosophical argument, I shake my head, because the proponents of both licenses tend to completely ignore the viewpoint of the other and get bogged down in the definition of "freedom." BSD is free in the sense of anarchy. Here's our code, do with it what you will. "Fork it? Clone it and close it? Go for it, man, be free." There is a lot of good in this, and some bad. GPL is free in the sense of the picnic pavilion down at the local park. "We have some good rules in place here to make sure that everyone can freely enjoy this today, and in the future." There is a lot of good in this, and some bad.
I tend to come down on the GPL (v2, that is--v3 is a mess) side for "community projects" and the BSD side for pure utility projects. If you have a shared vision for something you really want to build than GPL's "you have to give back" philosophy is wonderful. You need look no further than the current state of Linux to see why. On the other hand, if you really just need a standard for everyone to adhere to so we can all go and get some other work done then BSD type licenses are almost always superior, because there is no problem incorporating them into closed source projects (which is great, because you want all those products to interop in some way).
tl;dr: both are good for some things, and bad for other things. Quit your bitching and pick the right one for your project, and pick the right project for your need.
Manhattan Island is not Long Island, and Long Island is not densely populated (well, it is in some areas, but for the most part it has lots of empty space). Manhattan Island is surrounded on three sides at relatively close proximity by other densely populated areas (Queens and Brooklyn (which ARE on Long Island), the Bronx, and the part of New Jersey west of the Hudson) so the idea that "half the pollution" magically leaves the area without being inhaled by anyone is nonsensical.
You could try looking at a map next time, it might help.
You don't have to shut down a damn thing. It's called "off peak" and you have the work crews doing maintenance on one track of a given line at a time, every night until the work is complete. While work is going on, you run both directions down the single available track. When rush hour comes, work stops and you use both tracks again. It's not rocket science.
I understand the problem. You were replying to someone who replied to me. Their post was below my threshold, and yours looked like a direct response to my post. Sorry for the confusion.
You may want to clarify your response a bit, because it doesn't make any sense in the context of what you're replying to. I agree with you that if the government were censoring this, it would be a first amendment violation (i.e. "protected speech") but we're talking about a private venue which has every right to prevent whatever they want from being screened there.
I mean is it really so hard top understand that it's government who is supposed to be forbidden from censorship. It's not a difficult concept, but people fail to comprehend it all the time.
The thing people fail to comprehend all the time is the idea that only the government is prevented from allowing you to exercise your right of free speech. In this instance, the event is censoring this film, because of public backlash against the idea. They're perfectly free to censor the film, of course, and I fully support their right to do so, but just because it's a private venue doesn't magically make it "not censorship."
You're confusing "censorship" with "first amendment violation." This is not the latter, but it most certainly is the former. A private party is not required to allow the airing of an idea--I think we can all agree that there is no problem with that. But the case we're talking about is specifically banning a movie based on the fact that many people find the point it makes to be objectionable. This is the very definition of censorship.
You realize that your generalization above is of great insult to goat-fucking shit eaters, who consider "shit eating goat fucker" to be an epithet with massive historical significance, don't you?
Most men do not object to being called "guys" or "boys." MANY women object to being called "girls." Some object to "ladies." A very small minority of women object to being called "women" and insist on "womyn." "Females" does tend to short circuit any possible claims of "you're a misogynist bastard," but this thread proves that it doesn't prevent 100% of them.
YMMV.
We must never forget St. Mary's and Three Waters! All good citizens should remember the Articles of Allegiance, and that Chancellor Sutler only wants to keep us safe from degenerates.
Not really - saying that a corporation may not make political donations is not the same as saying the CEO, employees, board members, stockholders, etc., may not make political donations. I have stock in 3M, so I'll use that as an example. It's none of my business whether the CEO of 3M wants to contribute to a political campaign, and it's none of his business whether I do. We both have that freedom. However, there is money in 3M's bank accounts, and a really teeny slice of that is mine in a sense, and Citizen's United means the CEO can use that money on political campaigning, whether I like it or not. I happen to think that that's a really bad thing overall.,
You're conflating "free speech" and "corporate governance." If you, as a shareholder of 3M do not want your CEO using corporate funds to lobby politicians, then why are you allowing him to? You don't need a LAW to control that, you need to change your corporate charter. If, on the other hand, a majority of shareholders DO want the CEO to do that, well, that's their view of how your shared investment should operate. If you can't change their minds, maybe you should invest in a different company? "This is too hard for me to bother with, so the government should outlaw it" is not a defensible position.
A corporation is a specific legal construct, not a human. It needs certain rights in order to function (like the right to sign contracts, and the right to own things), but doesn't need others.
I know that this opens up a can of worms, but I think it's a can of worms worth looking at. The New York Times is in the business of publishing, and we'd all be in trouble if it didn't have the freedom of the press. I contribute to some political organizations with the specific intent that they use the money I send them for political campaigning, among other things, and I'd like to see that continue to be possible.
With the first part, I agree completely. Corporations are certainly NOT people. As far as rights go, that's a harder argument to make, and your second paragraph illustrates why: The NYT, WaPo, CNN, FoxNews, etc, need to publish. The Republican Party, The Democratic Party, The Tea Party, MoveOn, etc need to campaign. General Electric, 3M, Pfizer, etc, need to own capital equipment and pay taxes and enter into contracts. But you don't want 3M to campaign or publish, you don't want FoxNews to campaign, and you don't want the Tea Party to sell consumer goods.
You're very right that this is a giant can of worms, and you're even right that this can of worms is worth looking at, but at some point, you are going to end up giving the government (i.e. that group that the constitution places limits on) the power to decide who gets to exercise which constitutionally protected rights, and when. That's a VERY dangerous road to be going down. Who makes these rules that control who gets to do what, when? How do we keep THOSE people from being corrupt? Recent history shows that we can't keep tax bureaucrats from messing with various organizations whose politics they may disagree with. Is it desirable that we open up even more organizations and more speech to these kinds of obstructions?
"Sorry, NYT, but that story you wrote last November is too much like political campaigning to us, you'll need to be fined/shutdown/etc." "Sorry, Pfizer, but you can't ask the county government to rezone that property from agricultural to commercial to build your new office complex." That's where i see this eventually leading.
I'm not jumping into the middle of this fight (I'm not educated enough on the subject) but I will say that there is nothing inherently wrong with an executive order. Many laws that congress writes delegate various powers to the executive--this is why we have a Code of Federal Regulations to go along with US code (USC enables the executive branch to do something, and the CFR is the details of that something... at least in theory). An executive order is a reasonable way for the President (the head of the executive branch) to direct HOW the executive branch does something. The problem arises when executive orders purport to enable or forbid something the executive branch has no power to enable or forbid.
Simply counting how many executive orders a president issues is meaningless in a vacuum. One has to actually ANALYZE those orders to determine if "screw the laws and precedents" is accurate with regard to a particular president.
My PAFSI example above is a perfect example of "citizens having a voice." Your solution would silence that voice. Those full page ads along the lines of "xxx scientists all agree that global warming is a massive threat?" Gone. Move On's 2007 ad, "General Betray Us?" Gone. In the end, that's all "corporate speech" because a corporation is, in the end, footing the bill.
A "corporation" is a group of people. You are threatening the civil liberties of those people with your position. If you're ok with that, let's just agree to disagree.