If you are in your car on a public road, you have to be aware of your surroundings. If you are writing texts and not paying attention to the road, you are a hazard. You not understanding this doesn't automatically make you correct.
You just admitted in engaging in unnecessary behaviour which endangers other road users, and expect to make some sort of point besides "I'm a selfish twat who thinks their texts are more important than the lives of other people". You are tragically hilarious. You are the irresponsible driver you are talking about.
You are 100% right! We should also get rid of all drunk driving rules, as some people think they can drive really well when hammered, and they've never had a crash yet. It's punishing everyone because some people can't handle their booze!
Enjoy the world you've created for yourself. The only people who can be blamed for the sad state of American public transport are the people. This is not some quirk of nature or physics, bad luck or juju, just terrible city/town planning. You've made your bed...
So you have no idea how any of this works, and you'd rather spend your time and effort telling everyone that rather than educating yourself. Thanks for clearing that up.
That's not what's happening. I hope you know that and are trying to make some sort of point, as opposed to you weighing in on this discussion without the scantest understanding of it.
You should work on your understanding of this issue. Texting while driving is dangerous like drinking while driving. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't be allowed to put other peoples' lives at risk. This is not too difficult to understand. Do you perchance happen to text while driving, and are getting all defensive?
I think you'll find quite a bit of the anger pointed at the KKK is not just because of what they say, but what they incite people to do, which includes a fair bit of racially-motivated violence. Pretending it's because they're making seasoned arguments or pointing out uncomfortable truths or something like that shows you either don't understand the KKK or are pretending to not understand it in order to make a point.
And you should probably understand that Anonymous isn't a group. It has no leadership. You can call yourself Anonymous and be just as "Anonymous"-y as these folks. Trying to generalise the motives and beliefs of a disparate group of people whose only common thread is they use the name of convenience "Anonymous" is destined to fail, and make you look rather silly in the process.
I guess the reason you have such problems with people online is your uncanny ability to make sweeping illogical generalisations without even noticing it. That will raise ire with anyone who cares to have a reasonable discussion, as it is the hallmark of someone arguing opinion rather than fact.
There is if the console needs more information than is available just from the users connecting, and if that information has to be private, plus the inherent security risks of connecting to random unknown devices which promise they're doing what they should...
Stop invoking this spectre of "OWS" "types" and ascribing whatever motives suit your argument to them. It's sad and obvious. Come up with real arguments and leave this childish shit behind.
'Webmaster'? Really? Is it 1996 again? You seem woefully out of touch with reality, ascribing all sorts of nefarious motives to people you've never met, without any evidence to support your rash judgements.
So you are fine with dehumanising people if it suits you, and ultimately allows you to kill people you deem worthy of killing, regardless of how dangerous they are. I'd give you a list of the actors who have used such "logic" to further their aims, but it won't be pleasant reading. It includes one name you might have heard recently: Anders Breivik.
The guy's in prison! He's only a threat to people who have chosen to accept the threat, and who are suitably trained to prevent it from happening. This is what civilisation looks like.
Yes, and apparently they don't find the same problems you do. Or maybe there is a good reason for them being the way they are, and you just haven't figured it out in the few seconds you've thought about it before condemning it?
Slashdot Mirror
If you are in your car on a public road, you have to be aware of your surroundings. If you are writing texts and not paying attention to the road, you are a hazard. You not understanding this doesn't automatically make you correct.
You just admitted in engaging in unnecessary behaviour which endangers other road users, and expect to make some sort of point besides "I'm a selfish twat who thinks their texts are more important than the lives of other people". You are tragically hilarious. You are the irresponsible driver you are talking about.
You are 100% right! We should also get rid of all drunk driving rules, as some people think they can drive really well when hammered, and they've never had a crash yet. It's punishing everyone because some people can't handle their booze!
Enjoy the world you've created for yourself. The only people who can be blamed for the sad state of American public transport are the people. This is not some quirk of nature or physics, bad luck or juju, just terrible city/town planning. You've made your bed...
Climate change is poised to make Europe not at all free of malaria. I hope you were attempting to make some sort of joke at your own expense...
So you have no idea how any of this works, and you'd rather spend your time and effort telling everyone that rather than educating yourself. Thanks for clearing that up.
That's not what's happening. I hope you know that and are trying to make some sort of point, as opposed to you weighing in on this discussion without the scantest understanding of it.
You should work on your understanding of this issue. Texting while driving is dangerous like drinking while driving. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't be allowed to put other peoples' lives at risk. This is not too difficult to understand. Do you perchance happen to text while driving, and are getting all defensive?
LGBT: "I want to be treated as a normal person"
KKK: "Black people should not be treated as normal people"
Sure - they're precisely comparable! Yay for you!
I think you'll find quite a bit of the anger pointed at the KKK is not just because of what they say, but what they incite people to do, which includes a fair bit of racially-motivated violence. Pretending it's because they're making seasoned arguments or pointing out uncomfortable truths or something like that shows you either don't understand the KKK or are pretending to not understand it in order to make a point.
And you should probably understand that Anonymous isn't a group. It has no leadership. You can call yourself Anonymous and be just as "Anonymous"-y as these folks. Trying to generalise the motives and beliefs of a disparate group of people whose only common thread is they use the name of convenience "Anonymous" is destined to fail, and make you look rather silly in the process.
I guess the reason you have such problems with people online is your uncanny ability to make sweeping illogical generalisations without even noticing it. That will raise ire with anyone who cares to have a reasonable discussion, as it is the hallmark of someone arguing opinion rather than fact.
There is if the console needs more information than is available just from the users connecting, and if that information has to be private, plus the inherent security risks of connecting to random unknown devices which promise they're doing what they should...
Then you misunderstood his involvement in funding & opening the internet for public use.
Public transport works wonders in other countries.
How wonderfully vague. I'm sure that sounded great in your head, however on the screen it is entirely devoid of any message or implication.
Stop invoking this spectre of "OWS" "types" and ascribing whatever motives suit your argument to them. It's sad and obvious. Come up with real arguments and leave this childish shit behind.
Why is everyone spelling "moat" wrong? Weird.
'Webmaster'? Really? Is it 1996 again? You seem woefully out of touch with reality, ascribing all sorts of nefarious motives to people you've never met, without any evidence to support your rash judgements.
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Thank you once again for a wonderful insight into what it must be like living in your head. Truly terrifying.
And one can argue it doesn't. So far the global consensus strongly disagrees with you.
bark! bark! bark! Subtle racist is subtle...
So you are fine with dehumanising people if it suits you, and ultimately allows you to kill people you deem worthy of killing, regardless of how dangerous they are. I'd give you a list of the actors who have used such "logic" to further their aims, but it won't be pleasant reading. It includes one name you might have heard recently: Anders Breivik.
The guy's in prison! He's only a threat to people who have chosen to accept the threat, and who are suitably trained to prevent it from happening. This is what civilisation looks like.
You are claiming that all Muslims are fundamentalists, which is clearly not true. I weep for your education.
Oh John, you sure screwed up that one. Your stunning geographical confusion casts doubt on your ability to accurately judge the situation.
Yes, and apparently they don't find the same problems you do. Or maybe there is a good reason for them being the way they are, and you just haven't figured it out in the few seconds you've thought about it before condemning it?