"Apple also claimed that jailbreaking would pave the way for hackers to alter the Exclusive Chip Identification number that identified the phone to the cell tower, which could enable calls to be made anonymously. Apple said “this would be desirable to drug dealers.”"Wired - Threat Level
Do I need to continue? Or is the reality distortion field still in effect?
Modded up by other ignorant Slashdotters. How sad.
Are you new to this debate, or have you just not listened to anyone that you disagree with? Perhaps you've already stopped reading this -- that would explain your profound misunderstanding. Please, bear with me for just a minute, and in the future you'll be able to enter this debate a little bit better armed."
You fucking elitist asshat fucktard, you completely missed my point! I am saying it is utter and complete bullshit for the judge to make it illegal to teach a widely held belief if the teachers and school board feel it should be part of the fucking curriculum. You see, school board members are elected, by the People, to do their bidding, if you don't like what they do, you have the fucking option to send your kid to private school (see that arguement works both ways.) This is all about freedom of speech, the constitution talks about that also.
As for everyone claiming that the lack of belief isn't belief, look at what happens when they assume that I don't buy into their belief (to those that have made comments about that, your assumptions are wrong by the way, I do believe in evolution.)
Your claim of having no faith IS a religious belief, if you don't like that too fucking bad, it fits the definition. Now, I'll go back to be the ignorant, toothless, inbred, hillbilly sister-fucker you apparently assume I am.
How many freaking religions can one person have at a time?
ONE! Your own!
Who the fuck would have thought I would have offended the largest gathering of INDIVIDUALS on the damned Internet by expressing my belief that not all of us fit into one fucking label! Sorry if you don't understand that I feel that each individual's personal beliefs toward the supernatural are their personal religious beliefs.
No, you are choosing to subscribe to a personal belief system - I really do not believe anyone has the ability to know beyond all doubt that they are correct in their belief system and therefore that anyone that believes differently than they do is "WRONG" - this is not the same as your "I have not been actively murdered" example, beliefs are not the same as issues that are absolutely black or white.
I'm sorry that your prejudice toward me makes you assume I am a "religious type" - saying/thinking/evangelizing that there is no God/Higher Power/One Eyed Unicorn Buffalo/etc - is a belief toward the supernatural which means it IS a religious belief. This has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs!
The only people who get pissed about this are those that are so prejudicial toward what they view as the "weak-minded religious" folk that they dare not even be grouped in with them by someone saying every person on the fucking ball of clay we share has a belief that the supernatural exists or doesn't.
Also, on that note - dingoes kidneys made me chuckle far more than it should have. Guess what something we all share is the ability to disagree, although according to my inbox, it's best to not dare suggest that anyone on slashdot could possibly be religious (it also is my first ever post flagging me as a troll - although I have no clue what was trollish about my post.)
Note that I DID NOT say what theory I subscribe to - and everyone is missing the point of the post - I feel it is unconstitutional to rule that speech can be limited to the point of making it illegal to discuss or teach a widely held belief to anyone.
Hell, if that kind of thinking was being supported 40 years ago, it could conceivably be against the law to teach that we are all human beings because some judge in Podunk, Alabama said it was unconstitutional to teach that blacks are just as human as whites, or even that it could be made unconstitutional to teach the theory of evolution.
Just because the coin is flipped to a side you agree more with does not make the ruling correct or supportable.
The issue is not what rational people discuss, but what is taught as science in a school.
RTFA - not what is taught as science in school, but what is legally allowed to be taught in school at all. By the way, this is censorship, most of us disagee with that - there are better ways to educate than censoring unpopular or popular ideas.
I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.
I never said that Evolution denies a creator, but I did respond to previous posters who did make such claims (that there is no creator, not that evolution states that.)
Thanks for making my point more clearly that I could - notice that I got modded a troll because people have trouble acknowledging that all belief could be defined as a religion by observers are more easily offended than they are willing to admit.
Thanks anomaly - notice I was very careful not to point out which way I lean, I just find it odd that "Freedom FROM Religion" types fail to recognize that lack of subscription to an organized religion is a religious choice as well.
Ok, so now they teach the "Fact of Evolution" not the "Theory of Evolution" hmmm.... you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too, just because you claim that you don't find science in ID, doesn't mean you are absolutely correct either, both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed, also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.
I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief. Prove beyond a doubt that Evolution is the way we got here and we can all call if fact - until you can do that, Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID. This explains how someone could think that the parent poster is trolling for arguements by coming off as refusing to believe that anything that goes against his "faith" is invalid and "the children" should be protected by law from hearing or discussing anything different from the parent poster's personal beliefs.
Jacob Dylan said it best - "Every man, woman, and child on the planet is a religious zealot. The only difference is what their religion is."
RTFA!!! THe eyeglasses headphone does not sit INSIDE your ear, but at adjustable distances from it specifically to avoid the loss of outside sound if need be. That is the one thing that I am finding most impressive about these items, and while I know that it will be an overpriced pair of glasses it doesn't seem that Oakley is charging all that much for the MP3 player.
Can't wait for someone else to develop this kind of flip up earphone for those of us that have never seen a pair of Oakley's that we liked the look of.
Well, speaking of convenience - if every one of the other kids who argued against you going in there said "We shouldn't go in - but they do have big bags of candy" then you would have to call them liars by your definition too. This is what pisses me off about people saying "GWB LIED TO SEND US TO WAR." But then say that the French and Russians, and people like Kerry "DIDN'T LIE" you can't have it both ways.
I wouldn't fault you on that if you didn't single out the one person you disagree with, but if you siad you felt that everyone who claimed they had them lied. That is where I am not being two-faced here, but many who call him a liar are.
GWB didn't lie about it - the definition of a lie requires that the teller know it is untrue. No one prior to the war ever presented a remotely credible argument that Sadam didn't have the weapons, even those that opposed the war stated that the evidence available showed he had them. I for one still believe he did. I was a munitions expert in the USAF, I was also an instructor for NBC (Nuclear, Biologic, and Chemical) Protection and can tell you that it would be possible to hide enough weapons to kill everyone in the middle east in an area roughly the size of a football field.
It's not hard to find proof of other items such as a wing of MIGs buried in the desert that took us months to find, and we knew where they were hidden - (meaning a Fighter Wing, not the wing of an aircraft) Also, what the people that scoff at the advice that duct tape and garbage bags can protect you from a biological or chemical attack fail to realize is that many components of chemical and biological weapons are completely benign before mixed, and even if found would not be considered a WMD - Bleach is a common example, if you found a warehouse full of bleach or chlorine you wouldn't call it a find of WMD, but with less than a days work that could be combined with other "normal" chemicals to produce dangerous chemical munitons.
You can't have it both ways - either Bush, and Kerry, and the French, the Russians, the Brits, the vast majority of the UN, all intentionally lied and said the Iraq had WMD, or you have to say they were all wrong - not demonize an individual as a liar because he said the same thing the people you agree with (who you do not call liars) said.
I can clarify from my standpoint, since I feel much the same as the parent poster on this - there are many things the libertarians stand for that I disagree with - I'll prepare to be modded down here...
I support the war in Iraq, I think it should have happened a lot sooner, preferably while Clinton was still in office. My friends, and my comrades were fired upon daily by Iraqi forces for almost 10 years with little but slaps on the wrist in response. Had we removed Sadam from power sooner, childhood friends of mine would not walk with a permenant limp from the Kobar towers bombing in 96, and their best friends would not have been buried in a flag draped coffin before they had a chance to live life and achieve their potential.
But, the Libertarian Party is strongly against the war in Iraq, and many in high positions there have said some very venomous things about those of us that feel the war was the right thing to do in Iraq. Many fall into the "anybody but Bush" group as well, and are vocal about that. With all that said, I feel that when I look at the LP, I have to admit their platform and beliefs are the one I agree MOST with, and will be casting my vote for them with the knowledge that I will not be waking up on November 3rd with Michael Badnarik as the President elect of the country I love enough to have laid my life on the line to defend.
Perhaps it comes down to the fact that I feel strongly that I should vote FOR something instead of against something - and I feel that is a more persuasive argument and goal than any other that has been placed before me.
Amazing how many asshats come out of the woodwork with these kinds of comments... Microsoft's IE has exploits that still exsist three months after public discovery. Mozilla's developers already fixed this yesterday. BIG FSKING DIFF!
Also, in Wired a short time ago, they tried to claim that Firefox had a vulnerability that had to be patched (which it did 0.9 - 0.9.1) but the vulnerability was with the Windows OS, and blocking access to a Windows OS function was what was required to fix it.
FF is still a better browser - no question about it.
Another example that is visited by few geeks (and fewer people with live brain cells) is www.wtfpeople.com - they've noticed the trend in Firefox growth enough that they changed their header graphic from "FUCK ALL BROWSERS EXCEPT INTERNET EXPLORER" to "FUCK ALL BROWSERS EXCEPT THOSE THAT WORK" - and they've never changed the code at all, just heard enough from visitors that they checked it out for themselves.
With the cases like the SCO v IBM, RIAA v 12 year old kids in public housing, ridiculous patents for obvious things, and the MPAA v DVD Owners - and knowing your background as a computer consultant, what is YOUR stand on "Intellectual Property" and the associated laws and copyright?
Do you feel that corporations are becoming too powerful because of laws placed on the books to protect the consumer and smaller developers from absuses by better funded corporations, and if so, what will you do when elected to correct these issues?
Further, what is your stand on requiring Gov't to cut costs by using open source/free software to replace overpriced retail software?
Apples and Oranges...
Since when is an election a game? And in the example you give, the fact that it is games won and lost prevents a bad showing at one game by the more successful team from destroying a chance to win the series.
I saw Episode 2 on Film, and the next day on DP, both at very high end theaters in Phoenix, AZ. I could tell a distict difference in the DP and Film versions - the DP looked much better and more vibrant. I paid to see the film in digital specifically to look for problems in DP since so many people mention the things you brought up - and saw none, but the film did look much better than any film I had ever seen in the theater and it was nice to not see the streaking and "cigarette burns" that always seem to draw my attention from the film.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Well, so far you haven't said a single thing I disagree with. But, I will say this - it is the populace's responsibility to take an active role in informing themselves, not relying on the candidates and media to do it for them, but that sort of this is "boring" or "stupid" according to many of the people in this country.
"One should not hold strong opinions on that which they do not understand." This would be good advice to lots of my fellow Americans, and it is my hope that one day soon they will take it to heart.
Slashdot Mirror
Blame the app maker, nothing stops you from posting your APKs everywhere.
Do I need to continue? Or is the reality distortion field still in effect?
Matthew 4:7 could also (and has been) translated as: "Do not tempt"
Modded up by other ignorant Slashdotters. How sad.
Are you new to this debate, or have you just not listened to anyone that you disagree with? Perhaps you've already stopped reading this -- that would explain your profound misunderstanding. Please, bear with me for just a minute, and in the future you'll be able to enter this debate a little bit better armed."
You fucking elitist asshat fucktard, you completely missed my point! I am saying it is utter and complete bullshit for the judge to make it illegal to teach a widely held belief if the teachers and school board feel it should be part of the fucking curriculum. You see, school board members are elected, by the People, to do their bidding, if you don't like what they do, you have the fucking option to send your kid to private school (see that arguement works both ways.) This is all about freedom of speech, the constitution talks about that also.
As for everyone claiming that the lack of belief isn't belief, look at what happens when they assume that I don't buy into their belief (to those that have made comments about that, your assumptions are wrong by the way, I do believe in evolution.)
Your claim of having no faith IS a religious belief, if you don't like that too fucking bad, it fits the definition. Now, I'll go back to be the ignorant, toothless, inbred, hillbilly sister-fucker you apparently assume I am.
How many freaking religions can one person have at a time?
ONE! Your own!
Who the fuck would have thought I would have offended the largest gathering of INDIVIDUALS on the damned Internet by expressing my belief that not all of us fit into one fucking label! Sorry if you don't understand that I feel that each individual's personal beliefs toward the supernatural are their personal religious beliefs.
No, it is just bad grammer.
No, you are choosing to subscribe to a personal belief system - I really do not believe anyone has the ability to know beyond all doubt that they are correct in their belief system and therefore that anyone that believes differently than they do is "WRONG" - this is not the same as your "I have not been actively murdered" example, beliefs are not the same as issues that are absolutely black or white.
Murdered/Not Murdered != believes/doesn't believe.
I'm sorry that your prejudice toward me makes you assume I am a "religious type" - saying/thinking/evangelizing that there is no God/Higher Power/One Eyed Unicorn Buffalo/etc - is a belief toward the supernatural which means it IS a religious belief. This has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs!
The only people who get pissed about this are those that are so prejudicial toward what they view as the "weak-minded religious" folk that they dare not even be grouped in with them by someone saying every person on the fucking ball of clay we share has a belief that the supernatural exists or doesn't.
Also, on that note - dingoes kidneys made me chuckle far more than it should have. Guess what something we all share is the ability to disagree, although according to my inbox, it's best to not dare suggest that anyone on slashdot could possibly be religious (it also is my first ever post flagging me as a troll - although I have no clue what was trollish about my post.)
Note that I DID NOT say what theory I subscribe to - and everyone is missing the point of the post - I feel it is unconstitutional to rule that speech can be limited to the point of making it illegal to discuss or teach a widely held belief to anyone.
Hell, if that kind of thinking was being supported 40 years ago, it could conceivably be against the law to teach that we are all human beings because some judge in Podunk, Alabama said it was unconstitutional to teach that blacks are just as human as whites, or even that it could be made unconstitutional to teach the theory of evolution.
Just because the coin is flipped to a side you agree more with does not make the ruling correct or supportable.
The issue is not what rational people discuss, but what is taught as science in a school.
RTFA - not what is taught as science in school, but what is legally allowed to be taught in school at all. By the way, this is censorship, most of us disagee with that - there are better ways to educate than censoring unpopular or popular ideas.
I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.
I never said that Evolution denies a creator, but I did respond to previous posters who did make such claims (that there is no creator, not that evolution states that.)
Thanks for making my point more clearly that I could - notice that I got modded a troll because people have trouble acknowledging that all belief could be defined as a religion by observers are more easily offended than they are willing to admit.
Thanks anomaly - notice I was very careful not to point out which way I lean, I just find it odd that "Freedom FROM Religion" types fail to recognize that lack of subscription to an organized religion is a religious choice as well.
Ok, so now they teach the " Fact of Evolution" not the " Theory of Evolution" hmmm.... you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too, just because you claim that you don't find science in ID, doesn't mean you are absolutely correct either, both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed, also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.
I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief. Prove beyond a doubt that Evolution is the way we got here and we can all call if fact - until you can do that, Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID. This explains how someone could think that the parent poster is trolling for arguements by coming off as refusing to believe that anything that goes against his "faith" is invalid and "the children" should be protected by law from hearing or discussing anything different from the parent poster's personal beliefs.
Jacob Dylan said it best - "Every man, woman, and child on the planet is a religious zealot. The only difference is what their religion is."
Speaking of copyright and whatnot - your sig should actually credit the late great Mitch Hedberg.
NO NO NO! MCSE - Must Consult Someone Experienced!
RTFA!!! THe eyeglasses headphone does not sit INSIDE your ear, but at adjustable distances from it specifically to avoid the loss of outside sound if need be. That is the one thing that I am finding most impressive about these items, and while I know that it will be an overpriced pair of glasses it doesn't seem that Oakley is charging all that much for the MP3 player.
Can't wait for someone else to develop this kind of flip up earphone for those of us that have never seen a pair of Oakley's that we liked the look of.
Sarcasm , consider looking it up sometime. I think you'll be impressed.
Well, speaking of convenience - if every one of the other kids who argued against you going in there said "We shouldn't go in - but they do have big bags of candy" then you would have to call them liars by your definition too. This is what pisses me off about people saying "GWB LIED TO SEND US TO WAR." But then say that the French and Russians, and people like Kerry "DIDN'T LIE" you can't have it both ways.
I wouldn't fault you on that if you didn't single out the one person you disagree with, but if you siad you felt that everyone who claimed they had them lied. That is where I am not being two-faced here, but many who call him a liar are.
GWB didn't lie about it - the definition of a lie requires that the teller know it is untrue. No one prior to the war ever presented a remotely credible argument that Sadam didn't have the weapons, even those that opposed the war stated that the evidence available showed he had them. I for one still believe he did. I was a munitions expert in the USAF, I was also an instructor for NBC (Nuclear, Biologic, and Chemical) Protection and can tell you that it would be possible to hide enough weapons to kill everyone in the middle east in an area roughly the size of a football field.
It's not hard to find proof of other items such as a wing of MIGs buried in the desert that took us months to find, and we knew where they were hidden - (meaning a Fighter Wing, not the wing of an aircraft) Also, what the people that scoff at the advice that duct tape and garbage bags can protect you from a biological or chemical attack fail to realize is that many components of chemical and biological weapons are completely benign before mixed, and even if found would not be considered a WMD - Bleach is a common example, if you found a warehouse full of bleach or chlorine you wouldn't call it a find of WMD, but with less than a days work that could be combined with other "normal" chemicals to produce dangerous chemical munitons.
You can't have it both ways - either Bush, and Kerry, and the French, the Russians, the Brits, the vast majority of the UN, all intentionally lied and said the Iraq had WMD, or you have to say they were all wrong - not demonize an individual as a liar because he said the same thing the people you agree with (who you do not call liars) said.
I can clarify from my standpoint, since I feel much the same as the parent poster on this - there are many things the libertarians stand for that I disagree with - I'll prepare to be modded down here...
I support the war in Iraq, I think it should have happened a lot sooner, preferably while Clinton was still in office. My friends, and my comrades were fired upon daily by Iraqi forces for almost 10 years with little but slaps on the wrist in response. Had we removed Sadam from power sooner, childhood friends of mine would not walk with a permenant limp from the Kobar towers bombing in 96, and their best friends would not have been buried in a flag draped coffin before they had a chance to live life and achieve their potential.
But, the Libertarian Party is strongly against the war in Iraq, and many in high positions there have said some very venomous things about those of us that feel the war was the right thing to do in Iraq. Many fall into the "anybody but Bush" group as well, and are vocal about that. With all that said, I feel that when I look at the LP, I have to admit their platform and beliefs are the one I agree MOST with, and will be casting my vote for them with the knowledge that I will not be waking up on November 3rd with Michael Badnarik as the President elect of the country I love enough to have laid my life on the line to defend.
Perhaps it comes down to the fact that I feel strongly that I should vote FOR something instead of against something - and I feel that is a more persuasive argument and goal than any other that has been placed before me.
Amazing how many asshats come out of the woodwork with these kinds of comments... Microsoft's IE has exploits that still exsist three months after public discovery. Mozilla's developers already fixed this yesterday. BIG FSKING DIFF!
Also, in Wired a short time ago, they tried to claim that Firefox had a vulnerability that had to be patched (which it did 0.9 - 0.9.1) but the vulnerability was with the Windows OS, and blocking access to a Windows OS function was what was required to fix it.
FF is still a better browser - no question about it.
Another example that is visited by few geeks (and fewer people with live brain cells) is www.wtfpeople.com - they've noticed the trend in Firefox growth enough that they changed their header graphic from "FUCK ALL BROWSERS EXCEPT INTERNET EXPLORER" to "FUCK ALL BROWSERS EXCEPT THOSE THAT WORK" - and they've never changed the code at all, just heard enough from visitors that they checked it out for themselves.
With the cases like the SCO v IBM, RIAA v 12 year old kids in public housing, ridiculous patents for obvious things, and the MPAA v DVD Owners - and knowing your background as a computer consultant, what is YOUR stand on "Intellectual Property" and the associated laws and copyright?
Do you feel that corporations are becoming too powerful because of laws placed on the books to protect the consumer and smaller developers from absuses by better funded corporations, and if so, what will you do when elected to correct these issues?
Further, what is your stand on requiring Gov't to cut costs by using open source/free software to replace overpriced retail software?
Title 17 of the US Code allows for legal copying - sorry to burst your bubble.
Apples and Oranges... Since when is an election a game? And in the example you give, the fact that it is games won and lost prevents a bad showing at one game by the more successful team from destroying a chance to win the series.
I saw Episode 2 on Film, and the next day on DP, both at very high end theaters in Phoenix, AZ. I could tell a distict difference in the DP and Film versions - the DP looked much better and more vibrant. I paid to see the film in digital specifically to look for problems in DP since so many people mention the things you brought up - and saw none, but the film did look much better than any film I had ever seen in the theater and it was nice to not see the streaking and "cigarette burns" that always seem to draw my attention from the film.
Well, so far you haven't said a single thing I disagree with. But, I will say this - it is the populace's responsibility to take an active role in informing themselves, not relying on the candidates and media to do it for them, but that sort of this is "boring" or "stupid" according to many of the people in this country.
"One should not hold strong opinions on that which they do not understand." This would be good advice to lots of my fellow Americans, and it is my hope that one day soon they will take it to heart.