Lets the government have its way with you. Let business have its way with you. From now on, you have no rights. Thats the future... the present... but it most certainly is not America.
Why would anyone ever blow up a plane now? Why not go to your nearest train station or shopping mall and blow yourself up there?
There is plenty of targets out there, shall we give up all of our freedoms to feel better about false security?
Re:What's the deal with the rush of TSA stories re
on
TSA Pats Down 3-Year-Old
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ah the love it or leave it attitude.
Comply or die...
Since when is it constitutional to treat every traveler as if they are a criminal?
If it is so neccesary, why dont we extend that thinking to every other aspect of our culture by law. (We've already done it mentally).
In other words, we already treat people as guilty until proven innocent. Being searched at an airport is guilty until proven innocent by search.
In every way this is a violation of civil rights. How we justify it... well thats another thing. But this is a violation of civil rights and the ideals we hold dear.
I understand the balance between security and rights, its a tough one to sort out at times.... and everyone has a right to land safely at their destination... in theory.
You see because more planes crash due to mechanical failure than terrorism. Terrorism is such a tiny risk factor when flying. It's more likely you will crash due to a mechanical failure.
Our country was founded long before many of these marvelous inventions... cars for example. Do you have a right to drive? The founding fathers would probably say you do, if you so chose... and that the government should not be saying who can and can not drive. Did the government say who can and can not own horses? I actually do not know that answer... I'd be curious to know.
But you do make some good points... but at the same time you belittle the efforts of people trying to do something new. No one is going to get this right from the start. Its going to take time.
It has to be a display of military might. It's us showing off... to Iran, N. Korea, China... and anyone else who needs reminding of our capabilities during our shit fucked economical depression.
I think they'll be influenced one way or the other but i'm not sure its a positive influence by default.
I think right off the bat, people react negatively to ads because they stand in the way.
People hate ads. Thats why advertisers have tried to make ads silly, or entertaining rather than informative. Most people dont like ads because they are an inconvience, so by default people are negative towards ads. Its almost as if the advertisers have to not only impress their product on you, but at least get you off your default negative response to the existence of an ad.
It just seems to me that if you want your customer to like you more, you do not press your ad on them so hard. Look at the right guard ads online. Those things have become so entertaining that people seek them out. BUT they do not pop up on websites preventing you to enjoy your web experience. The ad itself is seeked out by people who really enjoy the fun of the ads... and yet its just about a deoderant...
Contrast that to advertisers who want to hassle you, shove it in your face, have you type something, click something, overlay the text on a page, obscure pages by annoying you with flash ads with sound and animations.
What is the goal? To be seen? Or should the goal be to be liked? Some advertisers think ads should just be seen at all cost, even if it means harassment. That upsets the viewer, who already hates ads anyways. So shouldnt the goal be to be liked by an audience... if not for your product, but for your brand. Maybe they dont like this new taco bell item, but they may like the advertisement, found it enjoyable. To be seen is one thing, but to be seen as someone who respects their audience is even better.
Actually, I would think that the people who block ads are the best customers, because they care about quality and details. They're not morons, they' know what they want, and if they dont, they will research it. They are generally the best, most informed shoppers because they are not interested in being told what they want, but instead are interested in buying what they want.
So they buy things with intent, often early adopters, tech geeks, people who are into the new....
People who block ads are going to be generally smarter people, and smarter people have money... and they spend it.
I'm still waiting for Apple to be taken to court by the governments of the world and the industry. Apple is doing the evil that Microsoft is often accused of.
Because If you force the stores to sell to only 18 or older, you're forcing the developers to make games that can be old to 18 years or younger.
For example: If you want your game to hit a wider audience, you would be forced to make it acceptable for that wider audience as per whatever the government deems is acceptable. Which is frankly unconstitutional.
There are many parents who have no problem with their child playing violent video games. How will their children buy these games? Mom and Dad will have to buy them personally? Mom and Dad are working 2 damn jobs.
This is the government trying to find a way to make money off the game industry.
The government has no concern for the children. If they did... Universal Single Payer Health Care would be a law! If they cared about your children, they would impose strict tariffs on imported goods. so that Americans are not competing with slave wages overseas.
This is just another "for the children" law, that is unconstitutional, and a way to increase government revenue.
No, but it has forced the MPAA to self censor every film for it to satisfy the ratings board.
Which is censorship... and even R rated films are censored.
So much that no one makes an NC-17 film... and X films are just flat out porn.
So there is a certain area of content missing in between R and XXX.
Yeah because underage kids have no direct access to infinite amounts of porn, violence, and naughty language...
Imagine if they had something like this... we could call it the internet!
This just dumb, lets face it.. EVERYONE HERE grew up with sex and violence. I remember seeing every damn Arnold Governator film, every stalone film, ever Freddy Krugar, Troma films, etc...
And I remember wanting to squeeze titties.
Its called growing up.
We transition from child to adult.... and in that transition, we must be exposed to things at our own pace. To everyone that is different, but it happens universally for all.
That is how we became adults.
I used to run around int he backyard with a very realisitic looking m16 toy gun, killing imaginary people... pretending to be GI Joe... I grew up into a pretty good person I feel.
My father before me, grew up with toy guns as well, playing cowboys and indians... My father is a great man.
So... what is this law?
Its another way for government to get its hands on the videogame industry's money. Thats all. Government is looking for every penny possible right now.
I work in videogames now btw....
Apple is the hot chick that gets pulled over for speeding. You know she's breaking the law, but you let her go without even a warning because you're hoping she'll blow you.
There is no mention of "like Android" anywhere in that second sentence and there is not implication that the two sentences are linked. They were two separate statements and I called you out on the second one.
I then said Apple will use openness as it suits them... you agreed.
My point is everyone uses something that suits them. I use open source when it suits me. I use closed source when it suits me. So what is your point?
I'm quoting what you wrote and what you quoted that I wrote. Re read it. You said "There is no mention of "like android" anywhere near that second sentence" Uh.. RIGHT ABOVE IT, I WROTE IT.
If you're going to pick apart my words... at least read them without disregarding the ones you dislike.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a fucking war coming.
Well said.
So lets take away everyones rights.
Lets the government have its way with you. Let business have its way with you. From now on, you have no rights. Thats the future... the present... but it most certainly is not America.
Shit like that will breed homegrown terrorism here in America... terrorism that many of us may actually AGREE with.
For fucks sake. We've gone to far.
We are not Vietnam, this is not Israel.
Why would anyone ever blow up a plane now? Why not go to your nearest train station or shopping mall and blow yourself up there?
There is plenty of targets out there, shall we give up all of our freedoms to feel better about false security?
Ah the love it or leave it attitude.
Comply or die...
Since when is it constitutional to treat every traveler as if they are a criminal?
If it is so neccesary, why dont we extend that thinking to every other aspect of our culture by law. (We've already done it mentally).
In other words, we already treat people as guilty until proven innocent. Being searched at an airport is guilty until proven innocent by search.
In every way this is a violation of civil rights. How we justify it... well thats another thing. But this is a violation of civil rights and the ideals we hold dear.
I understand the balance between security and rights, its a tough one to sort out at times.... and everyone has a right to land safely at their destination... in theory.
You see because more planes crash due to mechanical failure than terrorism. Terrorism is such a tiny risk factor when flying. It's more likely you will crash due to a mechanical failure.
Our country was founded long before many of these marvelous inventions... cars for example. Do you have a right to drive? The founding fathers would probably say you do, if you so chose... and that the government should not be saying who can and can not drive. Did the government say who can and can not own horses? I actually do not know that answer... I'd be curious to know.
I think you just hate "stupid rich green people".
But you do make some good points... but at the same time you belittle the efforts of people trying to do something new. No one is going to get this right from the start. Its going to take time.
Money always wins.
You're saying the left created politics?
Political Correctness has been around as long as politics itself.
It has to be a display of military might. It's us showing off... to Iran, N. Korea, China... and anyone else who needs reminding of our capabilities during our shit fucked economical depression.
Hahaha.. you do have a point.
Not a dime, but DC gets to watch their childhood hero face fuck the joker...
OH FUCK. I downloaded the gay one...
wrong torrent.
I havent seen this "film". I'll have to download it and check it out now. Thanks.
I wonder why its so popular? I never thought to myself, "gee, I'd really like to fuck that girl... AS BATMAN!"
I think they'll be influenced one way or the other but i'm not sure its a positive influence by default.
I think right off the bat, people react negatively to ads because they stand in the way.
People hate ads. Thats why advertisers have tried to make ads silly, or entertaining rather than informative. Most people dont like ads because they are an inconvience, so by default people are negative towards ads. Its almost as if the advertisers have to not only impress their product on you, but at least get you off your default negative response to the existence of an ad.
It just seems to me that if you want your customer to like you more, you do not press your ad on them so hard. Look at the right guard ads online. Those things have become so entertaining that people seek them out. BUT they do not pop up on websites preventing you to enjoy your web experience. The ad itself is seeked out by people who really enjoy the fun of the ads... and yet its just about a deoderant...
Contrast that to advertisers who want to hassle you, shove it in your face, have you type something, click something, overlay the text on a page, obscure pages by annoying you with flash ads with sound and animations.
What is the goal? To be seen? Or should the goal be to be liked? Some advertisers think ads should just be seen at all cost, even if it means harassment. That upsets the viewer, who already hates ads anyways. So shouldnt the goal be to be liked by an audience... if not for your product, but for your brand. Maybe they dont like this new taco bell item, but they may like the advertisement, found it enjoyable. To be seen is one thing, but to be seen as someone who respects their audience is even better.
I've never jerked off to a mcdonalds ad.... well once i did.. but I couldnt resist.
Actually, I would think that the people who block ads are the best customers, because they care about quality and details. They're not morons, they' know what they want, and if they dont, they will research it. They are generally the best, most informed shoppers because they are not interested in being told what they want, but instead are interested in buying what they want.
So they buy things with intent, often early adopters, tech geeks, people who are into the new....
People who block ads are going to be generally smarter people, and smarter people have money... and they spend it.
The people want freedom, and the government wants control of the people. Nothing new here. Its the same old struggle.
They fear what you may reveal about them and others.
I'm still waiting for Apple to be taken to court by the governments of the world and the industry. Apple is doing the evil that Microsoft is often accused of.
Apple sucks.
DUDE.. if you only knew how many raped carcasses I have fucked and buried in my backyard... holy shit.... ;)
It does impact developers (I am one)
Because If you force the stores to sell to only 18 or older, you're forcing the developers to make games that can be old to 18 years or younger.
For example: If you want your game to hit a wider audience, you would be forced to make it acceptable for that wider audience as per whatever the government deems is acceptable. Which is frankly unconstitutional.
There are many parents who have no problem with their child playing violent video games. How will their children buy these games? Mom and Dad will have to buy them personally? Mom and Dad are working 2 damn jobs.
This is the government trying to find a way to make money off the game industry.
The government has no concern for the children. If they did... Universal Single Payer Health Care would be a law! If they cared about your children, they would impose strict tariffs on imported goods. so that Americans are not competing with slave wages overseas.
This is just another "for the children" law, that is unconstitutional, and a way to increase government revenue.
No, but it has forced the MPAA to self censor every film for it to satisfy the ratings board. Which is censorship... and even R rated films are censored. So much that no one makes an NC-17 film... and X films are just flat out porn. So there is a certain area of content missing in between R and XXX.
Yeah because underage kids have no direct access to infinite amounts of porn, violence, and naughty language... Imagine if they had something like this... we could call it the internet! This just dumb, lets face it.. EVERYONE HERE grew up with sex and violence. I remember seeing every damn Arnold Governator film, every stalone film, ever Freddy Krugar, Troma films, etc... And I remember wanting to squeeze titties. Its called growing up. We transition from child to adult.... and in that transition, we must be exposed to things at our own pace. To everyone that is different, but it happens universally for all. That is how we became adults. I used to run around int he backyard with a very realisitic looking m16 toy gun, killing imaginary people... pretending to be GI Joe... I grew up into a pretty good person I feel. My father before me, grew up with toy guns as well, playing cowboys and indians... My father is a great man. So... what is this law? Its another way for government to get its hands on the videogame industry's money. Thats all. Government is looking for every penny possible right now. I work in videogames now btw....
Apple is the hot chick that gets pulled over for speeding. You know she's breaking the law, but you let her go without even a warning because you're hoping she'll blow you.
FIOS... 30/30 :)
Join us....
He's scared of Android.
He's scared of open platforms.
There is no mention of "like Android" anywhere in that second sentence and there is not implication that the two sentences are linked. They were two separate statements and I called you out on the second one.
I then said Apple will use openness as it suits them... you agreed.
My point is everyone uses something that suits them. I use open source when it suits me. I use closed source when it suits me. So what is your point?
I'm quoting what you wrote and what you quoted that I wrote. Re read it. You said "There is no mention of "like android" anywhere near that second sentence" Uh.. RIGHT ABOVE IT, I WROTE IT.
If you're going to pick apart my words... at least read them without disregarding the ones you dislike.