Can we also get rid of the fucking obnoxious TLDs? I learned that.today is a valid TLD. It's bullshit. There's so many TLDs that ICANN should just throw in the towel and say "Okay people, register whatever the hell you want." Either that or go back to a small set of TLDs that actually mean something as God intended.
I really would like the media to stop referring to people who DDoS as "hackers". All they're doing is sending a pile of requests to a service and overloading it. I'm not impressed, neither is anyone else here.
I sure would. I would love to only pay 20% on my income tax, especially if it meant I didn't have to spend money on software to do my taxes for me every year because the tax code keeps changing.
Hey now. As a bear, I am horribly offended that you would want to put either one of those fools near any of my kin. Stick them in the lion cage. Cats are a lot less fussy about these things and they have a proclivity for torturing their prey before killing it.
we're all still convinced the news media is capable of objectively reporting wars and foreign politics.
I disagree here.
I believe that a majority of people thing the major news media outlets are full of shills for one side or the other. I also believe that most of people in America, quite frankly, don't give a crap.
As long as they have food for the day, can download porn, and watch the latest celebrity scoop, they don't care.
A business is not a person, but a business is run by people. It is an extension of the workers themselves. I know you're trying to derail things by going into the "a business is not a person" argument (and I agree with you, a business is not a person - you cannot, for example, sentence a business to 20 years in prison), but it doesn't matter. Forcing a person to provide a service to someone they do not wish to serve is still forcing.
This brings me to another thing people don't quite seem to understand.
By saying, "I think those people are wrong, they're intolerant, they should be forced to act against their conscious," you are yourself being intolerant.
Diversity of thought really does mean diversity - not just the diversity you happen to agree with.
This is the big downward spiral of freedom you get from the so-called liberals. They want to promote fairness and diversity, but in the process, they unfairly prevent people from being diverse. It's hypocritical. It doesn't make sense.
But, ultimately, this is not about Right or Left, secular or religious, gay or straight. It's about remaining faithful to the the vital principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech which underpin our democracy.
I may be misinterpreting your post, but it seems to me that you're misconstruing something.
Believing in the right to be an asshole does not mean that one agrees with the asshole. I feel that the famous Cake Incident shouldn't have been an incident at all. To me, the company has the right to refuse service. I disagree with what they're doing, but support their right to do it (and go out of business).
Same with flag burning. I think it is disrespectful, but people should be allowed to do it. Want to make blog posts supporting ISIL? Go for it. You're a dick, but you're free to do it.
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Association, etc., none of these include the freedom from being offended.
It works both ways, you know: If a business is being a dick, then the customer who has been denied, and everyone else, has the right to say, "Wow, that business is full of assholes, don't go there."
You might see this as being rather idealistic, and you very well may be correct, but I would rather try the ideal route and allow the highest freedom for the individual as possible, then see what happens.
Remember, this is just a state law. It can be repealed. It isn't set in stone, it isn't the end of the world. We should always be willing to try something new, or something older in a new context. Maybe it will work out well and maybe it won't, but the people of that state should have the right to make that decision. If it backfires, well, too bad.
I hope some of this made sense. I'm replying to you because you seem less ANGRY than a lot of the other people here today and there might be some good discussion. We don't have to agree on everything, and we don't, but that's okay, but being able to find some common ground would be nice.
Exactly. And the community has a right to not go to a business run by a bigoted twit.
Want to refuse to serve minorities? Go for it. As a minority, I will take my business elsewhere, and so will a lot of other people. Enjoy going out of business.
That may be true, but that right has already been stolen from you. Want to run a business? You need a license. You need to conform to a litany of regulations. You have to pay employees at a certain rate. Etc., etc.
It is a sad state of affairs when 12 year olds running lemonade stands are being shut down over this crap, much less a legitimate business run by an adult.
I think this is a good example of the problem of bad communication and expectation.
When we are told that something is designed to be biodegradable, we expect it to be gone in a few years at most. But where do we get that expectation from? As a consumer, I've never actually heard a manufacturer say, "My plastic will biodegrade in six months," but somehow even I expected some kind of degradation after a few years.
So maybe we need some better communication from the people who make the plastics, so that we, the public, can be more aware of what to expect.
Or maybe we can stop using plastic for everything.
Honestly, I see this as a wise move. There's an incredible risk of providing a game that won't meet the extremely high expectations; and who knows what kind of staffing and office politics might affect development and direction. Also if there isn't that divine spark of creation, that burning vision to create, then the result will be, at best, lackluster. Halflife and Halflife 2 were obviously projects of passion.
Without passion in your work, you're just doing the daily grind. That doesn't lead to an inspiring product. It leads to what 90% of game companies churn out every day. The same old crap.
I'd love a HL3, sure, but only if it is fantastic.
Aren't regulations great? When they're no longer convenient they can just *Poof!* make them disappear. When it is convenient to have a new regulation, *Poof!* it appears just as easily.
We need less regulatory fiat in our government. This is the kind of stuff that should be codified into law.
Clear, concise law at that. Not 2,000+ pages of crap nobody has read.
That, and the fact that a lot of popular music already sounds the same. Even the famous composers would borrow themes and techniques from earlier composers, from popular folk music around them, from liturgical pieces, etc., etc.
Music is not created in a vacuum. It is impossible for a modern musician not to be influenced by other music.
Now waiting for those "River Sounds With Birds Singing" CDs to be sued by some animal rights organization on behalf of the wildlife...
The same applies with Perl. And PHP. And Java. And Go. And Ruby. And Python. And Javascript.
I've also seen good C/C++, PHP, Java, Python, etc.
You can write crappy convoluted code that uses odd, unusual frameworks and features in every language. It isn't the fault of the language - it is the fault of the people (ab)using it.
Not only that, but think of the people on board a plane. Most flight attendants will go their entire career with nothing more dangerous than some turbulence. Sure, they're trained for emergencies in theory, but when something really bad happens in the middle of the ocean at 30,000+ feet, especially for the first time, even trained people will freak the fuck out.
And that's the trained people. Imagine the general public realizing something is wrong. They're not all going to sit there quietly with smiles on their faces.
I don't know what an "appropriate" punishment is for illegally downloading or distributing someone's content, but ten years sounds incredibly excessive unless you're running a vast, far-reaching network, distributing content to a million people and charging them for the convenience or something like that.
Some Average Joe sitting at home, downloading a bootlegged copy of the latest Hollywood movie... I don't know, a $50 fine maybe?
The thing is, the Internet has, and will continue to change, how media can be distributed and consumed. The old model of ticket and physical media sales just doesn't seem viable anymore. I think the media companies are going to need to find other ways to pick up revenue. Advertising in the movie itself, of course, is an option, but I think we're missing part of a bigger picture somewhere.
Someone, someday, is going to figure it out and make a bazillion dollars.
Well, hell, why not? Just remember that it's Climate Change now though, not Global Warming. Among other amazing things, Climate Change is responsible for:
ISIS: Yup, somehow, Climate Change was one of the reasons we have ISIS. Crime. Climate change is also responsible for more rape. Prostitution. Yeah, see, climate change may increase prostitution too.
I know, I know, this comment is a little snarky, but even the people here on Slashdot that are hardcore global warming types can see that there's a whacko fringe in their camp that is beyond ridiculous.
Why should only the EPA have to base policy only on publicly available, reproducible studies?
Any government agency that is making science-based, public policy decisions should only be using data that I am also allowed to access. I am sick of the government doing so much in secret, behind closed doors, where I am not allowed to see what is happening.
There have been some concerns raised elsewhere in the comments, and I don't think any of them cannot be addressed by some changes to the legislation. This could end up being a very good piece of legislation from the standpoint of government transparency and accountability.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we also get rid of the fucking obnoxious TLDs? I learned that .today is a valid TLD. It's bullshit. There's so many TLDs that ICANN should just throw in the towel and say "Okay people, register whatever the hell you want." Either that or go back to a small set of TLDs that actually mean something as God intended.
I really would like the media to stop referring to people who DDoS as "hackers". All they're doing is sending a pile of requests to a service and overloading it. I'm not impressed, neither is anyone else here.
I sure would. I would love to only pay 20% on my income tax, especially if it meant I didn't have to spend money on software to do my taxes for me every year because the tax code keeps changing.
Hey now. As a bear, I am horribly offended that you would want to put either one of those fools near any of my kin. Stick them in the lion cage. Cats are a lot less fussy about these things and they have a proclivity for torturing their prey before killing it.
Yeah, today is the day the Internet becomes worthless for information.
That, and not all plumbers, electricians, tutors, cleaners, painters, etc. are equal.
Some are experienced and produce amazing work. Others just started and have a lot to learn.
A standard rate of pay means that the guy who does the crap work gets paid the same as the guy who does the great work.
I disagree here.
I believe that a majority of people thing the major news media outlets are full of shills for one side or the other. I also believe that most of people in America, quite frankly, don't give a crap.
As long as they have food for the day, can download porn, and watch the latest celebrity scoop, they don't care.
Never underestimate the power of apathy.
A business is not a person, but a business is run by people. It is an extension of the workers themselves. I know you're trying to derail things by going into the "a business is not a person" argument (and I agree with you, a business is not a person - you cannot, for example, sentence a business to 20 years in prison), but it doesn't matter. Forcing a person to provide a service to someone they do not wish to serve is still forcing.
This brings me to another thing people don't quite seem to understand.
By saying, "I think those people are wrong, they're intolerant, they should be forced to act against their conscious," you are yourself being intolerant.
Diversity of thought really does mean diversity - not just the diversity you happen to agree with.
This is the big downward spiral of freedom you get from the so-called liberals. They want to promote fairness and diversity, but in the process, they unfairly prevent people from being diverse. It's hypocritical. It doesn't make sense.
But, ultimately, this is not about Right or Left, secular or religious, gay or straight. It's about remaining faithful to the the vital principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech which underpin our democracy.
We dilute them at our peril.
I may be misinterpreting your post, but it seems to me that you're misconstruing something.
Believing in the right to be an asshole does not mean that one agrees with the asshole. I feel that the famous Cake Incident shouldn't have been an incident at all. To me, the company has the right to refuse service. I disagree with what they're doing, but support their right to do it (and go out of business).
Same with flag burning. I think it is disrespectful, but people should be allowed to do it. Want to make blog posts supporting ISIL? Go for it. You're a dick, but you're free to do it.
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Association, etc., none of these include the freedom from being offended.
It works both ways, you know: If a business is being a dick, then the customer who has been denied, and everyone else, has the right to say, "Wow, that business is full of assholes, don't go there."
You might see this as being rather idealistic, and you very well may be correct, but I would rather try the ideal route and allow the highest freedom for the individual as possible, then see what happens.
Remember, this is just a state law. It can be repealed. It isn't set in stone, it isn't the end of the world. We should always be willing to try something new, or something older in a new context. Maybe it will work out well and maybe it won't, but the people of that state should have the right to make that decision. If it backfires, well, too bad.
I hope some of this made sense. I'm replying to you because you seem less ANGRY than a lot of the other people here today and there might be some good discussion. We don't have to agree on everything, and we don't, but that's okay, but being able to find some common ground would be nice.
Exactly. And the community has a right to not go to a business run by a bigoted twit.
Want to refuse to serve minorities? Go for it. As a minority, I will take my business elsewhere, and so will a lot of other people. Enjoy going out of business.
That may be true, but that right has already been stolen from you. Want to run a business? You need a license. You need to conform to a litany of regulations. You have to pay employees at a certain rate. Etc., etc.
It is a sad state of affairs when 12 year olds running lemonade stands are being shut down over this crap, much less a legitimate business run by an adult.
Does this bother you as much as it does me?
It is unfortunate that so many of our laws are so poorly written that one's political stance can have such an effect on the interpretation of the law.
"Well, this is what they wrote, but what did they really mean, and how can I twist it to meet my own personal political views?"
The devil is in the details.
I think this is a good example of the problem of bad communication and expectation.
When we are told that something is designed to be biodegradable, we expect it to be gone in a few years at most. But where do we get that expectation from? As a consumer, I've never actually heard a manufacturer say, "My plastic will biodegrade in six months," but somehow even I expected some kind of degradation after a few years.
So maybe we need some better communication from the people who make the plastics, so that we, the public, can be more aware of what to expect.
Or maybe we can stop using plastic for everything.
Honestly, I see this as a wise move. There's an incredible risk of providing a game that won't meet the extremely high expectations; and who knows what kind of staffing and office politics might affect development and direction. Also if there isn't that divine spark of creation, that burning vision to create, then the result will be, at best, lackluster. Halflife and Halflife 2 were obviously projects of passion.
Without passion in your work, you're just doing the daily grind. That doesn't lead to an inspiring product. It leads to what 90% of game companies churn out every day. The same old crap.
I'd love a HL3, sure, but only if it is fantastic.
Aren't regulations great? When they're no longer convenient they can just *Poof!* make them disappear. When it is convenient to have a new regulation, *Poof!* it appears just as easily.
We need less regulatory fiat in our government. This is the kind of stuff that should be codified into law.
Clear, concise law at that. Not 2,000+ pages of crap nobody has read.
Fool you once, shame on him.
Fool you twice, shame on you.
That, and the fact that a lot of popular music already sounds the same. Even the famous composers would borrow themes and techniques from earlier composers, from popular folk music around them, from liturgical pieces, etc., etc.
Music is not created in a vacuum. It is impossible for a modern musician not to be influenced by other music.
Now waiting for those "River Sounds With Birds Singing" CDs to be sued by some animal rights organization on behalf of the wildlife...
Of those 28.6 million watches without "smart" capabilities, exactly zero of them had a battery life of 18 hours or less.
The same applies with Perl. And PHP. And Java. And Go. And Ruby. And Python. And Javascript.
I've also seen good C/C++, PHP, Java, Python, etc.
You can write crappy convoluted code that uses odd, unusual frameworks and features in every language. It isn't the fault of the language - it is the fault of the people (ab)using it.
Not only that, but think of the people on board a plane. Most flight attendants will go their entire career with nothing more dangerous than some turbulence. Sure, they're trained for emergencies in theory, but when something really bad happens in the middle of the ocean at 30,000+ feet, especially for the first time, even trained people will freak the fuck out.
And that's the trained people. Imagine the general public realizing something is wrong. They're not all going to sit there quietly with smiles on their faces.
I don't know what an "appropriate" punishment is for illegally downloading or distributing someone's content, but ten years sounds incredibly excessive unless you're running a vast, far-reaching network, distributing content to a million people and charging them for the convenience or something like that.
Some Average Joe sitting at home, downloading a bootlegged copy of the latest Hollywood movie... I don't know, a $50 fine maybe?
The thing is, the Internet has, and will continue to change, how media can be distributed and consumed. The old model of ticket and physical media sales just doesn't seem viable anymore. I think the media companies are going to need to find other ways to pick up revenue. Advertising in the movie itself, of course, is an option, but I think we're missing part of a bigger picture somewhere.
Someone, someday, is going to figure it out and make a bazillion dollars.
Well, hell, why not? Just remember that it's Climate Change now though, not Global Warming. Among other amazing things, Climate Change is responsible for:
ISIS: Yup, somehow, Climate Change was one of the reasons we have ISIS.
Crime. Climate change is also responsible for more rape.
Prostitution. Yeah, see, climate change may increase prostitution too.
I know, I know, this comment is a little snarky, but even the people here on Slashdot that are hardcore global warming types can see that there's a whacko fringe in their camp that is beyond ridiculous.
What things do you need to do that you can't do with, for example, Chrome?
Why should only the EPA have to base policy only on publicly available, reproducible studies?
Any government agency that is making science-based, public policy decisions should only be using data that I am also allowed to access. I am sick of the government doing so much in secret, behind closed doors, where I am not allowed to see what is happening.
There have been some concerns raised elsewhere in the comments, and I don't think any of them cannot be addressed by some changes to the legislation. This could end up being a very good piece of legislation from the standpoint of government transparency and accountability.