Well, it's somewhat heartening that I had to go this far down the comments list before I saw a reflexive, "Hey, this list isn't perfect, but no matter how bad it is, no matter how many people are hurt by it, no matter who gets trampled on, no matter how much God-like power we must hand over to somebody who answer not one whit to us, it's worth taking the bad with the good because it's for the children."
Yeah, I work with a "quirky" developer who gets "god complex" accusations quite a bit. He's been banned from posting e-mails to the company e-mail list because he's suggested some "outrageous" things like "time tracking is moronic" and "we don't need to call a meeting every time somebody has a question". The fact is, although I personally disagree with him on a couple of technical things, the guy's not a prima donna at all - just a really smart guy who everybody else is mostly jealous of. And the really sad thing is I think they're either going to get him fired or he's going to quit in frustration and we're going to lose the guy - believe me, it'll be our loss, not his.
Re:I think you jumped the gun a little.
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 1
With you on the music... the choice of music almost spoiled the movie. That and the casting choice for Ozymandias... WTF was that? Everybody else was cast perfectly, but this guy's supposed to look like a freakin' super hero.
Other than the music & Ozymandias, though, I liked everything about it.
None of your ancestors came there and had to take any test.
How do you know? He might be an H1B, or the child of an H1B (etc.), for all you know. My wife stood in line for citizenship just like she was supposed to, and nothing pisses her off more than hearing about blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants...
They just took stuff, and then separated from their original countries.
Actually, I think that was probably pretty hard, what with the malaria, and the no roads, and log cabins in the winter... way harder than taking a citizenship test.
according to the most socially liberal and libertarian of moralities, you have a duty
A whole hell of a lot of people here have posted excellent opinions specifically to the contrary, but you state this as though it were a fundamental law of the universe.
You remind me of a religious person who says, "the bible says X is wrong, and the bible was written by the almighty hand of God himself!"... and truly, honestly, can't comprehend why somebody would continue trying to argue the point after he had made his case so clearly and convincingly.
One shred of good evidence. That's all I'm looking for. Anyone have some?
Of course not... if anybody did, they'd be in jail for having it (and it would be confiscated and destroyed). So, by definition, you can't prove there's a good reason for the law to be enforced the way it is. And conversely, that means you can't prove that there isn't. Funny how that works, isn't it?
But, if somebody's going to commit a crime that requires forging a MAC address, they'll break that law too. Fortunately, there's an obvious solution - make breaking the law illegal!
I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I sort
of agree with the sentiment as in - I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think
you're "stealing" anything if you block or ignore the ad any more than you're stealing
if you mute the commercials or get up to go to the bathroom when you're watching TV.
Since there's
absolutely no content whatsoever in the linked "article", I can't figure out for sure what
they're talking about, but I think they're referring to those floating "window within
a window" advertisements that show up entirely within a page's browser frame. If so,
I'm not even sure calling them "pop-ups" is fair, since the page author is still
respecting my "space". Pop-up windows
were legitimately evil, because those windows would pop up more windows when you tried
to close them and you would end up spending 10 minutes trying to shut the damned
things off. If some website wants to pop up a "window" inside its own window and run an
ad for a couple of seconds, I really don't see the problem; I sit through the things as
a courtesy to whoever provided the content. If I don't like the ad, I can close the
browser (or even just the tab), and it all goes away.
Well, take heart! The way things are going, the US is going to be a third-world nation in no time, and we'll be able to live for $1/day, too! Of course, by then, India and China will control pretty much everything in the new global economy, and there won't be opportunities for Americans to make more than about $0.50/day. Fortunately, I'm sure that India and China will throw open their doors to us, just like we did to them, when the tables are turned.
I remember a few years back hearing an amber alert issued for a 17-year-old girl... suspected to have been "abducted" by her 19-year-old boyfriend (yes, they actually stated it that way on the radio). After that, I stopped paying attention to amber alerts.
Yep. It was true when it was first spoken, because there were lots of different routes, and no centralization. Now there's one route, owned and controlled by a single monopolistic corporation, subject to the whims of the government. And pretty soon, it will be subject to the whims of the UN (which means subject to the whims of every government - and I have yet to encounter a government that believes in any freedom of any kind). This was our fear from the beginning - that regulation and monetization would turn the internet into cable TV on the computer. We're not quite there yet, but give it a couple more years, and a few more "think of the children"s.
Ah - unable to win the original argument, which was whether your statement "The first amendment protects specific types of speech" is accurate or not (it's not), you're now trying to change the subject and drum up a different argument, I see. Played like a true anti-free-speech fanatic - good to see that you're at least consistent.
And, if interpreted literally (which it never has been or will be), that would mean that the written word is never protected
Yes, that's true - the part of the first amendment that refers to speech, does in fact refer to speech. However, the other parts, such as "freedom of speech, or of the press", that refer to things that aren't speech, such as the written word, cover things that aren't speech, such as the written word.
The filter don't filter out just the "really weird stuff". They filter out the tame stuff, too. In fact, in many cases, they filter out the ridiculously tame stuff but leave the really weird stuff in there because the filter writers didn't think of the really weird stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's somewhat heartening that I had to go this far down the comments list before I saw a reflexive, "Hey, this list isn't perfect, but no matter how bad it is, no matter how many people are hurt by it, no matter who gets trampled on, no matter how much God-like power we must hand over to somebody who answer not one whit to us, it's worth taking the bad with the good because it's for the children."
I can give you one. Here you go.
Lucky you. For me it's usually:
Management: So is the project done?
Developer: No, just the UI mockup. There's still no backend or business logic, and they haven't given us any requir-
Management: So you mean there's a screen? And I can see it? So that means I can use it, right?
Developer: No, like I said, we still need to add the backend, the business logic, and get some require-
Management: So it's done then.
A polo shirt!? Get a button down, you damned hippie.
Yeah, I work with a "quirky" developer who gets "god complex" accusations quite a bit. He's been banned from posting e-mails to the company e-mail list because he's suggested some "outrageous" things like "time tracking is moronic" and "we don't need to call a meeting every time somebody has a question". The fact is, although I personally disagree with him on a couple of technical things, the guy's not a prima donna at all - just a really smart guy who everybody else is mostly jealous of. And the really sad thing is I think they're either going to get him fired or he's going to quit in frustration and we're going to lose the guy - believe me, it'll be our loss, not his.
How do you know you're not a jackass?
With you on the music... the choice of music almost spoiled the movie. That and the casting choice for Ozymandias... WTF was that? Everybody else was cast perfectly, but this guy's supposed to look like a freakin' super hero.
Other than the music & Ozymandias, though, I liked everything about it.
How do you know? He might be an H1B, or the child of an H1B (etc.), for all you know. My wife stood in line for citizenship just like she was supposed to, and nothing pisses her off more than hearing about blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants...
They just took stuff, and then separated from their original countries.
Actually, I think that was probably pretty hard, what with the malaria, and the no roads, and log cabins in the winter... way harder than taking a citizenship test.
Are you talking about Australia or America now?
A whole hell of a lot of people here have posted excellent opinions specifically to the contrary, but you state this as though it were a fundamental law of the universe.
You remind me of a religious person who says, "the bible says X is wrong, and the bible was written by the almighty hand of God himself!"... and truly, honestly, can't comprehend why somebody would continue trying to argue the point after he had made his case so clearly and convincingly.
Of course not... if anybody did, they'd be in jail for having it (and it would be confiscated and destroyed). So, by definition, you can't prove there's a good reason for the law to be enforced the way it is. And conversely, that means you can't prove that there isn't. Funny how that works, isn't it?
See, that's the thing about knee-jerk, reactionary, brain-stem thinking... I want people like *you* to die in a fire. How funny is that?
But, if somebody's going to commit a crime that requires forging a MAC address, they'll break that law too. Fortunately, there's an obvious solution - make breaking the law illegal!
I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I sort of agree with the sentiment as in - I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think you're "stealing" anything if you block or ignore the ad any more than you're stealing if you mute the commercials or get up to go to the bathroom when you're watching TV.
Since there's absolutely no content whatsoever in the linked "article", I can't figure out for sure what they're talking about, but I think they're referring to those floating "window within a window" advertisements that show up entirely within a page's browser frame. If so, I'm not even sure calling them "pop-ups" is fair, since the page author is still respecting my "space". Pop-up windows were legitimately evil, because those windows would pop up more windows when you tried to close them and you would end up spending 10 minutes trying to shut the damned things off. If some website wants to pop up a "window" inside its own window and run an ad for a couple of seconds, I really don't see the problem; I sit through the things as a courtesy to whoever provided the content. If I don't like the ad, I can close the browser (or even just the tab), and it all goes away.
So you're not only stealing our jobs, you're stealing our women, houses and cars, too. Dammit.
Well, take heart! The way things are going, the US is going to be a third-world nation in no time, and we'll be able to live for $1/day, too! Of course, by then, India and China will control pretty much everything in the new global economy, and there won't be opportunities for Americans to make more than about $0.50/day. Fortunately, I'm sure that India and China will throw open their doors to us, just like we did to them, when the tables are turned.
I remember a few years back hearing an amber alert issued for a 17-year-old girl... suspected to have been "abducted" by her 19-year-old boyfriend (yes, they actually stated it that way on the radio). After that, I stopped paying attention to amber alerts.
Oh, the irony...
In the kangaroos' defense, at least their smart enough to see how stupid this is.
I've got bad news about freedom of speech on the internet in the USA...
Free speech doesn't apply to the internet because you can't say "Fire" in a crowded theater!
Whoa... sorry, I was possessed by the spirit of the slashdot troll for a second there...
Yep. It was true when it was first spoken, because there were lots of different routes, and no centralization. Now there's one route, owned and controlled by a single monopolistic corporation, subject to the whims of the government. And pretty soon, it will be subject to the whims of the UN (which means subject to the whims of every government - and I have yet to encounter a government that believes in any freedom of any kind). This was our fear from the beginning - that regulation and monetization would turn the internet into cable TV on the computer. We're not quite there yet, but give it a couple more years, and a few more "think of the children"s.
Ah - unable to win the original argument, which was whether your statement "The first amendment protects specific types of speech" is accurate or not (it's not), you're now trying to change the subject and drum up a different argument, I see. Played like a true anti-free-speech fanatic - good to see that you're at least consistent.
Yes, that's true - the part of the first amendment that refers to speech, does in fact refer to speech. However, the other parts, such as "freedom of speech, or of the press", that refer to things that aren't speech, such as the written word, cover things that aren't speech, such as the written word.
The filter don't filter out just the "really weird stuff". They filter out the tame stuff, too. In fact, in many cases, they filter out the ridiculously tame stuff but leave the really weird stuff in there because the filter writers didn't think of the really weird stuff.