I don't understand it either, but people seem to be voluntarily sucking up to Über, probably blinded by the thought that anything big must be good. They are just a taxi service, dammit. Oh yeah, they have an app. That must be it.
They are anti-government. On slashdot, this is better than a free blow job a day for life.
The less generous interpretation is that slashdot is run by the same sort of clowns who praise Uber in the comments and genuinely think they are cool, disruptive, world-transforming geniuses.
There aren't any taxi token requirements or anything unreasonable. Can't wait to see what the usual Uber shills have to say about why they can't abide by a couple basic rules.
I've no doubt a few libertarians will chime in how it's intolerable government interference to require car insurance.
Americans. He was a troll, but in this case, also not wrong.
Any troll worth its salt should be, if not technically correct, not obviously wrong. How can a troll provoke discussion if it can be disregarded as an idiot from the start.
People in Brazil are Americans, people in Hawaii aren't. The lifestyle in NYC is by no means representative of the average Americans lifestyle, even if it might be representative of the US.
In the rest of the world, we generally call citizens of the USA "Americans". Someone in Brazil would be a "South American". Someone in Hawaii would be an "American".
Fails to display in my browser. I suppose it is only for those/. readers who use windows.
Don't worry, you didn't miss anything. It is just a flashier version of a chart based on "number of times an MP voted against the whip", showing (astonishingly) that some people have done so more than others.
In spite of the slashdot-friendly headline, it doesn't have anything to do with rebels or alliances.
Author here - like I said in the article, I'm a Star Wars fan, so why not Rebel Alliances?
True, it's a stretch to call the clusters of MPs "alliances" given the data, rather they are interesting groups of MPs who have a tendency to rebel against the whip.
So apart from the fact that they are not in any sense in an alliance, the use of the word "alliance" is entirely justified?
If they get re-usability to work economically, this will enable mass launches of inexpensive satellites, which could change the entire communications industry
Call me a cynic, but the only word I see there is "if".
Keep in mind that she has been in government for most of her life now, electing her is exactly the problem, career politicians.
Yes, it's like all those career lawyers in the law or career doctors in medicine. What do they know about Real Life TM?
When I ask an architect to design my house, I don't worry about trivilaities like his qualifications and experience in architecture. No, I ask him "did you do a paper round when you were 6 years old, and start your first business selling knock off mobile phones at 10?" Because that's far, far more important.
The problem with Hilary and the Democrats is that they are war mongers and crony capitalists of the worst kind, arguably even worse than the militaristic wing of the Republican party
Oh come on, they're not even in the same league as George W Bush and his friends.
When MBA professors mentions *this* as the biggest problem in American corporate culture (can your sense of irony for a second), then this is not idle shit talking.
And when individual companies do this, like, oh, HP, they pay the price. So, it may be a widespread problem, but it is self-correcting.
If you're a free market evangelist, everything in business is self correcting. And when it doesn't self-correct?
That's the fault of government interference.
So until all government is abolished, you always have an excuse why capitalism isn't perfect.
Given my lifestyle, I fully expect that I'll carry my gun for 50 years and never once need it. I certainly haven't in the nearly 10 years since I started carrying it daily. Further, I sincerely hope that I'll never need it, just as I hope not to need my life insurance for a very long time. But in the event something really bad happens, I've done what I can to prepare.
Coming from the UK where no one apart from the police or gangsters regularly carries a gun, it just seems to me that the problem with everyone being armed is that, well, everyone is armed, including people who are exhausted, borderline mentally ill, angry, frustrated, petty criminals, weak, drunk, stupid and many other things.
If "something really bad happens", it's now going to be started, and finished, by what is a gun-carrying idiot instead of just a idiot.
if you have knowledge of an attack, you tell everyone who is going to do it
if you just tell of an attack coming, you're the one who is going to attack
this is just basic social skills here
On slashdot, the assumption is that no normal social rules apply on a computer, so basically you can do whatever you like with no comeback.
Then someone tweets a "joke" about blowing up an airport and no one can believe that it's perceived as the same thing as making an anonymous phone cool doing the same.
And making threats is not protected free speech, so it has no implications in that regard. Calling this a "perceived" threat is disingenuous on your part -- it's a real threat, plain and simple, whether or not he intended to act on it.
Don't forget that a lot of the more extreme right wingers, sorry libertarians, on slashdot have argued that you shouldn't have laws to prevent people (for example) hiring a hitman to murder someone, but should only be able to prosecute the hitman when he has actually killed his victim.
Not sure harassment by computer needs to be a thing. Pretty sure this kind of thing was already covered in the existing body of law regarding threats. That's what really annoys me about this.
I think the point is to reinforce that using a computer to commit a crime doesn't give you some sort of Get Out Of Jail Free card.
A lot of people here differentiate between yelling abuse at someone in the street and over the internet, when it's actually the same thing, and if it's a specific threat it can be illegal.
"this was a clearly-made threat" That's what law-enforcement says.
A plain-English reading makes it out to be a warning or a tip - not a threat.
E
The curse of geek literalness strikes again.
If you have information about someone seriously planning a shooting or bombing, you should fucking tell the police directly, not post a message on an obscure children's messaging service.
I noped the hell off of Yikyak the day they said I could no longer use their service if I didn't link my Google account. It's like they forgot the definition of the word "anonymous".
God, the evil bastards preventing you from making anonymous threats.
I bet you think that people who make hoax bomb threats are just exercising their right to free speech.
Would it have been too difficult to explain what "4.16" refers to? I've now googled it following some hints here and it turns out to refer to a mass shooting at Virginia Tech 8 years ago.
This means that using it as a threat if you're a Virginia Tech student is in a different league than referring to Pearl Harbour, which TFS mentioned for some reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand it either, but people seem to be voluntarily sucking up to Über, probably blinded by the thought that anything big must be good. They are just a taxi service, dammit. Oh yeah, they have an app. That must be it.
They are anti-government. On slashdot, this is better than a free blow job a day for life.
Was this posting bought and paid for by Uber?
I always assume that all Uber stories are,
The less generous interpretation is that slashdot is run by the same sort of clowns who praise Uber in the comments and genuinely think they are cool, disruptive, world-transforming geniuses.
There aren't any taxi token requirements or anything unreasonable. Can't wait to see what the usual Uber shills have to say about why they can't abide by a couple basic rules.
I've no doubt a few libertarians will chime in how it's intolerable government interference to require car insurance.
Americans. He was a troll, but in this case, also not wrong.
Any troll worth its salt should be, if not technically correct, not obviously wrong. How can a troll provoke discussion if it can be disregarded as an idiot from the start.
People in Brazil are Americans, people in Hawaii aren't. The lifestyle in NYC is by no means representative of the average Americans lifestyle, even if it might be representative of the US.
In the rest of the world, we generally call citizens of the USA "Americans". Someone in Brazil would be a "South American". Someone in Hawaii would be an "American".
I apologize in advance for posting a buzzfeed link:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/benros...
"At the risk of sounding racist, I..."
Apologising in advance for something stupid does not make it less stupid.
Fails to display in my browser. I suppose it is only for those /. readers who use windows.
Don't worry, you didn't miss anything. It is just a flashier version of a chart based on "number of times an MP voted against the whip", showing (astonishingly) that some people have done so more than others.
In spite of the slashdot-friendly headline, it doesn't have anything to do with rebels or alliances.
Author here - like I said in the article, I'm a Star Wars fan, so why not Rebel Alliances?
True, it's a stretch to call the clusters of MPs "alliances" given the data, rather they are interesting groups of MPs who have a tendency to rebel against the whip.
So apart from the fact that they are not in any sense in an alliance, the use of the word "alliance" is entirely justified?
Don't give up the day job, mate.
After reading your post, I'm not really sure what other use you have for an Internet, other than to connect to it.
(Also: 1994 called. They want their Luddite back.)
Yeah, regurgitating a stale meme rather than providing an answer really proves how vital the internet is. Good work.
totes congrats for using - with "socjus" - an even more annoying alternative to "SJW " you utter plank
If they get re-usability to work economically, this will enable mass launches of inexpensive satellites, which could change the entire communications industry
Call me a cynic, but the only word I see there is "if".
I suppose the noise from your helicopters drowned out the "whoosh" there.
Bingo! I'd forgotten that! That definitely qualifies as a scandal, since her communications are supposed to be public.
It makes me wonder why there is all the fuss here in the UK about the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq war.
If all the Bush administration's communications are public, surely we can just copy them without needing his or Tony Blair's say so?
Keep in mind that she has been in government for most of her life now, electing her is exactly the problem, career politicians.
Yes, it's like all those career lawyers in the law or career doctors in medicine. What do they know about Real Life TM?
When I ask an architect to design my house, I don't worry about trivilaities like his qualifications and experience in architecture. No, I ask him "did you do a paper round when you were 6 years old, and start your first business selling knock off mobile phones at 10?" Because that's far, far more important.
The problem with Hilary and the Democrats is that they are war mongers and crony capitalists of the worst kind, arguably even worse than the militaristic wing of the Republican party
Oh come on, they're not even in the same league as George W Bush and his friends.
And when individual companies do this, like, oh, HP, they pay the price. So, it may be a widespread problem, but it is self-correcting.
If you're a free market evangelist, everything in business is self correcting. And when it doesn't self-correct?
That's the fault of government interference.
So until all government is abolished, you always have an excuse why capitalism isn't perfect.
The fortunate part of suicide missions is that there is a very small percentage of repeat offenders.
"Hey guys, I volunteer for the next suicide mission! I've done ten already, you can see how good I am!"
Given my lifestyle, I fully expect that I'll carry my gun for 50 years and never once need it. I certainly haven't in the nearly 10 years since I started carrying it daily. Further, I sincerely hope that I'll never need it, just as I hope not to need my life insurance for a very long time. But in the event something really bad happens, I've done what I can to prepare.
Coming from the UK where no one apart from the police or gangsters regularly carries a gun, it just seems to me that the problem with everyone being armed is that, well, everyone is armed, including people who are exhausted, borderline mentally ill, angry, frustrated, petty criminals, weak, drunk, stupid and many other things.
If "something really bad happens", it's now going to be started, and finished, by what is a gun-carrying idiot instead of just a idiot.
if you have knowledge of an attack, you tell everyone who is going to do it
if you just tell of an attack coming, you're the one who is going to attack
this is just basic social skills here
On slashdot, the assumption is that no normal social rules apply on a computer, so basically you can do whatever you like with no comeback.
Then someone tweets a "joke" about blowing up an airport and no one can believe that it's perceived as the same thing as making an anonymous phone cool doing the same.
And making threats is not protected free speech, so it has no implications in that regard. Calling this a "perceived" threat is disingenuous on your part -- it's a real threat, plain and simple, whether or not he intended to act on it.
Don't forget that a lot of the more extreme right wingers, sorry libertarians, on slashdot have argued that you shouldn't have laws to prevent people (for example) hiring a hitman to murder someone, but should only be able to prosecute the hitman when he has actually killed his victim.
Not sure harassment by computer needs to be a thing. Pretty sure this kind of thing was already covered in the existing body of law regarding threats. That's what really annoys me about this.
I think the point is to reinforce that using a computer to commit a crime doesn't give you some sort of Get Out Of Jail Free card.
A lot of people here differentiate between yelling abuse at someone in the street and over the internet, when it's actually the same thing, and if it's a specific threat it can be illegal.
"this was a clearly-made threat" That's what law-enforcement says.
A plain-English reading makes it out to be a warning or a tip - not a threat.
E
The curse of geek literalness strikes again.
If you have information about someone seriously planning a shooting or bombing, you should fucking tell the police directly, not post a message on an obscure children's messaging service.
I noped the hell off of Yikyak the day they said I could no longer use their service if I didn't link my Google account. It's like they forgot the definition of the word "anonymous".
God, the evil bastards preventing you from making anonymous threats.
I bet you think that people who make hoax bomb threats are just exercising their right to free speech.
This means that using it as a threat if you're a Virginia Tech student is in a different league than referring to Pearl Harbour, which TFS mentioned for some reason.
I'm strangely OK with that.
Yeah, even a viciously repressive Police State has some advantages.
The proper quote is "you can't FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theatre".
Pay close attention to that extra word - it's important....
It is also so self evident that it doesn't need to be mentioned.