I love how my conservative friends complain about liberals.
So... your complaint is that people who are liberty-minded complain about people who call themselves liberals but who cheer on identity politics, the squelching of speech, the stripping away of everything from the right to privacy to the right to self defense... those are things that liberals now embrace. Liberals are now authoritarian nanny staters who actually hate liberty. Conservatives call them out on that and push back against it. And you hate them for it. If you don't like being complaining about your embrace of totalitarianism, then stop being a contemporary liberal. Because even as you lecture about how what liberals used to be, you're indirectly embracing what today's liberals stand for. Stop wagging your finger at people for no longer liking the people who've taken over a word and turned it inside out as they embrace the statist, freedom-crushing goals of the left.
If you limit anybody or any system to only a small, tunnel-vision view of only part of reality, that small pool of information IS reality. What would be news would an AI that forms a rose-colored-glasses sense of reality when only shown what's described. Or an AI that only perceives death and violence when shown unicorns and rainbows and (not mutilated) puppies. But when you limit a system's visual vocabulary to a small subset of consistently violent things, what else would one expect? The AI's got nothing else to draw on. GIGO.
I bet they don't even call the police if they get a brown customer.
But what do you want to bet they'd pitch a fit and try to throw out a group of several people wearing MAGA hats camping out in their four comfortable chairs all day without buying anything? We've seen other businesses eject people just for looking wrong (in the wrong hat or t-shirt) that way. Something tells me that a famously feminist book store wouldn't say they threw people out because they were all pasty white, but instead because they didn't like what they were doing. You know, sort of like that Starbucks manager who got tired of non-customers camping in her store, and then got more frustrated when they refused to leave private property when asked to. You know, trespassing. The sort of thing you eventually call the cops about, because you don't want to get sued for putting hands on anyone yourself as you try to free up your store's resources for actual customers.
Not so crazy when you see NRA and so many others on the right repeatedly fight tooth and nail to ensure those who are likely to shoot someone are still able to conveniently buy military-grade assault weapons without any background checks.
Please provide just one link to any single thing the NRA has ever published that supports what you just said. Which you can't, because you're just plain lying. So the real question is, why are you lying? You know that what you're saying is child's play to fact check, and that it doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. So, you know you're lying, and you know that everyone else will know you're lying. So, really, is it just because you're a lazy troll?
I understand the aim is to increase firearm sales since, if and when they become the next school shooter, NRA's members share prices will spike.
Ah, I see. You're pretending that you're actually incapable of reading and learning things, or are hoping that everyone else is. But here's the thing: even the people who pretend to believe what you're saying know that the NRA's members are millions and millions of individuals. The vast majority of the funds that the NRA raises come from member fees and member donations (not corporate sponsors). And essentially ALL of the money they spend in political lobbying (which is handled by a completely separate legal entity with its own publicly viewable money trail) comes from small donations by millions of individuals. All of which you know, and you know that everyone else does, too. Which makes it so strange that you think you're fooling somebody with your absurd assertion. So, stop lying - you're not kidding anyone.
Statistically, most domestic terrorists have a right-wing ideology (e.g. smaller government, racial hatred, non-christian intolerance) and carry out their murderers usually for political reasons not because they don't have a livable income. They apparently had enough money to buy easily available firearms without respectable background checks, afterall.
This is incoherent, has no basis in fact, and is you - once again - spouting nonsense about something you know to be false, or about which you're so embarrassingly misinformed that it's a wonder you can even string together a meaningful sentence on the topic. Oh, right! You haven't actually done so.
I can understand their logic as more reasonable than I can relative to NRA's complicit encouragement in arming these unstable individuals to become the next mass killer headliners
Again, simply lying about it doesn't make it true. Your failure to show a single example of what you're lying about pretty much wraps it up. Though it is worth pointing out that the people who REALLY love mass killings are the liberals. Because it makes a great lever they can use to send out sock puppets like those kids from Florida, armed with money from people like Soros, to lie just like you, all in the name of regaining the political power the left has squandered for years. Please, keep it up! The more transparent BS-spouting you do, the more it helps people to understand why they should vote in exactly the opposite way you're trying to con them into in the first place. So, more, please! Every time people like you do, organizations like the NRA get record amounts of new members and individual donations. You're helping their cause when you lie. Thanks!
Or we could do something crazy like tax the income of the people who create things. Oh, right, we already DO that. You just want to tax them again because you dislike people who won't be your entertainment slaves.
So, they're evil for specifically saying they won't be working on weapon designs? Or are you saying they're evil because they're cravenly virtue signaling on behalf of their non-critical-thinking lefty west coast employees, when the reality is that weapons are neither evil nor good in and of themselves?
Yes, it's luke-warm evil to perpetuate the irrational notion that a weapon is evil. So Google is a bit evil for doing more to erode public discourse by propping up that sort of silliness. The issue is, as always, who uses a weapon and why. A baseball bat isn't evil, though it can be used for such.
Wait until they hear shots? So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off trying to stop that armed person until AFTER the intruder shot you in the head? Are you even listening to yourself?
Bullshit. The cops were there because someone called 911 to report murders and an armed person threatening more. You really think that sets the stage for the same sort of response as "I think there's a raccoon on my roof" or "the neighbor kid stole my garden hose again" ?
it illustrates very well how irrelevant cultural differences are
Right. Because our culture now generally tolerates things like, say, being gay. Whereas other cultures cheer when gay people are thrown from rooftops. I'm sure, as you headed through the air to your death, you'd probably have some different thoughts about how irrelevant it is that a particular culture holds that you should die because of your sexual preferences.
Gotta love progressive moral relativism. More than happy to let other people die as long as they can use "not being judgey" as a crutch for their own hypocritical politics.
Hey! Look! Another liberal that's too dumb to understand that skin color and culture aren't the same thing. Poor, dumb liberals. Worst racists there are.
So, none of those definitions apply to this Estonian system. There must be some other type of "free" the author is thinking of. It's not generous - it's paid for by mandatory taxes. It's not unrestricted, and it wasn't obtained without payment.
Jesting aside, the 'pure cro-mags' are sub-Saharan Africans; the rest of us - particularly those from 'The North' - are the bastard half-breeds (~2% Neanderthal or Denisovian/Neanderthal).
I know. Mostly, it's entertaining to just make fun of the people who seem to have completely incoherent ideas about the heritage of both the populations they love to hate, and the populations they're trying so hard to pretend aren't any different but are but aren't but are but need taking care of but that would be condescending but not but I guess we should just all feel guilty.
This seems dangerous and offensive. There are no differences between any two brains. Everyone is the same and always was. Just because the Neanderthals get a bad narrative from the Patriarchy doesn't mean that everyone from Mediterranean Europe is inferior to those white privilege cro-mag ice people from the north. Even studying this should be illegal, because it may cause sensitive students to question the fact that every person is identical in every way.
You cannot multiply and get a lower result. You cannot have "the atmosphere of Mars, which is 100 times thinner than Earth's"
You can, if you're doing it in the context of saying that Earth's atmosphere is already thin. Like, "Jupiter's atmosphere is thick, and Earth's is only a hundredth as thick. Mars' atmosphere is a hundred times thinner than that."
That's the only way that annoying convention makes sense. Foo is Bar, and Alice is even more Bar. It's possible for Foo's Bar to be bigger than Alice's, but it's an awkward way to use that construction. It only makes sense if being "a hundred times thinner" is in relation to something else that you're assuming everybody in the conversation already knows is thin, in context.
When a group of people who run a project make a decision about what to publish in their own documents, it's called freedom of expression. The OPPOSITE of censorship. When someone else who, through some agreement or organizational structure, tells them they can't express themselves that way, that's also freedom of expression, if that's how things are set up. Or would you say that Stallman was censoring those other people's ideas about that communication? No? Exactly.
It's not about whether it's funny (it's not), or whether it's the right venue for a lame joke.
The issue here is that Stallman - as usual - still, after all this time, can't get his head around what censorship actually is. A group of people on a project removing a tone-deaf bit of nonsense from some documentation isn't censorship!. The government making them do so, that would be censorship. That Stallman can't wrap his head around the distinction is right in keeping with his many other absurdities.
Yeah sure because we're at the penultimate height of our technological development and won't be able to develop newer and better sensing and signal processing capabilities.
The reason no other civilizations are bothering with us is because we have people who still can't use the word "penultimate" correctly.
By which you mean, the GOP rounding up the people who actually spent money to get Russians to help them impact the election. Hillary and the DNC, right?
Enjoy having your identity stolen after yet another data breach.
You really think the EU law will actually prevent identity theft? Is that, say, the same way that France's strict gun control laws prevent murders there? That sort of thing?
Tell me, what of my personal data beyond billing and shipping data for my most recent order would a Mom and Pop shop need?
So, a smaller company shouldn't be able to retain any information about which of their modest advertising expenditures resulted in which sales, and which search engine terms produced the traffic that led to the specific transactions that allow them to actually stay in business? The company's got no interest in retaining information when a customer or prospective customer uses a contact form to ask a question, or a chat tool to provide some guidance on a product? A business could easily do a million dollars worth of sales as year and still have nowhere near the budget to build all of tools the EU insists that the web site provide to anyone who's visited the web site.
This is the usual right-wing talking point about 'onerous regulation' and it is bullshit.
No, this is another person who's clearly never actually run a business spouting off out of ignorance, and deciding to throw a little bit of the usual vitriolic, unhinged politics in just because they can't say or do anything without dishing out some of that poison no matter what they're talking about.
It is about massive corporations
If it were, it would only apply to them. But it doesn't, which you know. So stop lying.
This is about yet more leftist muscle-flexing from the land of we-still-haven't-figured-out-that-the-Nanny-State-crushes-people seeking to make every small business give up and turn all of their operations over to giant corporations that can be better micromanaged by EU bureaucrats who specialize in nest-feathering and empire building to preserve their non-productive careers.
there is always an idiot falling for their 'but think of the poor small businessmen' shtick
Yup, definitely someone who has exactly zero experience running a business. Even a mid-size one with dozens of employees. Please take your ignorance and spite into account and make you don't do anything dangerous to other people. Like, say, voting. You're not equipped for it by knowledge or disposition.
Slashdot Mirror
I love how my conservative friends complain about liberals.
So ... your complaint is that people who are liberty-minded complain about people who call themselves liberals but who cheer on identity politics, the squelching of speech, the stripping away of everything from the right to privacy to the right to self defense ... those are things that liberals now embrace. Liberals are now authoritarian nanny staters who actually hate liberty. Conservatives call them out on that and push back against it. And you hate them for it. If you don't like being complaining about your embrace of totalitarianism, then stop being a contemporary liberal. Because even as you lecture about how what liberals used to be, you're indirectly embracing what today's liberals stand for. Stop wagging your finger at people for no longer liking the people who've taken over a word and turned it inside out as they embrace the statist, freedom-crushing goals of the left.
If you limit anybody or any system to only a small, tunnel-vision view of only part of reality, that small pool of information IS reality. What would be news would an AI that forms a rose-colored-glasses sense of reality when only shown what's described. Or an AI that only perceives death and violence when shown unicorns and rainbows and (not mutilated) puppies. But when you limit a system's visual vocabulary to a small subset of consistently violent things, what else would one expect? The AI's got nothing else to draw on. GIGO.
I bet they don't even call the police if they get a brown customer.
But what do you want to bet they'd pitch a fit and try to throw out a group of several people wearing MAGA hats camping out in their four comfortable chairs all day without buying anything? We've seen other businesses eject people just for looking wrong (in the wrong hat or t-shirt) that way. Something tells me that a famously feminist book store wouldn't say they threw people out because they were all pasty white, but instead because they didn't like what they were doing. You know, sort of like that Starbucks manager who got tired of non-customers camping in her store, and then got more frustrated when they refused to leave private property when asked to. You know, trespassing. The sort of thing you eventually call the cops about, because you don't want to get sued for putting hands on anyone yourself as you try to free up your store's resources for actual customers.
Not so crazy when you see NRA and so many others on the right repeatedly fight tooth and nail to ensure those who are likely to shoot someone are still able to conveniently buy military-grade assault weapons without any background checks.
Please provide just one link to any single thing the NRA has ever published that supports what you just said. Which you can't, because you're just plain lying. So the real question is, why are you lying? You know that what you're saying is child's play to fact check, and that it doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. So, you know you're lying, and you know that everyone else will know you're lying. So, really, is it just because you're a lazy troll?
I understand the aim is to increase firearm sales since, if and when they become the next school shooter, NRA's members share prices will spike.
Ah, I see. You're pretending that you're actually incapable of reading and learning things, or are hoping that everyone else is. But here's the thing: even the people who pretend to believe what you're saying know that the NRA's members are millions and millions of individuals. The vast majority of the funds that the NRA raises come from member fees and member donations (not corporate sponsors). And essentially ALL of the money they spend in political lobbying (which is handled by a completely separate legal entity with its own publicly viewable money trail) comes from small donations by millions of individuals. All of which you know, and you know that everyone else does, too. Which makes it so strange that you think you're fooling somebody with your absurd assertion. So, stop lying - you're not kidding anyone.
Statistically, most domestic terrorists have a right-wing ideology (e.g. smaller government, racial hatred, non-christian intolerance) and carry out their murderers usually for political reasons not because they don't have a livable income. They apparently had enough money to buy easily available firearms without respectable background checks, afterall.
This is incoherent, has no basis in fact, and is you - once again - spouting nonsense about something you know to be false, or about which you're so embarrassingly misinformed that it's a wonder you can even string together a meaningful sentence on the topic. Oh, right! You haven't actually done so.
I can understand their logic as more reasonable than I can relative to NRA's complicit encouragement in arming these unstable individuals to become the next mass killer headliners
Again, simply lying about it doesn't make it true. Your failure to show a single example of what you're lying about pretty much wraps it up. Though it is worth pointing out that the people who REALLY love mass killings are the liberals. Because it makes a great lever they can use to send out sock puppets like those kids from Florida, armed with money from people like Soros, to lie just like you, all in the name of regaining the political power the left has squandered for years. Please, keep it up! The more transparent BS-spouting you do, the more it helps people to understand why they should vote in exactly the opposite way you're trying to con them into in the first place. So, more, please! Every time people like you do, organizations like the NRA get record amounts of new members and individual donations. You're helping their cause when you lie. Thanks!
Or we could do something crazy like tax the income of the people who create things. Oh, right, we already DO that. You just want to tax them again because you dislike people who won't be your entertainment slaves.
start building guillotines
Great idea. Because killing off the people who build things has always worked out so well everywhere else.
It's called time to seize the means of production
Go back to bed, Bernie.
Don't be evil is no longer a thing
So, they're evil for specifically saying they won't be working on weapon designs? Or are you saying they're evil because they're cravenly virtue signaling on behalf of their non-critical-thinking lefty west coast employees, when the reality is that weapons are neither evil nor good in and of themselves?
Yes, it's luke-warm evil to perpetuate the irrational notion that a weapon is evil. So Google is a bit evil for doing more to erode public discourse by propping up that sort of silliness. The issue is, as always, who uses a weapon and why. A baseball bat isn't evil, though it can be used for such.
Wait until they hear shots? So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off trying to stop that armed person until AFTER the intruder shot you in the head? Are you even listening to yourself?
Bullshit. The cops were there because someone called 911 to report murders and an armed person threatening more. You really think that sets the stage for the same sort of response as "I think there's a raccoon on my roof" or "the neighbor kid stole my garden hose again" ?
it illustrates very well how irrelevant cultural differences are
Right. Because our culture now generally tolerates things like, say, being gay. Whereas other cultures cheer when gay people are thrown from rooftops. I'm sure, as you headed through the air to your death, you'd probably have some different thoughts about how irrelevant it is that a particular culture holds that you should die because of your sexual preferences.
Gotta love progressive moral relativism. More than happy to let other people die as long as they can use "not being judgey" as a crutch for their own hypocritical politics.
Hey! Look! Another liberal that's too dumb to understand that skin color and culture aren't the same thing. Poor, dumb liberals. Worst racists there are.
So, none of those definitions apply to this Estonian system. There must be some other type of "free" the author is thinking of. It's not generous - it's paid for by mandatory taxes. It's not unrestricted, and it wasn't obtained without payment.
It's possible, I suppose, that you descend from a branch of early humans that lost the Getting Sarcasm gene in some sort of freak mutation.
Jesting aside, the 'pure cro-mags' are sub-Saharan Africans; the rest of us - particularly those from 'The North' - are the bastard half-breeds (~2% Neanderthal or Denisovian/Neanderthal).
I know. Mostly, it's entertaining to just make fun of the people who seem to have completely incoherent ideas about the heritage of both the populations they love to hate, and the populations they're trying so hard to pretend aren't any different but are but aren't but are but need taking care of but that would be condescending but not but I guess we should just all feel guilty.
This seems dangerous and offensive. There are no differences between any two brains. Everyone is the same and always was. Just because the Neanderthals get a bad narrative from the Patriarchy doesn't mean that everyone from Mediterranean Europe is inferior to those white privilege cro-mag ice people from the north. Even studying this should be illegal, because it may cause sensitive students to question the fact that every person is identical in every way.
You cannot multiply and get a lower result. You cannot have "the atmosphere of Mars, which is 100 times thinner than Earth's"
You can, if you're doing it in the context of saying that Earth's atmosphere is already thin. Like, "Jupiter's atmosphere is thick, and Earth's is only a hundredth as thick. Mars' atmosphere is a hundred times thinner than that."
That's the only way that annoying convention makes sense. Foo is Bar, and Alice is even more Bar. It's possible for Foo's Bar to be bigger than Alice's, but it's an awkward way to use that construction. It only makes sense if being "a hundred times thinner" is in relation to something else that you're assuming everybody in the conversation already knows is thin, in context.
When a group of people who run a project make a decision about what to publish in their own documents, it's called freedom of expression. The OPPOSITE of censorship. When someone else who, through some agreement or organizational structure, tells them they can't express themselves that way, that's also freedom of expression, if that's how things are set up. Or would you say that Stallman was censoring those other people's ideas about that communication? No? Exactly.
Maybe China will buy it. Or maybe they already did!
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
It's not about whether it's funny (it's not), or whether it's the right venue for a lame joke.
The issue here is that Stallman - as usual - still, after all this time, can't get his head around what censorship actually is. A group of people on a project removing a tone-deaf bit of nonsense from some documentation isn't censorship!. The government making them do so, that would be censorship. That Stallman can't wrap his head around the distinction is right in keeping with his many other absurdities.
Yeah sure because we're at the penultimate height of our technological development and won't be able to develop newer and better sensing and signal processing capabilities.
The reason no other civilizations are bothering with us is because we have people who still can't use the word "penultimate" correctly.
consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies
And they should expect everyone else to bear the costs to them and the people they damage. Right? No?
I am looking forward to the GOP roundup
By which you mean, the GOP rounding up the people who actually spent money to get Russians to help them impact the election. Hillary and the DNC, right?
Enjoy having your identity stolen after yet another data breach.
You really think the EU law will actually prevent identity theft? Is that, say, the same way that France's strict gun control laws prevent murders there? That sort of thing?
Tell me, what of my personal data beyond billing and shipping data for my most recent order would a Mom and Pop shop need?
So, a smaller company shouldn't be able to retain any information about which of their modest advertising expenditures resulted in which sales, and which search engine terms produced the traffic that led to the specific transactions that allow them to actually stay in business? The company's got no interest in retaining information when a customer or prospective customer uses a contact form to ask a question, or a chat tool to provide some guidance on a product? A business could easily do a million dollars worth of sales as year and still have nowhere near the budget to build all of tools the EU insists that the web site provide to anyone who's visited the web site.
This is the usual right-wing talking point about 'onerous regulation' and it is bullshit.
No, this is another person who's clearly never actually run a business spouting off out of ignorance, and deciding to throw a little bit of the usual vitriolic, unhinged politics in just because they can't say or do anything without dishing out some of that poison no matter what they're talking about.
It is about massive corporations
If it were, it would only apply to them. But it doesn't, which you know. So stop lying.
This is about yet more leftist muscle-flexing from the land of we-still-haven't-figured-out-that-the-Nanny-State-crushes-people seeking to make every small business give up and turn all of their operations over to giant corporations that can be better micromanaged by EU bureaucrats who specialize in nest-feathering and empire building to preserve their non-productive careers.
there is always an idiot falling for their 'but think of the poor small businessmen' shtick
Yup, definitely someone who has exactly zero experience running a business. Even a mid-size one with dozens of employees. Please take your ignorance and spite into account and make you don't do anything dangerous to other people. Like, say, voting. You're not equipped for it by knowledge or disposition.