So, your take on it is that cultures that deliberately suppress things like literacy and learning among women, and which violently lash out at other cultures and at elements withint their own culture that embrace education, have the same moral standing as those that don't? Who said anything about race, other than you - someone who is obviously race-obsessed. This is about what people do. When a group systematically drags school teachers out into the street and shoots them because they're teaching girls to read, it is indeed quite easy form a judgement about them and their objectives. Calling it what it is isn't "prejudice," it's simply remarking on reality, and not pretending that every culture is equal. Would you want your daughter, sister, or mother killed because she was raped? No? Do you support cultural elements that seek to preserve that sort of reaction to such a crime? No? Be careful, you might be prejudiced against cultures that kill rape victims - how awful of you!
Re:First image... Is that... The Death Star?
on
Curiosity Lands On Mars
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Congradulation NASA! I hope they increase your funding and reduce funding for wars.
Actually, I don't mind that we fund efforts - including military ones, if needed - to combat and push back against the most violent and dangerous aspects of a culture that would stone to death the women you saw working at JPL's flight control center tonight. You know, because Allah hates them for having learned how to read and show their hair, among other death-worthy sins.
if you have a gun, you can't defend yourself. because you aren't omniscient
As someone who has successfully defended myself and my wife with a gun (against a large, scary, drug-addled guy who managed to process the fact that he was looking at the muzzle of a gun, and stopped screaming and breaking down our door with a pipe at 2:00AM... all while we waited 20+ minutes for the cops to show up), I can tell you that you're wrong. Who cares about being omniscient or 100% able to know in advance about every threat? Total straw man on your part, and you know it. Do you skip out on carrying a spare tire because you can't know about everything you might hit with your car, and because there's a chance you might blow out two tires at once, and a single spare won't be useful? Right.
countries with sane gun control laws have much lower gun death rates than the USA
And much higher rates of stabbing and beating deaths. Which you seem to prefer, I suppose. Especially because those people have zero chance of defending themselves. Which is why such assaults/murders in such countries go up hugely when new controls are put in place to prevent self defense. Of course you know this.
Can you address the topic of easy access to knives, machetes, and other tools - used to slaughter thousands and thousands of people every year - in the context of your idea that it's the tools that cause people to kill someone? Please be specific.
Yes, and over 100 are killed every day in automobile accidents - many of those the result of other people's malice or neglect. And just for fun, tally up the strangulations, beatings, stabbings, blunt object killings, deaths-by-arson, and other non-firearm-weapon deaths and you'll get close to the number of handgun deaths. Do the same math in places where guns used to be available but no longer are, and the numbers jump shockingly. Do the math in places where people are allowed to carry, and the numbers go down significantly.
So if he'd chained one exit shut, kicked in the other, and then tossed three or four molotov cocktails into the crowd, and used a machete to deal with any non-flaming people rushing him in the ten seconds before he could throw a couple more... you'd blame what, petroleum, glass bottles, matches, and garden implements? Or would you blame the government for not preventing people from having access to automobile fuel? A couple hundred people in a Bali nightclub were killed in similar fashion (look, mom, no guns!)... did you blame that country's lax regulation of flammable materials?
What is it with the desparate need to never, ever blame wackos like this for their own acts? People are so invested in total moral relativism so that they don't have to fret about being judgemental (or ever being judged) that they have to twist themselves into insane knots like "only the USA" blah blah blah. How about the Japanese guy that walked in and slaughtered a bunch of school kids with a knife? Did you post an "only in Japan" rant about easy access to kitchen tools, so that you could find a way to not come right out and say you think a murderer is a murderer?
On second thought, I won't blame you for such drivel. You obviously have easy access to a keyboard.
No, they are proponents of portraying it with as much hysteria as possible, in order to gain influence (academic, political, financial) through the resulting baseless fear. The agenda pushed by these types include encouragement to make use of the carbon credit schemes they are positioned to exploit for cash, to redistribute wealth and political power, and the like.
lots of global warming skeptics believe we should stop all R&D toward reducing CO2 emissions
Which he demonstrates by having significant gender-based inequities within his own White House staff.
enabling bio/stem-cell research
Which wasn't dis-abled before. Private parties could (and did) have at it with billions of dollars behind them. Taxpayer-based research continued with existing materials. Nobody was prevented from doing research, and indeed plenty was going on before, and after Obama's election.
cash for clunkers
Which, with the administrative overhead, cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars per car sold. An incredibly inefficient redistribution of other people's money.
a lot of military reform
A "lot," huh? By that standard, his predecessor did exactly the same thing.
openly gay is a-ok
Which was inevitable and already well on its way to happening.
addressing the body armor neglect controversy
Only when pressured by the press. He didn't care about it before he was elected, or after.
the walter reed controversy
You don't even know how to refer to it. Walter Reed was already slated to close, before he was elected.
ending iraq
The combat troop draw-down happened on the schedule set before he was elected. But of course he didn't end it, because it's not ended. There are tens of thousands of US troops there, right now, armed to the teeth. Of course you know that, and you're just trolling away, right?
Also there's the whole Somali pirates and Bin Laden thing..
Yes, he has shown that, just like other presidents, he is able to take advice from military professsionals, and approve their plans, which they then go about acting on. Bin Laden was hit based on intel that originated before he was elected, and handled by career people who were working that case before he was elected. Of course, you know all of that, too.
He did, though, just get a massive new tax program in place, aimed squarely at middle class and lower middle class people. You know, just like he promised he would never do. But we all knew he'd do it, so he fulfilled that expectation perfectly.
Except your free market allows monopolies which prevent the market from giving people what they want.
How, through physical force? Someone who uses physical force to prevent you from selling something to someone else isn't part of a free market. Or are you talking about government services, which are a special case?
Netflix relies itself on such governmental powers, like copyright. Why should they only have the benefits?
You mean benefits like already providing ADA-mandated facilities in their physical locations (such as their offices, warehouse operations, and datacenter spaces), and the extra special benefit of paying corporate taxes as well as, of course, all of their employees paying taxes? Or were you thinking that they didn't have to do all that stuff?
There is an alternate theory that explains all observations in terms of electric and magnetic laws that are well understood and used every day here on earth.
The way you phrase this - by saying it exists and mentioning its value and superiority, while carefully not actually describing it - reminds me of how those Amway people start every sales pitch.
Judging from the number of the "This had better run on Linux!" comments on Neal Stephenson's sword game Kickstarter campaign (they are likely to use Unity for CLANG), this should make some people happy.
Your inability to actually comment on substance, and typical whiney ad hominem (the perpetual tactic of the entitlement-minded complainer addressing someone who identifies them as such) just shows that I'm exactly right. Hit a nerve, huh Coward? Yup.
You are deliberately pretending that not watching it, or buying/renting a DVD aren't options. Which they are. Your (+4 informative, really?) comment is just a classic justification rant. You want instant, and free gratification. Just admit it, and carry on with your day while enjoying that fresh and honest feeling.
The only way to push back is to repeal the obscene legislation that brands copyright infringers as criminals
No, you simply walk away from content creators whose practices you dislike. The people who make Game Of Thrones weren't forced to go work with HBO. It's a choice. You don't like HBO's approach to running a viable, non-bankrupt production and distribution company, which means you don't like the creative people who - with endless choices before them - choose specifically to work with HBO and within their boundaries. Why would you want to consume the creative work of people who make what you consider to be obscene choices?
Ah, I get it. You just want them to work for you for free, as your pet entertainment slaves. You're even willing to make up BS about criminality (good BS there, though - you just toss it out there like it's true, so many people will fall for that as you use that distraction to deflect from the fact that you don't think content creators should be able to do what they want with their own work).
You'll feel so much better if you just admit it: you want other people to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create stuff that you in turn want to rip off. Just say it, it will feel like a real weight has been lifted from you. The first step to really going with a rip-off lifestyle is to admit that you want people's work without paying for it, because... you just want it, and would rather buy coffee or beer or something else with that money. See? Once you realize that your ethics are at odds with the people whose art you want, and that you don't care because you're just going to rip them off, you can just go ahead and be a leech, and not be so fidgety about it.
Would someone please explain it to me why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?
You're confusing "other countries" with "Iran" and "North Korea." You'll notice that the US isn't expressing the same level of concern about, say, France, the UK, India, Russia, China, etc. Because those are places that don't dedicate themselves - as a matter of national policy and continually stated rhetoric - to the destruction of other countries. Of handing/selling weapons to terrorists dedicated to stamping out or preventing the formation of even the appearance of representative government. The mullahs running Iran aren't the British parliment, and that country's ruling culture is deliberately murderous - towards people in other countries, as well as to its own citizens when they dare to speak up about the problem. Nukes in Iran is a bad thing. Nukes in, say, Britain, isn't.
if it's infinitely available, it has no intrinsic value
Wrong. With something like a photograph, the right commercial customer may come along and find it ideal for a marketing campaign, etc. The photographer - who has not yet licensed it to anybody else - can then license it exclusively to that company, and charge appropriately. If the image has already been appropriated and used out of context by some other infringing part, that can cause problems for the photographer's later ability to license it as he sees fit. You're not understanding how this works.
assuming she had even considered its copyright, Schwager had no idea who it belonged to or the license behind it
And as an attorney and someone who publishes stuff herself, she should know that every work is subject to copyright, and that if she can't see where someone has granted her license to use it without asking, she can safely assume that running off with it and using it as part of her own material is infringement, plain and simple.
And aside from the womanizing you've just described Mark Zuckerberg (and pretty much any other high-profile massive-IPO CEO of a company which is insanely over-hyped)
The difference is that Zuckerberg creates things, but Assange just wants to control and/or destroy them in order to be visible and famous. You may not like Zuckerburg, but Assange is leech with delusions of grandeur. There is a difference between them - and not just Assange's condescending treatment of women.
There couldn't be a more appropriate job for a unctuous, hyper-vain, womanizing publicity whore who's always looking for other people to fund what he wants to do.
And more importantly, he'll have a first-hand chance to see - behind the scenes - exactly why some government communication has to be kept out of public view. Everyone who gets elected to such positions gets a big fat wake-up call about security matters they used to blow off as irrelevent.
Since War Games we know that the only winning move is not to play
Wrong, unless you include the rest of the correct notion. The only winning move is not to play, and to make sure that nobody else will or can, either. For those against whom a deterrent is appropriate, the "won't" part is fine. For those who are crazy or willing to sell the weapons to people who are, the "can't" part is more important.
Ebay, Amazon, and other individual sellers do it all the time, and the government never fines them for it.
You're confusing laws against fraud (which, by the way, include all sorts of ancillary no-nos like wire fraud, and - if you used the USPS to deliver the incorrectly described item - mail fraud, etc) with having the resources to chase down and prosecute every instance of it. Which is another reason (besides the main one, which is that it's intellectually absurd) why banning the use of Photoshop in advertisements is ridiculous. Thousands of ads are created and printed/displayed/broadcast every day. Some guy selling a used car is no less an offender for 'shopping out the scratch in the paint job than is Target for 'shopping out a blemish on a model's cheek. Banning Photoshop is absurd. It's a tool. Ban fraud, instead. Oh! We already did. Right.
So, your main complaint has nothing to do with the tool or media being used. For example, it's just as fraudulant for a car manufacturer to suggest that a consumer is really going to get 50mpg out of their new hybrid car. Those words are written with a word processor. Should we ban the use of word processors in advertising production?
Slashdot Mirror
Who modded up this pointless, racist screed?
So, your take on it is that cultures that deliberately suppress things like literacy and learning among women, and which violently lash out at other cultures and at elements withint their own culture that embrace education, have the same moral standing as those that don't? Who said anything about race, other than you - someone who is obviously race-obsessed. This is about what people do. When a group systematically drags school teachers out into the street and shoots them because they're teaching girls to read, it is indeed quite easy form a judgement about them and their objectives. Calling it what it is isn't "prejudice," it's simply remarking on reality, and not pretending that every culture is equal. Would you want your daughter, sister, or mother killed because she was raped? No? Do you support cultural elements that seek to preserve that sort of reaction to such a crime? No? Be careful, you might be prejudiced against cultures that kill rape victims - how awful of you!
Congradulation NASA! I hope they increase your funding and reduce funding for wars.
Actually, I don't mind that we fund efforts - including military ones, if needed - to combat and push back against the most violent and dangerous aspects of a culture that would stone to death the women you saw working at JPL's flight control center tonight. You know, because Allah hates them for having learned how to read and show their hair, among other death-worthy sins.
Wake 'em up! They won't get to see something like again for years.
In a few hours from now. Roughly six hours from now as I type this.
if you have a gun, you can't defend yourself. because you aren't omniscient
As someone who has successfully defended myself and my wife with a gun (against a large, scary, drug-addled guy who managed to process the fact that he was looking at the muzzle of a gun, and stopped screaming and breaking down our door with a pipe at 2:00AM ... all while we waited 20+ minutes for the cops to show up), I can tell you that you're wrong. Who cares about being omniscient or 100% able to know in advance about every threat? Total straw man on your part, and you know it. Do you skip out on carrying a spare tire because you can't know about everything you might hit with your car, and because there's a chance you might blow out two tires at once, and a single spare won't be useful? Right.
countries with sane gun control laws have much lower gun death rates than the USA
And much higher rates of stabbing and beating deaths. Which you seem to prefer, I suppose. Especially because those people have zero chance of defending themselves. Which is why such assaults/murders in such countries go up hugely when new controls are put in place to prevent self defense. Of course you know this.
Can you address the topic of easy access to knives, machetes, and other tools - used to slaughter thousands and thousands of people every year - in the context of your idea that it's the tools that cause people to kill someone? Please be specific.
Yes, and over 100 are killed every day in automobile accidents - many of those the result of other people's malice or neglect. And just for fun, tally up the strangulations, beatings, stabbings, blunt object killings, deaths-by-arson, and other non-firearm-weapon deaths and you'll get close to the number of handgun deaths. Do the same math in places where guns used to be available but no longer are, and the numbers jump shockingly. Do the math in places where people are allowed to carry, and the numbers go down significantly.
so yeah: EASY ACCESS to the tool is the problem
So if he'd chained one exit shut, kicked in the other, and then tossed three or four molotov cocktails into the crowd, and used a machete to deal with any non-flaming people rushing him in the ten seconds before he could throw a couple more ... you'd blame what, petroleum, glass bottles, matches, and garden implements? Or would you blame the government for not preventing people from having access to automobile fuel? A couple hundred people in a Bali nightclub were killed in similar fashion (look, mom, no guns!) ... did you blame that country's lax regulation of flammable materials?
What is it with the desparate need to never, ever blame wackos like this for their own acts? People are so invested in total moral relativism so that they don't have to fret about being judgemental (or ever being judged) that they have to twist themselves into insane knots like "only the USA" blah blah blah. How about the Japanese guy that walked in and slaughtered a bunch of school kids with a knife? Did you post an "only in Japan" rant about easy access to kitchen tools, so that you could find a way to not come right out and say you think a murderer is a murderer?
On second thought, I won't blame you for such drivel. You obviously have easy access to a keyboard.
They are not "proponents" of global warming
No, they are proponents of portraying it with as much hysteria as possible, in order to gain influence (academic, political, financial) through the resulting baseless fear. The agenda pushed by these types include encouragement to make use of the carbon credit schemes they are positioned to exploit for cash, to redistribute wealth and political power, and the like.
lots of global warming skeptics believe we should stop all R&D toward reducing CO2 emissions
What, like 9 of them? 12?
You're using that word, "censorship," but you definitely do not know what it means.
Equal pay for women
Which he demonstrates by having significant gender-based inequities within his own White House staff.
enabling bio/stem-cell research
Which wasn't dis-abled before. Private parties could (and did) have at it with billions of dollars behind them. Taxpayer-based research continued with existing materials. Nobody was prevented from doing research, and indeed plenty was going on before, and after Obama's election.
cash for clunkers
Which, with the administrative overhead, cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars per car sold. An incredibly inefficient redistribution of other people's money.
a lot of military reform
A "lot," huh? By that standard, his predecessor did exactly the same thing.
openly gay is a-ok
Which was inevitable and already well on its way to happening.
addressing the body armor neglect controversy
Only when pressured by the press. He didn't care about it before he was elected, or after.
the walter reed controversy
You don't even know how to refer to it. Walter Reed was already slated to close, before he was elected.
ending iraq
The combat troop draw-down happened on the schedule set before he was elected. But of course he didn't end it, because it's not ended. There are tens of thousands of US troops there, right now, armed to the teeth. Of course you know that, and you're just trolling away, right?
Also there's the whole Somali pirates and Bin Laden thing..
Yes, he has shown that, just like other presidents, he is able to take advice from military professsionals, and approve their plans, which they then go about acting on. Bin Laden was hit based on intel that originated before he was elected, and handled by career people who were working that case before he was elected. Of course, you know all of that, too.
He did, though, just get a massive new tax program in place, aimed squarely at middle class and lower middle class people. You know, just like he promised he would never do. But we all knew he'd do it, so he fulfilled that expectation perfectly.
Except your free market allows monopolies which prevent the market from giving people what they want.
How, through physical force? Someone who uses physical force to prevent you from selling something to someone else isn't part of a free market. Or are you talking about government services, which are a special case?
Netflix relies itself on such governmental powers, like copyright. Why should they only have the benefits?
You mean benefits like already providing ADA-mandated facilities in their physical locations (such as their offices, warehouse operations, and datacenter spaces), and the extra special benefit of paying corporate taxes as well as, of course, all of their employees paying taxes? Or were you thinking that they didn't have to do all that stuff?
There is an alternate theory that explains all observations in terms of electric and magnetic laws that are well understood and used every day here on earth.
The way you phrase this - by saying it exists and mentioning its value and superiority, while carefully not actually describing it - reminds me of how those Amway people start every sales pitch.
Judging from the number of the "This had better run on Linux!" comments on Neal Stephenson's sword game Kickstarter campaign (they are likely to use Unity for CLANG), this should make some people happy.
Your inability to actually comment on substance, and typical whiney ad hominem (the perpetual tactic of the entitlement-minded complainer addressing someone who identifies them as such) just shows that I'm exactly right. Hit a nerve, huh Coward? Yup.
You are deliberately pretending that not watching it, or buying/renting a DVD aren't options. Which they are. Your (+4 informative, really?) comment is just a classic justification rant. You want instant, and free gratification. Just admit it, and carry on with your day while enjoying that fresh and honest feeling.
The only way to push back is to repeal the obscene legislation that brands copyright infringers as criminals
No, you simply walk away from content creators whose practices you dislike. The people who make Game Of Thrones weren't forced to go work with HBO. It's a choice. You don't like HBO's approach to running a viable, non-bankrupt production and distribution company, which means you don't like the creative people who - with endless choices before them - choose specifically to work with HBO and within their boundaries. Why would you want to consume the creative work of people who make what you consider to be obscene choices?
... you just want it, and would rather buy coffee or beer or something else with that money. See? Once you realize that your ethics are at odds with the people whose art you want, and that you don't care because you're just going to rip them off, you can just go ahead and be a leech, and not be so fidgety about it.
Ah, I get it. You just want them to work for you for free, as your pet entertainment slaves. You're even willing to make up BS about criminality (good BS there, though - you just toss it out there like it's true, so many people will fall for that as you use that distraction to deflect from the fact that you don't think content creators should be able to do what they want with their own work).
You'll feel so much better if you just admit it: you want other people to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create stuff that you in turn want to rip off. Just say it, it will feel like a real weight has been lifted from you. The first step to really going with a rip-off lifestyle is to admit that you want people's work without paying for it, because
Would someone please explain it to me why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?
You're confusing "other countries" with "Iran" and "North Korea." You'll notice that the US isn't expressing the same level of concern about, say, France, the UK, India, Russia, China, etc. Because those are places that don't dedicate themselves - as a matter of national policy and continually stated rhetoric - to the destruction of other countries. Of handing/selling weapons to terrorists dedicated to stamping out or preventing the formation of even the appearance of representative government. The mullahs running Iran aren't the British parliment, and that country's ruling culture is deliberately murderous - towards people in other countries, as well as to its own citizens when they dare to speak up about the problem. Nukes in Iran is a bad thing. Nukes in, say, Britain, isn't.
if it's infinitely available, it has no intrinsic value
Wrong. With something like a photograph, the right commercial customer may come along and find it ideal for a marketing campaign, etc. The photographer - who has not yet licensed it to anybody else - can then license it exclusively to that company, and charge appropriately. If the image has already been appropriated and used out of context by some other infringing part, that can cause problems for the photographer's later ability to license it as he sees fit. You're not understanding how this works.
assuming she had even considered its copyright, Schwager had no idea who it belonged to or the license behind it
And as an attorney and someone who publishes stuff herself, she should know that every work is subject to copyright, and that if she can't see where someone has granted her license to use it without asking, she can safely assume that running off with it and using it as part of her own material is infringement, plain and simple.
And aside from the womanizing you've just described Mark Zuckerberg (and pretty much any other high-profile massive-IPO CEO of a company which is insanely over-hyped)
The difference is that Zuckerberg creates things, but Assange just wants to control and/or destroy them in order to be visible and famous. You may not like Zuckerburg, but Assange is leech with delusions of grandeur. There is a difference between them - and not just Assange's condescending treatment of women.
There couldn't be a more appropriate job for a unctuous, hyper-vain, womanizing publicity whore who's always looking for other people to fund what he wants to do.
And more importantly, he'll have a first-hand chance to see - behind the scenes - exactly why some government communication has to be kept out of public view. Everyone who gets elected to such positions gets a big fat wake-up call about security matters they used to blow off as irrelevent.
Since War Games we know that the only winning move is not to play
Wrong, unless you include the rest of the correct notion. The only winning move is not to play, and to make sure that nobody else will or can, either. For those against whom a deterrent is appropriate, the "won't" part is fine. For those who are crazy or willing to sell the weapons to people who are, the "can't" part is more important.
Ebay, Amazon, and other individual sellers do it all the time, and the government never fines them for it.
You're confusing laws against fraud (which, by the way, include all sorts of ancillary no-nos like wire fraud, and - if you used the USPS to deliver the incorrectly described item - mail fraud, etc) with having the resources to chase down and prosecute every instance of it. Which is another reason (besides the main one, which is that it's intellectually absurd) why banning the use of Photoshop in advertisements is ridiculous. Thousands of ads are created and printed/displayed/broadcast every day. Some guy selling a used car is no less an offender for 'shopping out the scratch in the paint job than is Target for 'shopping out a blemish on a model's cheek. Banning Photoshop is absurd. It's a tool. Ban fraud, instead. Oh! We already did. Right.
So, your main complaint has nothing to do with the tool or media being used. For example, it's just as fraudulant for a car manufacturer to suggest that a consumer is really going to get 50mpg out of their new hybrid car. Those words are written with a word processor. Should we ban the use of word processors in advertising production?