Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime.
No. Just not true. Not entirely anyway. Yes, they do all have guns -- however domestic violence quite often ends up as fatal gunshot wounds. It may be true that they don't have much in the way of armed robbery compared to other European countries, but they sure do love to shoot their own families.
Emphasis on "add-on". That's the whole point of Firefox - it's not an all-in-one approach, and users who don't want it simply won't install it.
In this case, yes. And I do welcome that this is, in fact, an add-on. If only they had done that for some previous "features" too -- the awesome bar, in particular.
As a few have pointed out here already, up to now Mozilla appears to have learned little from the past, and seemed determined to turn Firefox into the bloated mess that was the Netscape Navigator suite.
If -- and this is a big "if" -- creating this as an add-on is a deliberate attempt to stop the Firefox bloat, then this is to be welcomed. It would also be great if, in future versions of Firefox they stripped out things like the awesome bar, and converted them to add-ons too. By all means install them by default -- just give us the choice of deleting them completely and entirely.
This isn't a double standard at work. Google simply believes that it's above the law, and 'evil' can be conveniently redefined to mean whatever suits the company's interests at the time. Don't fall for the feelgood narrative.
Or... in fact... Google isn't being evil. It could be that, as reasonable human beings, they believe that the terms of copyright is actually the thing that is evil. In which case, they'd most certainly be correct. The trial of Eichmann proved that it is the duty of everyone to fight against evil orders and laws -- perhaps that is Google's way of subverting evil laws? Copyright, as it stands, is against the will of the majority of people, and reduces the welfare of the majority of people -- that seems more like evil to me.
Let's be clear, despite Viacom's hollow protests, no-one is losing out here. The "pirated" content on YouTube simply acts as advertisements, and is a useful promotional tool for networks -- including Viacom, as was proven yesterday.
The Will of the People is not going to change copyright -- but the Will of Google just might. Especially if they are proving there's nothing to fear by allowing change. YouTube does prove that.
A victimless crime, is really not a crime. And in this case most certainly isn't evil.
I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe. Maybe it's a bit of a vanity project.
Lots of people, especially students and independent travelers, take long distance train journeys from, for example, the EU into Russia -- the Trans-Siberian Railway. People will use it. It will be a far more interesting journey than traveling by plane.
Esepcially due to the generally increasing hell that is traveling by plane, from all the security theater.
This is yet another "correlation does not mean causation" result from a university. Which does lead me to correlate that universities are a possible cause of a lot of bad/worthless research these days. This study certainly seems to fall into that category. God only knows how people get funding for this kind of study.
I have Facebook "friends" that I barely know, people I've not seen in decades, people I once worked with. I'd be astonished if you can draw ANY accurate conclusions about me from any of those connections. You MAY be able to draw some conclusions about SOME people from their friends list. But even if you can, is that info really of any real use? Yes, advertisers might buy it, but really they are buying fool's gold.
Albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here are made as single things.
People keep saying this here. Defending Pink Floyd as though it's all about the art. Firstly, the above quote is wholly wrong. They were NOT made as single things. There's individual tracks. If they were individual things there would have been two tracks -- one for each side of the original vinyl record. The could even have had single tracks, but named them as different movements -- Rush did this a few times.
Furthermore, "Money" was released as a single from Dark Side of the Moon -- at least in the UK. So that was always intended to stand alone, especially as it was also included on compilation albums, as well as remixed.
Pink Floyd have also been very vocal, and very difficult about file sharing -- so forgive me if I do NOT believe ONE SINGLE WORD of their "artistic integrity" bullshit rhetoric. This is about the money.
The movie to see was the one that (more or less) accompanied the original Star Wars in 1976 -- namely "Alice in Wonderland: An X-rated Musical Fantasy". By far the better movie, a great piece of art that should have been the one that bore 5 sequels.
I've never seen many animated ads on websites. In the days before adblock, I'd scroll the screen, put a piece of paper over that part of the monitor, or just leave the site -- never to return usually.
No-one has ever gotten any money from me by showing me an animated ad. No-one EVER will. If by chance I happen to catch the name of the company that produced the ad, I will do everything I can to avoid buying from them for the rest of my life. If your company doesn't respect my eyes, time and intelligence, then fuck you! I'm not giving you any money.
You want ads, fine. Google got it pretty much right. Discreet, contextual links. Those are quality ads. They can even have pictures in them, but if they move -- they die.
Arstechnica, if you aren't smart enough to understand this, and as the parent said; this is oft-discussed and well-known, then your site will eventually die. And it will be ENTIRELY your own fault. Quality ads do NOT intrude on the user -- they do NOT need to. It's just that simple.
Yes, you can. HoweverWithout references, a reader has no way of knowing whether the article is accurate or not
Fixed that for you. If wikipedia allowed users to volunteer to sign pages, and in that signature were their qualifications, then some credence could be attached to the article -- referenced or not.
Add to that, that all wikiadmins really should be identified on the site. If they are going to edit, delete, attack and defend content, as well as ban users, we really should know what their qualifications actually are.
I'd be willing to bet 90% of the current problems with wikipedia would disappear overnight if the admins lost their anonymity. Much of the neofascist behavior, and agenda-ism, would certainly disappear. It solves the "who watches the watchers" problem overnight.
While there are good reasons why articles can be submitted anonymously, those in charge of the site do NOT need to be anonymous -- and for the sake of transparency, honesty and ethical credibility, we NEED to know who they are. Are they afraid of the truth? What do they have to hide?
These cuts are nothing more than looking to be doing something, while actually not doing much. They are simply trimming back some of the dead wood.
However, in doing so they are completely missing the point of their remit. They are supposed to produce high-quality programming, and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters wouldn't, or couldn't, touch. Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however, most surely does not. Radio 1 is a commercial channel, in everything but name. Sure, there's no overt adverts on it, but there's plenty of covert ones -- not the least of which is the music itself, all commercial products, and products from a very evil industry. Radio 6 played music from unsigned bands, so I guess there's not so much payola, hence it's the channel that's cut.
BBC3 and BBC4 are worthless channels and could go easily. BBC3 is braindead crap. It's targeted at a youth audience for purely commercial reasons -- and to add insult to injury, most of the youths watching it do not even pay the TV licence.
BBC4 contains programmes that would have naturally been on BBC2. When 4 was created they harvested off the (slightly more) intelligent shows, and filled the gaps in the BBC2 schedule with reality crap, make-over shows, cooking shows, antiques shows -- all riddled with product placement, which they can get away with as it's independent producers that are getting the kick-backs from promoting the products.
BBC News is the largest news organization in the world. Ignoring its inherent government progaganda and bias for the moment, for all the journalists it employs, for all the offices all over the world, it very, very, very rarely ever breaks an exclusive story. Much of the news is regurgitated press releases -- as well as again, lots of product placement. Usually, any exclusive stories come from the result of documentary researchers working for shows such as Panorama, and not from the news dept.
The BBC's new multi-million Pacific Quay HQ is state-of-the-art, with all the latest tech and a fantastic studio. But all it does is host tabloid-style regional news, cheap game show "The Weakest Link", and a few other unscripted talent and variety shows.
The quality of the BBC's production crew seems to have diminished dramatically over the past few years. There's barely a single show that has a camera set at the correct exposure. The editing is universally horrific across all BBC shows.
It's a vastly bloated, and increasingly dumbed-down organization. The name "Mark Thompson" seems only to be synonymous with failure, he's inexpertly presided over the worst period in the corporation's history. These cuts are superficial, there's considerably more changes need to be made to improve the quality of the BBC.
Does/. now have a gardening section? How is this article news for nerds? Yes, I get there's a grasping at straws relationship to YRO -- but surely this is too far removed from nerd news even for that? Was it a virtual lawn? Did the lawn run linux? Was the lawn someone's overlord?
I'm surprised at kdawson, this looks more like the kind of crap article that samzenpus regularly inflicts on us.
I hope there's someone vetting the pics. One of the most annoying aspects of Panoramico, is that there's more than a few narcissists who post pics of things like "our dog Benji at the beach," rather than an informative pic that will enhance the Google Earth user-experience.
Still... if no-one is vetting the pics, there is a LOT of fun to be had with this.
Before any more detectors are rolled out, how about they come up with a workable definition of vandalism? And actually use it fairly, ethically and logically.
There's a great deal of evidence to suggest the current definition of "vandalism," is something a wikiadmin decides he just doesn't like, or disagrees with, or in some way interferes with his power-trip.
So they've patented the biggest thing they broke when they upgraded the site a few weeks back? They are most welcome to patent it, though they are wasting their time and money -- it does not work properly. No-one is going to copy it... no-one in their right minds anyway.
Wales hat very good intentions and a great idea. But he was waay deep in treehugger happy happy imaginationland with some of those descisions. And I also was there with him for some time. Until I took a harder look at reality.
Yes. Basically, wikipedia started out too, open and is now too closed, and by the wrong people.
Since its popularity has declined slightly in the past year or so, and its credibility has most certainly declined significantly in the past couple of years, one might question whether this is Wales' fourth failure -- it's just taking longer to fail that the previous ones. (actually, his fifth failure, he ran a pron site he likes everyone to forget about)
I do disagree though, that Wales is as naive as you may think. I don't think the way wikipedia is locked down is entirely accidental, and he does has surprising authority over its operations. There also have been significant questions over his expenses.
It would be great if the inventive, creative minds involved in steampunk would use something less crassly-modern than flash on their websites. I got bored waiting for the flash to load on some of the websites in the summary, and promptly gave up.
Every. Single. Time... When there's an ereader discussion someone always brings this up. Perhaps technically e-ink IS indeed better for the eyes, however does this really matter a damn?
I've never used an ereader. I've no intention of doing so anytime in the next decade. I've sat behind desktops and laptops with CRT and LCD and other types of displays. I've done so for 10-15 hours at time over extended periods. I have 20/20 vision without the need for glasses, and am checked regularly. I do not suffer from headaches.
You can tell me that e-ink is better for my eyes till you are blue in the face. I do not give a fuck. It smacks of FUD coming from people who are shills for the e-ink industry. Seriously, this is absolutely NOT an issue for me at all in any way. This will in no way affect my decision in choosing a device to read on.
What will affect my decision is utility and price. The iPad looks like a fine choice to me, because if I'm carrying around something that size I want it to do a hell of a lot more that just display books.
So will everyone please just stop with the e-ink is better for the eyes FUD? Most of us do NOT care.
Hmmm, as a well-traveled European I have to disagree. The best beef cows are indeed American, but not from the US. Try Argentinian beef, it's awesome. You don't know what you are missing.
How can Firefox's most controversial "feature" be considered a highlight? This one "highlight" will be the reason I'm sticking with Opera on my phone. It's bad enough having bloated crap on a fully specced desktop machine -- it's a total dealbreaker on a limited platform.
This summary has to be one of the most blatantly astroturfed I've read on/.
I wonder, if a robot program like this were let loose on the internet, and was capable of learning... what would it learn?
It would learn, amongst other things:
A whole lot about sexual possibilities, as well as plenty of impossibilities.
Far too much about Megan Fox, Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan.
That editing wikipedia is pointless, no matter how programmed for repetitive tasks you are.
That almost every review of a new product is shilled all over the net.
There's a very good chance that that robot would go out of its way to annihilate us all after what it learned on the Internet.
UK government has much more clout against US pressure.
No, I think it's very much the opposite really. Regardless the Labour Party, the ruling junta of the UK, are very committed to the music industry. Many of their backers are from the music industry (and they need every penny right now, they are about to fight an election they can't win, and are near bankrupt). The UK has explored many different ways of dealing with filesharing, and is pretty much committed to a zero tolerance stance.
Fortunately the UK judges may be more wise in this instance that the braindead, thieving cretins who rule the UK.
In Sweden, what ever the laws are, the main issue seemed to be that the judge trying the Pirate Bay was corrupt, and in the pay of a Music Industry pressure group.
However, the reason why that judge may have been selected, the core issue with the Pirate Bay, was that they were, quite literally, asking for it. They taunted and mocked the music industry and the Swedish Justice system. It was only a question of time before someone was going to get them for something. As entertaining as they were, their approach to the situation was astonishingly naive, and guaranteed to get them jail time.
Were I picking terms, I'd use "Orwellian" or "authoritarian" as a better generic pejorative for someone who supports strong government surveillance, control of access to information, and censorship of publication.
This website's owners picked "fascism", perhaps somewhat unfortunately, and I, in order to provide quality Slashdot-comment humor, had to therefore follow them. The main sense in which it's a bad fit is that historical fascism was a combination of authoritarian control over public culture with a more collectivist stakeholder-consensus economic model, and strong nationalism, and Conroy doesn't appear particularly interested in those latter two.
You are aware that the meaning of words change over time? I think that many, if not most people, understand that fascist=authoritarian=Orwellian in a modern context.
Seems to me that you are trying to be fascist over the use of the word "fascist". You get that "fascist" is being used as a metaphor here, don't you? You get that Shakespeare did that sort thing to words all the time? You get that words are flexible and can be used as tools? If the meaning is understood that is all that matters. The use of the word "fascist" here is clear to most people. Thus it's a success, and correct usage.
Is there any part of this you still find hard to understand? You seem to be wholly alone in this.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Just not true. Not entirely anyway. Yes, they do all have guns -- however domestic violence quite often ends up as fatal gunshot wounds. It may be true that they don't have much in the way of armed robbery compared to other European countries, but they sure do love to shoot their own families.
Not that this has anything to do with games.
In this case, yes. And I do welcome that this is, in fact, an add-on. If only they had done that for some previous "features" too -- the awesome bar, in particular.
As a few have pointed out here already, up to now Mozilla appears to have learned little from the past, and seemed determined to turn Firefox into the bloated mess that was the Netscape Navigator suite.
If -- and this is a big "if" -- creating this as an add-on is a deliberate attempt to stop the Firefox bloat, then this is to be welcomed. It would also be great if, in future versions of Firefox they stripped out things like the awesome bar, and converted them to add-ons too. By all means install them by default -- just give us the choice of deleting them completely and entirely.
Or... in fact... Google isn't being evil. It could be that, as reasonable human beings, they believe that the terms of copyright is actually the thing that is evil. In which case, they'd most certainly be correct. The trial of Eichmann proved that it is the duty of everyone to fight against evil orders and laws -- perhaps that is Google's way of subverting evil laws? Copyright, as it stands, is against the will of the majority of people, and reduces the welfare of the majority of people -- that seems more like evil to me.
Let's be clear, despite Viacom's hollow protests, no-one is losing out here. The "pirated" content on YouTube simply acts as advertisements, and is a useful promotional tool for networks -- including Viacom, as was proven yesterday.
The Will of the People is not going to change copyright -- but the Will of Google just might. Especially if they are proving there's nothing to fear by allowing change. YouTube does prove that.
A victimless crime, is really not a crime. And in this case most certainly isn't evil.
I think this is probably one instance where checking the fine print on the shipping fees might be a really good idea.
Wait. Who am I kidding...? eBay... you always need to check the fine print on the shipping...
Shiatsu.
Lots of people, especially students and independent travelers, take long distance train journeys from, for example, the EU into Russia -- the Trans-Siberian Railway. People will use it. It will be a far more interesting journey than traveling by plane.
Esepcially due to the generally increasing hell that is traveling by plane, from all the security theater.
This is yet another "correlation does not mean causation" result from a university. Which does lead me to correlate that universities are a possible cause of a lot of bad/worthless research these days. This study certainly seems to fall into that category. God only knows how people get funding for this kind of study.
I have Facebook "friends" that I barely know, people I've not seen in decades, people I once worked with. I'd be astonished if you can draw ANY accurate conclusions about me from any of those connections. You MAY be able to draw some conclusions about SOME people from their friends list. But even if you can, is that info really of any real use? Yes, advertisers might buy it, but really they are buying fool's gold.
People keep saying this here. Defending Pink Floyd as though it's all about the art. Firstly, the above quote is wholly wrong. They were NOT made as single things. There's individual tracks. If they were individual things there would have been two tracks -- one for each side of the original vinyl record. The could even have had single tracks, but named them as different movements -- Rush did this a few times.
Furthermore, "Money" was released as a single from Dark Side of the Moon -- at least in the UK. So that was always intended to stand alone, especially as it was also included on compilation albums, as well as remixed.
Pink Floyd have also been very vocal, and very difficult about file sharing -- so forgive me if I do NOT believe ONE SINGLE WORD of their "artistic integrity" bullshit rhetoric. This is about the money.
The movie to see was the one that (more or less) accompanied the original Star Wars in 1976 -- namely "Alice in Wonderland: An X-rated Musical Fantasy". By far the better movie, a great piece of art that should have been the one that bore 5 sequels.
Could not possibly agree more!
I've never seen many animated ads on websites. In the days before adblock, I'd scroll the screen, put a piece of paper over that part of the monitor, or just leave the site -- never to return usually.
No-one has ever gotten any money from me by showing me an animated ad. No-one EVER will. If by chance I happen to catch the name of the company that produced the ad, I will do everything I can to avoid buying from them for the rest of my life. If your company doesn't respect my eyes, time and intelligence, then fuck you! I'm not giving you any money.
You want ads, fine. Google got it pretty much right. Discreet, contextual links. Those are quality ads. They can even have pictures in them, but if they move -- they die.
Arstechnica, if you aren't smart enough to understand this, and as the parent said; this is oft-discussed and well-known, then your site will eventually die. And it will be ENTIRELY your own fault. Quality ads do NOT intrude on the user -- they do NOT need to. It's just that simple.
Fixed that for you. If wikipedia allowed users to volunteer to sign pages, and in that signature were their qualifications, then some credence could be attached to the article -- referenced or not.
Add to that, that all wikiadmins really should be identified on the site. If they are going to edit, delete, attack and defend content, as well as ban users, we really should know what their qualifications actually are.
I'd be willing to bet 90% of the current problems with wikipedia would disappear overnight if the admins lost their anonymity. Much of the neofascist behavior, and agenda-ism, would certainly disappear. It solves the "who watches the watchers" problem overnight.
While there are good reasons why articles can be submitted anonymously, those in charge of the site do NOT need to be anonymous -- and for the sake of transparency, honesty and ethical credibility, we NEED to know who they are. Are they afraid of the truth? What do they have to hide?
These cuts are nothing more than looking to be doing something, while actually not doing much. They are simply trimming back some of the dead wood.
However, in doing so they are completely missing the point of their remit. They are supposed to produce high-quality programming, and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters wouldn't, or couldn't, touch. Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however, most surely does not. Radio 1 is a commercial channel, in everything but name. Sure, there's no overt adverts on it, but there's plenty of covert ones -- not the least of which is the music itself, all commercial products, and products from a very evil industry. Radio 6 played music from unsigned bands, so I guess there's not so much payola, hence it's the channel that's cut.
BBC3 and BBC4 are worthless channels and could go easily. BBC3 is braindead crap. It's targeted at a youth audience for purely commercial reasons -- and to add insult to injury, most of the youths watching it do not even pay the TV licence.
BBC4 contains programmes that would have naturally been on BBC2. When 4 was created they harvested off the (slightly more) intelligent shows, and filled the gaps in the BBC2 schedule with reality crap, make-over shows, cooking shows, antiques shows -- all riddled with product placement, which they can get away with as it's independent producers that are getting the kick-backs from promoting the products.
BBC News is the largest news organization in the world. Ignoring its inherent government progaganda and bias for the moment, for all the journalists it employs, for all the offices all over the world, it very, very, very rarely ever breaks an exclusive story. Much of the news is regurgitated press releases -- as well as again, lots of product placement. Usually, any exclusive stories come from the result of documentary researchers working for shows such as Panorama, and not from the news dept.
The BBC's new multi-million Pacific Quay HQ is state-of-the-art, with all the latest tech and a fantastic studio. But all it does is host tabloid-style regional news, cheap game show "The Weakest Link", and a few other unscripted talent and variety shows.
The quality of the BBC's production crew seems to have diminished dramatically over the past few years. There's barely a single show that has a camera set at the correct exposure. The editing is universally horrific across all BBC shows.
It's a vastly bloated, and increasingly dumbed-down organization. The name "Mark Thompson" seems only to be synonymous with failure, he's inexpertly presided over the worst period in the corporation's history. These cuts are superficial, there's considerably more changes need to be made to improve the quality of the BBC.
Does /. now have a gardening section? How is this article news for nerds? Yes, I get there's a grasping at straws relationship to YRO -- but surely this is too far removed from nerd news even for that? Was it a virtual lawn? Did the lawn run linux? Was the lawn someone's overlord?
I'm surprised at kdawson, this looks more like the kind of crap article that samzenpus regularly inflicts on us.
I hope there's someone vetting the pics. One of the most annoying aspects of Panoramico, is that there's more than a few narcissists who post pics of things like "our dog Benji at the beach," rather than an informative pic that will enhance the Google Earth user-experience.
Still... if no-one is vetting the pics, there is a LOT of fun to be had with this.
Before any more detectors are rolled out, how about they come up with a workable definition of vandalism? And actually use it fairly, ethically and logically.
There's a great deal of evidence to suggest the current definition of "vandalism," is something a wikiadmin decides he just doesn't like, or disagrees with, or in some way interferes with his power-trip.
So they've patented the biggest thing they broke when they upgraded the site a few weeks back? They are most welcome to patent it, though they are wasting their time and money -- it does not work properly. No-one is going to copy it... no-one in their right minds anyway.
Yes. Basically, wikipedia started out too, open and is now too closed, and by the wrong people.
Since its popularity has declined slightly in the past year or so, and its credibility has most certainly declined significantly in the past couple of years, one might question whether this is Wales' fourth failure -- it's just taking longer to fail that the previous ones. (actually, his fifth failure, he ran a pron site he likes everyone to forget about)
I do disagree though, that Wales is as naive as you may think. I don't think the way wikipedia is locked down is entirely accidental, and he does has surprising authority over its operations. There also have been significant questions over his expenses.
It would be great if the inventive, creative minds involved in steampunk would use something less crassly-modern than flash on their websites. I got bored waiting for the flash to load on some of the websites in the summary, and promptly gave up.
Every. Single. Time... When there's an ereader discussion someone always brings this up. Perhaps technically e-ink IS indeed better for the eyes, however does this really matter a damn?
I've never used an ereader. I've no intention of doing so anytime in the next decade. I've sat behind desktops and laptops with CRT and LCD and other types of displays. I've done so for 10-15 hours at time over extended periods. I have 20/20 vision without the need for glasses, and am checked regularly. I do not suffer from headaches.
You can tell me that e-ink is better for my eyes till you are blue in the face. I do not give a fuck. It smacks of FUD coming from people who are shills for the e-ink industry. Seriously, this is absolutely NOT an issue for me at all in any way. This will in no way affect my decision in choosing a device to read on.
What will affect my decision is utility and price. The iPad looks like a fine choice to me, because if I'm carrying around something that size I want it to do a hell of a lot more that just display books.
So will everyone please just stop with the e-ink is better for the eyes FUD? Most of us do NOT care.
Hmmm, as a well-traveled European I have to disagree. The best beef cows are indeed American, but not from the US. Try Argentinian beef, it's awesome. You don't know what you are missing.
How can Firefox's most controversial "feature" be considered a highlight? This one "highlight" will be the reason I'm sticking with Opera on my phone. It's bad enough having bloated crap on a fully specced desktop machine -- it's a total dealbreaker on a limited platform.
/.
This summary has to be one of the most blatantly astroturfed I've read on
It would learn, amongst other things:
A whole lot about sexual possibilities, as well as plenty of impossibilities.
Far too much about Megan Fox, Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan.
That editing wikipedia is pointless, no matter how programmed for repetitive tasks you are.
That almost every review of a new product is shilled all over the net.
There's a very good chance that that robot would go out of its way to annihilate us all after what it learned on the Internet.
Of course, it would buttrape us first....
No, I think it's very much the opposite really. Regardless the Labour Party, the ruling junta of the UK, are very committed to the music industry. Many of their backers are from the music industry (and they need every penny right now, they are about to fight an election they can't win, and are near bankrupt). The UK has explored many different ways of dealing with filesharing, and is pretty much committed to a zero tolerance stance.
Fortunately the UK judges may be more wise in this instance that the braindead, thieving cretins who rule the UK.
In Sweden, what ever the laws are, the main issue seemed to be that the judge trying the Pirate Bay was corrupt, and in the pay of a Music Industry pressure group.
However, the reason why that judge may have been selected, the core issue with the Pirate Bay, was that they were, quite literally, asking for it. They taunted and mocked the music industry and the Swedish Justice system. It was only a question of time before someone was going to get them for something. As entertaining as they were, their approach to the situation was astonishingly naive, and guaranteed to get them jail time.
No need to explain the term. He's probably away from his computer, being perp-walked to HR as I type.
You are aware that the meaning of words change over time? I think that many, if not most people, understand that fascist=authoritarian=Orwellian in a modern context.
Seems to me that you are trying to be fascist over the use of the word "fascist". You get that "fascist" is being used as a metaphor here, don't you? You get that Shakespeare did that sort thing to words all the time? You get that words are flexible and can be used as tools? If the meaning is understood that is all that matters. The use of the word "fascist" here is clear to most people. Thus it's a success, and correct usage.
Is there any part of this you still find hard to understand? You seem to be wholly alone in this.