Slashdot isn't full of "curmudgeons, eccentrics, and free-thinkers" -- there's more of them here, sure, but there's just as many people willing to jump to conclusions, stick with tradition, and tell anyone who disagrees to get bent almost as much as their is in the real world.
Look at your average baby boomer: They usually have less than 5 friends, most of them are coworkers,
What a load of complete bullshit. Baby Boomers (I'm not one of them, I'm an X) have extensive social networks and are very socially active - they have dinner parties, Barbeques, and tend to watch less TV than Generations X, Y, and whatever the hell the latest one is called (Generation MyFacebookPhone?).
No and No. Did you even read those product listings? The PS3 cable is made by Intec, not Sony. The Xbox cable is not actually a plain HDMI cable, but a special adapter.
In the computer world, this seems to be the way of doing things. My NIC didn't come with a network cable, my soundcard came with a cable to hook up its external box, but didn't come with audio cables, my videocard didn't come with a DVI or VGA cable, and so on. It was left to me to purchase the cables in the length and of the type I required.
On the other hand, I've bought LaCie and Western Digital external hard drives that come with an abundance of cables - a USB cable, a Firewire 400 cable, a Firewire 800 cable, a Firewire 800-to-400 cable and an eSATA cable. These cables would cost so much if bought separately at retail, that it's almost a good idea just to buy one of these drives if you happen to be short of cables, and get a bonus hard drive in the deal.
As such, "violence" is most commonly used now to only refer to people against people.
Except, of course, for the fact that it isn't. Violence is routinely used to refer to all kinds of violence. And nowhere in the definition of terrorism, does it specify violence against people.
It may or may not be something more. However, it would still remain non-violent.
Blowing up 10 building in Manhattan is not a violent act? You've got to be fucking shitting me.
Because they didn't hurt anyone. Do you honestly think that, with the description of the act, they were intending to hurt someone at that time? Or are you just playing devils advocate to play word games and say the opposite of what you actually think?
They were clearly intending to hurt the owner of the antenna, based on the spray-painted slogan.
They could have easily killed somebody with this action. Do you think somebody who is performing such an act in the middle of the night is going to search the area and make sure that not a single person happens to be in the area? Of course not - they would try to do it as quickly as possible to escape detection. This is an inherently risky behavior, with the very real possibility of harming or killing someone.
Since property destruction isn't "violent" it doesn't matter that you can highlight something after it.
What? Since when was property destruction not violent?
Let's try a thought experiment. What if somebody blew up 10 buildings in Manhattan, but was very careful to make sure that nobody was in them at the time (they do it on the weekend, or after pulling the fire alarm). They then paint "bring back Arrested Development, you bastards" on the rubble.
Is that simply vandalism, or is it something more?
Because none were hurt and there was no intention to hurt anyone? Or was that a trick question?
So, what if someone was hurt? That changes the entire basis of this act? And how do you know there was no intention to hurt somebody? There was a personal threat written on the site.
Firstly, you use Wikipedia as a source? Moreover, your own link contains verbiage which would classify this as terrorism, only you didn't put it in bold:
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.
How is knocking over a massive antenna not disregarding "the safety of non-combatants"? Further:
Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess.What about these towers is not a symbol that ties into the specific world-view of the attacker(s)? They aren't attacking it because it is an actual threat (despite the BS about radio waves and cancer), they are doing it because it is a symbol of "the man."
Vandalism is damaging something for the sake of it, it's a hedonistic act. But this act involved spray-painting threatening messages addressed to the owner of the tower. I don't see how that doesn't cross the line into terrorism.
Just what is your definition of terrorism, anyway?
But Enthusiasts? Is it the same sort of person who joins the College Republicans, and the Comcast Fan Club?
Pretty much, but they certainly exist. They also appear to be the biggest zealots in the industry - much worse than Apple or Linux fanboys. Only Richard Stallman could possibly top them. A good starting point for investigating this species might be the commentators at Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows. It's super!
(Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous.)
Why? It's clearly terrorism. And I say that as an environmentalist, but one with no sympathy for the ELF's beliefs or tactics. Their actions fit the definition perfectly.
As others have already pointed out, WoW was never as hardcore as some oldskool MMOs like Everquest,
See, I used to play Everquest, and I would have never used the word "hardcore" to describe it. It seemed a lot like a simplistic kids' game to me. It was enjoyable in parts, but the only thing that would differentiate the "hardcore" player from the casual would be the amount of time spent playing the game. That seems like a fairly useless metric to me.
I guess I just don't get this whole "hardcore" thing. There's nothing hardcore about playing a video game. A better word might be "obsessive." I think this is all just about people's egos getting wrapped up in a game.
Don't many of the current bailouts also have conditions applied to them? As far as Andy Grove's comments go, why would the hypothetical bailout of the mainframe manufacturers have to be money with no strings attached? Couldn't such a bailout be conditional on them doing something for the public good, or meeting some infrastructure goal?
False. ONE transcontinental railroad (the first) was supported with free land from the Congress. The funding was entirely private,
How is providing free land not funding? Do you think land is worthless or something? You're also incorrect, funding was also provided via government bonds. And it wasn't only one railroad that was given free land and money.
You need to get your facts straight, son.
A private savings account would provide greater security, simply because you know that if you die before 70, it will be passed-onto your children, rather than disappear.
So, what if you don't have the money to put into a private savings account?
And why are you trying to derail the conversation into one about Social Security, which I never mentioned?
Almost-everything the government touches is a fail
That's clearly nonsense. You don't seem to care for objectivity at all, you've clearly made up your mind that government is bad, and facts don't matter.
The majority of businesses fail over time, and there have been some spectacular failures. So, by your method of ignoring anything good and only seeing the bad, I guess it's equally valid to say that everything that private enterprise does is "a fail."
I didn't respond to all your points, because many of them you conceded that government involvement was useful. However, your Social Security example is particularly off-base, because I was talking about government-private relationships, which Social Security is not really an example of. It seems to me that private enterprise when combined with government backing (combined mandates for public benefit) produce more remarkable results than either purely government or purely private endeavors do.
- railroads were funded *privately* not publicly. And now that rail has been taken-over by government, it's constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Ditto the government-run post office.
No, the first transcontinental railroads were heavily government funded.
- The New Deal was a major fuckup that extended the recession from 1929 to 1950.
In some people's opinion, but it is likely that without action it would have been a lot worse.
- WW2 was a horror not a success.
The war itself was, but America profited massively from it, in economic and technological terms.
- Social Security has been a joke, because if you live long enough to get it, the "interest rate" earned on your original deposit is only 1%...
I didn't mention Social Security, but the point of it is not to provide a return on investment, but to provide security to society. Which it does, with varying effectiveness.
Get rid of the accountants, economists, marketeers and MBAs from power. Put them back to work where they belong. Put people who know what's going on in the executive positions.
That's a decent proposal, but also has the problem that you are taking talented people away from the jobs they do best. Someone still has to do the marketing and economic analysis. But sure, a lot of MBAs are simply charlatans, and they should be cut loose. But putting engineers and scientists in management positions doesn't strike me as the best solution.
Slashdot Mirror
There are Samsung fanboys?
If they're adults then maybe a wine ad could run whereas an advertisement for toys might play for kids
And if it's a mixed group of adults and kids, it shows an ad for drinking wine out of plastic sippy cups?
Slashdot isn't full of "curmudgeons, eccentrics, and free-thinkers" -- there's more of them here, sure, but there's just as many people willing to jump to conclusions, stick with tradition, and tell anyone who disagrees to get bent almost as much as their is in the real world.
What part of "curmudgeon" didn't you understand?
Look at your average baby boomer: They usually have less than 5 friends, most of them are coworkers,
What a load of complete bullshit. Baby Boomers (I'm not one of them, I'm an X) have extensive social networks and are very socially active - they have dinner parties, Barbeques, and tend to watch less TV than Generations X, Y, and whatever the hell the latest one is called (Generation MyFacebookPhone?).
This theft was organized by Microsoft.
No and No. Did you even read those product listings? The PS3 cable is made by Intec, not Sony. The Xbox cable is not actually a plain HDMI cable, but a special adapter.
Blowing up 10 empty buildings is not a violent act. The proper term for destruction of property is vandalism.
Blowing up 10 buildings with the intent to cause fear is terrorism.
Furthermore, this whole thing was likely not meant to strike terror into anyone's heart. Therefore, it's not terrorism.
What? This act was specifically meant to strike terror. What the hell do you think the spray-painted message was for?
If not that, then what do you think the reason for knocking down the antennas was?
Because Sony and Microsoft sell HDMI cables??
Oh boy, a whole extra 120 lines!
In the computer world, this seems to be the way of doing things. My NIC didn't come with a network cable, my soundcard came with a cable to hook up its external box, but didn't come with audio cables, my videocard didn't come with a DVI or VGA cable, and so on. It was left to me to purchase the cables in the length and of the type I required.
On the other hand, I've bought LaCie and Western Digital external hard drives that come with an abundance of cables - a USB cable, a Firewire 400 cable, a Firewire 800 cable, a Firewire 800-to-400 cable and an eSATA cable. These cables would cost so much if bought separately at retail, that it's almost a good idea just to buy one of these drives if you happen to be short of cables, and get a bonus hard drive in the deal.
As such, "violence" is most commonly used now to only refer to people against people.
Except, of course, for the fact that it isn't. Violence is routinely used to refer to all kinds of violence. And nowhere in the definition of terrorism, does it specify violence against people.
It may or may not be something more. However, it would still remain non-violent.
Blowing up 10 building in Manhattan is not a violent act? You've got to be fucking shitting me.
Because they didn't hurt anyone. Do you honestly think that, with the description of the act, they were intending to hurt someone at that time? Or are you just playing devils advocate to play word games and say the opposite of what you actually think?
They were clearly intending to hurt the owner of the antenna, based on the spray-painted slogan.
They could have easily killed somebody with this action. Do you think somebody who is performing such an act in the middle of the night is going to search the area and make sure that not a single person happens to be in the area? Of course not - they would try to do it as quickly as possible to escape detection. This is an inherently risky behavior, with the very real possibility of harming or killing someone.
Since property destruction isn't "violent" it doesn't matter that you can highlight something after it.
What? Since when was property destruction not violent?
Let's try a thought experiment. What if somebody blew up 10 buildings in Manhattan, but was very careful to make sure that nobody was in them at the time (they do it on the weekend, or after pulling the fire alarm). They then paint "bring back Arrested Development, you bastards" on the rubble.
Is that simply vandalism, or is it something more?
Because none were hurt and there was no intention to hurt anyone? Or was that a trick question?
So, what if someone was hurt? That changes the entire basis of this act? And how do you know there was no intention to hurt somebody? There was a personal threat written on the site.
Though even if it did, being batter powered would make it useless if the batteries are drained.
It's a robotic submarine, not a deep-fried fish. Although I can understand the confusion.
Firstly, you use Wikipedia as a source? Moreover, your own link contains verbiage which would classify this as terrorism, only you didn't put it in bold:
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.
How is knocking over a massive antenna not disregarding "the safety of non-combatants"? Further:
Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. What about these towers is not a symbol that ties into the specific world-view of the attacker(s)? They aren't attacking it because it is an actual threat (despite the BS about radio waves and cancer), they are doing it because it is a symbol of "the man."
Vandalism is damaging something for the sake of it, it's a hedonistic act. But this act involved spray-painting threatening messages addressed to the owner of the tower. I don't see how that doesn't cross the line into terrorism.
Just what is your definition of terrorism, anyway?
But Enthusiasts? Is it the same sort of person who joins the College Republicans, and the Comcast Fan Club?
Pretty much, but they certainly exist. They also appear to be the biggest zealots in the industry - much worse than Apple or Linux fanboys. Only Richard Stallman could possibly top them. A good starting point for investigating this species might be the commentators at Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows. It's super!
so, what's your beef with PETA?
There is no beef with PETA! That's the whole problem.
(Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous.)
Why? It's clearly terrorism. And I say that as an environmentalist, but one with no sympathy for the ELF's beliefs or tactics. Their actions fit the definition perfectly.
The market itself is government intervention. Who do you think prints the money?
As others have already pointed out, WoW was never as hardcore as some oldskool MMOs like Everquest,
See, I used to play Everquest, and I would have never used the word "hardcore" to describe it. It seemed a lot like a simplistic kids' game to me. It was enjoyable in parts, but the only thing that would differentiate the "hardcore" player from the casual would be the amount of time spent playing the game. That seems like a fairly useless metric to me.
I guess I just don't get this whole "hardcore" thing. There's nothing hardcore about playing a video game. A better word might be "obsessive." I think this is all just about people's egos getting wrapped up in a game.
Don't many of the current bailouts also have conditions applied to them? As far as Andy Grove's comments go, why would the hypothetical bailout of the mainframe manufacturers have to be money with no strings attached? Couldn't such a bailout be conditional on them doing something for the public good, or meeting some infrastructure goal?
False. ONE transcontinental railroad (the first) was supported with free land from the Congress. The funding was entirely private,
How is providing free land not funding? Do you think land is worthless or something? You're also incorrect, funding was also provided via government bonds. And it wasn't only one railroad that was given free land and money.
You need to get your facts straight, son.
A private savings account would provide greater security, simply because you know that if you die before 70, it will be passed-onto your children, rather than disappear.
So, what if you don't have the money to put into a private savings account?
And why are you trying to derail the conversation into one about Social Security, which I never mentioned?
Almost-everything the government touches is a fail
That's clearly nonsense. You don't seem to care for objectivity at all, you've clearly made up your mind that government is bad, and facts don't matter.
The majority of businesses fail over time, and there have been some spectacular failures. So, by your method of ignoring anything good and only seeing the bad, I guess it's equally valid to say that everything that private enterprise does is "a fail."
By the way, "fail" is not a noun.
P.S:
I didn't respond to all your points, because many of them you conceded that government involvement was useful. However, your Social Security example is particularly off-base, because I was talking about government-private relationships, which Social Security is not really an example of. It seems to me that private enterprise when combined with government backing (combined mandates for public benefit) produce more remarkable results than either purely government or purely private endeavors do.
- railroads were funded *privately* not publicly. And now that rail has been taken-over by government, it's constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Ditto the government-run post office.
No, the first transcontinental railroads were heavily government funded.
- The New Deal was a major fuckup that extended the recession from 1929 to 1950.
In some people's opinion, but it is likely that without action it would have been a lot worse.
- WW2 was a horror not a success.
The war itself was, but America profited massively from it, in economic and technological terms.
- Social Security has been a joke, because if you live long enough to get it, the "interest rate" earned on your original deposit is only 1%...
I didn't mention Social Security, but the point of it is not to provide a return on investment, but to provide security to society. Which it does, with varying effectiveness.
Get rid of the accountants, economists, marketeers and MBAs from power. Put them back to work where they belong. Put people who know what's going on in the executive positions.
That's a decent proposal, but also has the problem that you are taking talented people away from the jobs they do best. Someone still has to do the marketing and economic analysis. But sure, a lot of MBAs are simply charlatans, and they should be cut loose. But putting engineers and scientists in management positions doesn't strike me as the best solution.