A hillbilly without his wrestling shows is a very dangerous individual. Well-armed and high on crystal meth, they are nigh unstoppable. The only way to save ourselves is to hole up at our universities and libraries. They're the only places hillbillies will never go.
The world revolves around me. It began on the day I was born and will end on the day I die. So, naturally, everyone is vying for my attention.
Also, I have a very large penis.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Xbox Live to call everyone who doesn't recognize my superior skills a "fag" or "nigger" in as annoying a voice as I can muster.
I would like to echo your sentiments (as someone who has almost the same setup as you). I would also like to add that I remember back in 1997 when everyone was laughing at the idea that anyone would want to give up their VHS tape collections for DVD's.
I was posting just the other day about Sony's notorious reputation as control freaks and DRM stalwarts. They are truly one of the bad guys in the world of IP.
Even the best retention time doesn't begin to compare with google's archive. When a given thread can go for months, or you want to see a posting history for an individual poster, accept no substitutes.
Yes, I am telling you that you do not have the right to persecute someone for exercising their civil rights. You can disagree with them, you can yell back at them, you can walk away. But you can't jail them, fine them, beat them, burn their house down, or abuse them. And you most certainly may not deprive them of their right to a free public education. And yes, the law in the U.S. views public education as a property right.
"If you are totally private (almost impossible in a practical sense in today's world) you can indeed ban a given ethnicity from you property or perform any other foolishness you want."
If civil rights only applied to government persecution, then I would be perfectly free to put a sign out in front of my house that read "Room for rent, whites only please" or to adopt a "whites only" hiring policy at my business.
U.S. free speech protections are a joke. They don't even BEGIN to compare to civil rights protections in Canada and most of Europe. There are parts of Europe (like Finland) where your right to anonymous free speech is almost absolute. In many countries, the police can't just yank any yahoo off the street for "causing a public disturbance," (i.e., for almost any reason) as they can in the U.S.
First of all, I didn't proposition you. I merely invited you to my van for some free candy. And I'll also have you know that B.O. is the result of a diagnosed medical condition.
And lastly, were you to insult me publicly in such a manner, I could sue you for libel or slander (difficult to prove in the case of parody, though). I could not however, use my government position to deprive you of your right to a free public education.
The "consequences" argument always cracks me up. It's the first thing that thoughtless people always throw out when you point out the contradictions between principle and reality of "free speech." It's thoughtless because it renders the term "right" completely and utterly meaningless. If exercising a "right" means facing the "consequence" of persecution (particularly, but certainly not limited to, government persecution), then the term "right" is so broad as to be completely useless. Every human being in every government since the dawn of time has had the "right" to free speech (and every other civil right) under this ridiculous definition. Hell, you could stand on the street corner in the middle of the Stalinist-era Soviet Union and say whatever you wanted, provided you were willing to accept the consequence of being thrown in the gulag shortly thereafter.
Defining a civil right in such broad terms makes a mockery of the concept and is an insult to those who have faced persecution demanding such rights throughout history. It's telling Andre Sakharov that Russians had the right to free speech in the old Soviet Union (provided they were willing to accept the consequence of the gulag). It's telling Martin Luther King that blacks had the right to vote in the South in the 50's (provided they were willing to lose their jobs and have their houses burned down). It's telling people that persecution does not abridge their rights.
I will express this succinctly: If the exercise of an activity results in your persecution, most particularly by the government or one of its arms but also at the hands of the citizenry at large, then it is not a right. To qualify as a right, the user of said right must be protected from persecution in as vigorous a manner as the government is reasonably capable of.
Better for the kid to learn now that "free speech" is (and always has been) a crock of shit in the U.S. It's just one of those terms that we throw around to make ourselves feel superior to other countries. But when you take even the most cursory look at it, you realize it's as hollow as a reed. "The right to free speech" in reality translates to "The right to conventional, relatively non-controversial speech in a setting that will not upset anyone or be particularly noticed by anyone who might be offended or threatened by said speech." The second you attempt to break out of any one of those tight boundaries, you WILL find yourself in jail/kicked out of school/fired/persecuted or in some way silenced or punished.
That kid just learned one of the most important lessons in life: That what people SAY and CLAIM has little to do with what they DO and how they actually ACT. And that goes for the government, politicians, and just about everyone else. Just because some civics class says you have "the right to free speech" does not mean that you can actually ever speak freely in any real world environment without fear of persecution.
Consider it the first of many disillusioning life lessons, kid.
Slashdot Mirror
We only tell them it's a university because we feel sorry for them. In reality, it's just a high school. No one in Wilmington can tell the difference.
No problem. We'll promise them an awareness concert, toss them a bag of Doritos, and give them a fake hate crime or economic summit to protest.
A hillbilly without his wrestling shows is a very dangerous individual. Well-armed and high on crystal meth, they are nigh unstoppable. The only way to save ourselves is to hole up at our universities and libraries. They're the only places hillbillies will never go.
The world revolves around me. It began on the day I was born and will end on the day I die. So, naturally, everyone is vying for my attention.
Also, I have a very large penis.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Xbox Live to call everyone who doesn't recognize my superior skills a "fag" or "nigger" in as annoying a voice as I can muster.
Until you get to space, no one cares.
Until then, you're just another wannabe.
Until then, you haven't proven yourself.
Until then, you can't brag.
Until then, you don't deserve my attention.
Don't they realize they're risking the start of an intergalactic rap war? Do we want to see Neil Tyson end up like Tupac?
I loved Firefly, but have no wish to see it bastardized into a videogame. That terrible movie follow-up was bad enough.
Wow, if you think MS is half-assing it I'd hate to hear what you think of Sony and their Delaystation.
And for the first time in decades, you can play some decent games on a Mac.
Thanks to bootcamp and Intel chips, Mac and Windows are no longer exclusive.
Wait, there is something UNDER K-Mart?!?!? Good Christ, that's like being the a prison bitch's *assistant*.
I would like to echo your sentiments (as someone who has almost the same setup as you). I would also like to add that I remember back in 1997 when everyone was laughing at the idea that anyone would want to give up their VHS tape collections for DVD's.
"Sadly, I don't have a high-definition TV.. and it's using standard RCA hookups. So, the picture quality and sound was that of a normal DVD."
You were expecting some other result?
Your a grammar Nazi.
"That may mean that if you do not have a backup, and lost your machines, then you will lose your purchase."
With DRM-crippled content you CAN'T back it up.
I was posting just the other day about Sony's notorious reputation as control freaks and DRM stalwarts. They are truly one of the bad guys in the world of IP.
Even the best retention time doesn't begin to compare with google's archive. When a given thread can go for months, or you want to see a posting history for an individual poster, accept no substitutes.
Yes, I am telling you that you do not have the right to persecute someone for exercising their civil rights. You can disagree with them, you can yell back at them, you can walk away. But you can't jail them, fine them, beat them, burn their house down, or abuse them. And you most certainly may not deprive them of their right to a free public education. And yes, the law in the U.S. views public education as a property right.
"If you are totally private (almost impossible in a practical sense in today's world) you can indeed ban a given ethnicity from you property or perform any other foolishness you want."
Uh, no you can't.
Arg, 'tis valuable intelligence on the ways of the scurvy ninja! Off to me Amazon account, mateys!
If civil rights only applied to government persecution, then I would be perfectly free to put a sign out in front of my house that read "Room for rent, whites only please" or to adopt a "whites only" hiring policy at my business.
U.S. free speech protections are a joke. They don't even BEGIN to compare to civil rights protections in Canada and most of Europe. There are parts of Europe (like Finland) where your right to anonymous free speech is almost absolute. In many countries, the police can't just yank any yahoo off the street for "causing a public disturbance," (i.e., for almost any reason) as they can in the U.S.
First of all, I didn't proposition you. I merely invited you to my van for some free candy. And I'll also have you know that B.O. is the result of a diagnosed medical condition.
And lastly, were you to insult me publicly in such a manner, I could sue you for libel or slander (difficult to prove in the case of parody, though). I could not however, use my government position to deprive you of your right to a free public education.
The "consequences" argument always cracks me up. It's the first thing that thoughtless people always throw out when you point out the contradictions between principle and reality of "free speech." It's thoughtless because it renders the term "right" completely and utterly meaningless. If exercising a "right" means facing the "consequence" of persecution (particularly, but certainly not limited to, government persecution), then the term "right" is so broad as to be completely useless. Every human being in every government since the dawn of time has had the "right" to free speech (and every other civil right) under this ridiculous definition. Hell, you could stand on the street corner in the middle of the Stalinist-era Soviet Union and say whatever you wanted, provided you were willing to accept the consequence of being thrown in the gulag shortly thereafter.
Defining a civil right in such broad terms makes a mockery of the concept and is an insult to those who have faced persecution demanding such rights throughout history. It's telling Andre Sakharov that Russians had the right to free speech in the old Soviet Union (provided they were willing to accept the consequence of the gulag). It's telling Martin Luther King that blacks had the right to vote in the South in the 50's (provided they were willing to lose their jobs and have their houses burned down). It's telling people that persecution does not abridge their rights.
I will express this succinctly: If the exercise of an activity results in your persecution, most particularly by the government or one of its arms but also at the hands of the citizenry at large, then it is not a right. To qualify as a right, the user of said right must be protected from persecution in as vigorous a manner as the government is reasonably capable of.
Better for the kid to learn now that "free speech" is (and always has been) a crock of shit in the U.S. It's just one of those terms that we throw around to make ourselves feel superior to other countries. But when you take even the most cursory look at it, you realize it's as hollow as a reed. "The right to free speech" in reality translates to "The right to conventional, relatively non-controversial speech in a setting that will not upset anyone or be particularly noticed by anyone who might be offended or threatened by said speech." The second you attempt to break out of any one of those tight boundaries, you WILL find yourself in jail/kicked out of school/fired/persecuted or in some way silenced or punished.
That kid just learned one of the most important lessons in life: That what people SAY and CLAIM has little to do with what they DO and how they actually ACT. And that goes for the government, politicians, and just about everyone else. Just because some civics class says you have "the right to free speech" does not mean that you can actually ever speak freely in any real world environment without fear of persecution.
Consider it the first of many disillusioning life lessons, kid.