Your argument is ridiculous, all the worse for its implied reasonableness.
Someone can get addicted, to their detriment, to almost any product or service. Someone can get addicted to the idea that ingesting silver will make them invincible to infection, and turn blue like a god damn smurf. Oh noes, better blame all those evil websites out claiming silver is antimicrobial! Someone can get addicted to strippers and spend all their time and money at a strip club. Oh noes! Better sue the strippers and the club they work at, they were just too god damn hot!
This case should be thrown out and he should have to pay the legal fees for the victim (NCSoft). Saying "Oh, we have a system" doesn't address the idiocy of his actions any more than murder is suddenly OK because, well, we have a system and I'm sure he'll go to prison for it.
Don't see issue. If your ISP blocks or degrades SlashDot's performance, complain to your ISP. I can't imagine why it's SlashDot's problem if your Internet connection is lazy or why they would even consider paying your ISP anything.
I thought everyone knew the US has the best health care available anywhere? It's fairly obvious. I can walk in and get an MRI and pay for one of the best doctors in the world to look at it. We have the best technology and the best doctors.
We certainly don't have the cheapest healthcare. Or the most widely available. And our population isn't the healthiest. And we accurately measure infant mortality while most of the world lies about it and uses odd metrics to define it. Sure, all of that is true.
But I, as a middle class American, have access to better healthcare than at least 90% of the rest of the world, probably more like 98% of the world - the only exceptions being people who are super-rich and can just pay cache for the absolute best of everything.
You liberal hipster douches are the newcomers, this place used to be cool. I'm not Liberterian, and I'm not even libertarian - but I lean more towards that than a laughably disproved, idiotic philosophy that the government can solve all our problems.
It's going to suck living through it, but it's going to be sweet watching you fuckers fret as first Europe then the US collapses under its own weight.
Comcast committed a man-in-the-middle attack against its customers to damage a particular protocol used heavily for movies that are on PPV
Surely you're not talking about their filtering of BitTorrent? That would be silly. There were nebulous claims that Comcast applied network management to BitTorrent traffic, 90%+ of which is illegal anyway. Show proof, and show that there weren't throttling users to manage bandwidth, and show that your contract with them to doesn't allow this.
You can't because you're just fearmongering [oh teh noes, it's a "man-in-the-middle attack" and it was "an actual DoS attack that violates a number of state and federal laws"] and making shit up like many other NN proponents.
PS: You do understand, of course, that this populist Net Neutrality Movement is just one set of (much hated) corporations against another set of (much hated) corporations, right? I mean, you do get that don't you?
It's amusing how one set of corporations have successfully hoodwinked and marshaled a bunch of idealists into some ridiculous faux grassroots, for the people nonsense against another set of corporations so they can save money and give their shareholders more value.
What's most ironic is the people they've hoodwinked are the most rabid anti-corporation people there are.
Keep them in check from what, exactly? All I hear about are nebulous concepts of (gasp) charging people for bandwidth.
Most of the clamor for "net neutrality" is based on hypothetical situations or situations where the free market is more than capable of dealing with any abuses.
People keep taking about how few broadband choices we have... I have no less than 6-7 obvious choices for broadband right now, including Sprint, Quest, DirecTV, Cox, AT&T, Verizon (yes, you can use 3G/4G for Internet access), you name it.
Net neutrality is absurd and its proponents largely resort to fearmongering to sell it.
Back in the day (early-mid 90's through late 90's), we were scared to death the government was going to come in and tax everything, censor everything, and put all kinds of regulations in place.
Now we have this new generation of Government Can Do, idealistic youngsters who think the government can protect our precious Internet without stomping all over it. Riiiight.
I remember back in my day we fought tooth and nail to keep the government _away_ from controlling the Internet. Now apparently it's fashionable to want them controlling it, but only for "good" purposes. I'm sure they'll keep their hands off except to ensure the evil corporations don't screw the noble consumer over, though. Government's pretty good at that kind of thing. Incorruptible and efficient beyond reproach, that's what the government is.
It's always had one. I can walk into a medical center and get the best healthcare available in the world for me or my family. I'm unclear what your point is. That I have to pay for it?
Based on what? x86 processor performance has been exceptional. It's the best there is, beating everything in either performance, price/performance, or power/performance.
Anti-x86 hysteria is pretty ridiculous in the face of the fact of how much performance Intel and AMD have been able to eke out of it. It mostly seems to boil down to the vague, nonsensical blathering of "well, we could have something somehow better", much like the baseless hysteria that Microsoft has single-handedly somehow set back the IT industry 80 years (yes, somehow 80 years).
I think it's pretty cool that now you can get a patent on some stoned "what if" scenario.
"What if we could totally make like a comic book out of my game went? Wouldn't it be totally gnarly if I could make it like a comic book of my shenanigans dude?!"
It's funny those dickholes came up with literally just some idea probably 50,000 people have talked about at one point or another, and then add just a super-high level set of "details" on how to do it, the same details that anyone would come up with if asked how to do it. They like to throw in various specifics like "with an XBox" or "With a PS3" so they can claim it's specific.
Funny, our debt ratio was quite a bit lower in 2008, but it's been rocketing higher and higher rapidly since. I wonder why that is... It's sad when Dubya, the profligate spender, is a fond memory in terms of fiscal discipline.
Riiight. What a facile application of the so-called "Streisand effect" to something completely unrelated. People were looking at this as soon as it was released, it's not pictures of someone sunbathing nude.
Lol. Allowing our enemies to form a base of operations and attack us gives us the "right". The reasons for attacking Iraq were certainly dubious, other than maybe taking the fight to a battlefield away from the US, but the reasons for attacking Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban were pretty clear.
Doesn't take much research, Scalia's concurrence in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:
I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”... This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored....
The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.
I'm talking specifically about EuroSocialism, the idea that a big government can solve our problems. As an example you mention, the love affair SlashDot has with "Net Neutrality". During the 90's nobody wanted the govt doing shit with the Internet - hands off. Now they can't get enough govt regulation.
Socially, sure I think the net has always been left-wing, including myself. In terms of "can government solve our problems", this is a objectively false opinion people are espousing more and more online over the last decade or so.
Same thing around here. For some reason the early Internet population was rightish leaning (not neo-con Right, more like small-L libertarian right), but nowadays the trend is reversed. The general population is more left leaning. Some of it may be because the US had a larger early Internet presence. I think it's also because early on it was more of the intellectual elite and now even the common rabble is out blathering their opinions on the Internet.
I grew up to, but I didn't regress in my political views, I simply refined them. Even back then I laughed at the "Durr, the roads and everything else should be private!" brigade, and I still do.
The problem with social democrats is socialism (even "socialism-light") does not work. It's almost as ridiculous as big-L Libertarianism. Looking at the debt the West has racked up over the last century or so should make it readily apparent that a large social apparatus is unsustainable and that we can't all have the same standard of living.
Even from a practical perspective, I'm not willing to sacrifice my standard of living and that of my family greatly so some welfare mother can spit out 5 kids and have a slightly better standard of living.
It's not wrong, and a corporation is not a legally created person. The whole "a corporation is a person" thing is a facile simplification of the law. A corporation can not vote, for example. A corporation has a multitude of extra laws governing its operation no person has, and lacks many rights a person does.
I can gather 50 of my closest friends and they will sign a contract stating they agree for the funds to be used in a commercial either for or against Proposition X, and that they agree to be bound by the decision of the group. We could then vote, and if 26 of us are for it and 24 against, guess what? We can do the add for it.
Again, a corporation is legally treated, in some ways, as a person but it is _also_ an aggregation of people, each of whom has rights and the sum of whom have rights.
Yeah... no. There is no right to marry, it's a state granted privilege like driving. And there are no protections in the Constitution for homosexuality or even recognition of it.
I read the decision. It's predicated on nonsense - namely that there is a liberty to get "married" where none exists.
The correct solution is to short circuit those busybody right wing nuts and just have a federal concept of a union between two people that confers all the benefits (what few there are) of "marriage" and end the concept of marriage as associated with the law.
Then anybody can get "married" who wants to in any church that will let them, and the state has a separate legal state that confers the tax and other legal trappings of marriage.
English fail. Please go look up the word (and understand the concept behind) "parenthetical". Let me explain it to you with an example, as your English appears to be a little rusty.
Let's say I'm principal of a school and I say "Due to issues with students smuggling in drugs, backpacks will no longer be allowed."
Now, you tell me - does this mean if I'm a student and I'm not smuggling in drugs that I can go ahead and bring my backpack? No, of course not. The opening phrase is (here's that word again) "parenthetical".
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is ridiculous, all the worse for its implied reasonableness.
Someone can get addicted, to their detriment, to almost any product or service. Someone can get addicted to the idea that ingesting silver will make them invincible to infection, and turn blue like a god damn smurf. Oh noes, better blame all those evil websites out claiming silver is antimicrobial! Someone can get addicted to strippers and spend all their time and money at a strip club. Oh noes! Better sue the strippers and the club they work at, they were just too god damn hot!
This case should be thrown out and he should have to pay the legal fees for the victim (NCSoft). Saying "Oh, we have a system" doesn't address the idiocy of his actions any more than murder is suddenly OK because, well, we have a system and I'm sure he'll go to prison for it.
Don't see issue. If your ISP blocks or degrades SlashDot's performance, complain to your ISP. I can't imagine why it's SlashDot's problem if your Internet connection is lazy or why they would even consider paying your ISP anything.
I thought everyone knew the US has the best health care available anywhere? It's fairly obvious. I can walk in and get an MRI and pay for one of the best doctors in the world to look at it. We have the best technology and the best doctors.
We certainly don't have the cheapest healthcare. Or the most widely available. And our population isn't the healthiest. And we accurately measure infant mortality while most of the world lies about it and uses odd metrics to define it. Sure, all of that is true.
But I, as a middle class American, have access to better healthcare than at least 90% of the rest of the world, probably more like 98% of the world - the only exceptions being people who are super-rich and can just pay cache for the absolute best of everything.
You liberal hipster douches are the newcomers, this place used to be cool. I'm not Liberterian, and I'm not even libertarian - but I lean more towards that than a laughably disproved, idiotic philosophy that the government can solve all our problems.
It's going to suck living through it, but it's going to be sweet watching you fuckers fret as first Europe then the US collapses under its own weight.
Comcast committed a man-in-the-middle attack against its customers to damage a particular protocol used heavily for movies that are on PPV
Surely you're not talking about their filtering of BitTorrent? That would be silly. There were nebulous claims that Comcast applied network management to BitTorrent traffic, 90%+ of which is illegal anyway. Show proof, and show that there weren't throttling users to manage bandwidth, and show that your contract with them to doesn't allow this.
You can't because you're just fearmongering [oh teh noes, it's a "man-in-the-middle attack" and it was "an actual DoS attack that violates a number of state and federal laws"] and making shit up like many other NN proponents.
PS: You do understand, of course, that this populist Net Neutrality Movement is just one set of (much hated) corporations against another set of (much hated) corporations, right? I mean, you do get that don't you?
It's amusing how one set of corporations have successfully hoodwinked and marshaled a bunch of idealists into some ridiculous faux grassroots, for the people nonsense against another set of corporations so they can save money and give their shareholders more value.
What's most ironic is the people they've hoodwinked are the most rabid anti-corporation people there are.
Keep them in check from what, exactly? All I hear about are nebulous concepts of (gasp) charging people for bandwidth.
Most of the clamor for "net neutrality" is based on hypothetical situations or situations where the free market is more than capable of dealing with any abuses.
People keep taking about how few broadband choices we have... I have no less than 6-7 obvious choices for broadband right now, including Sprint, Quest, DirecTV, Cox, AT&T, Verizon (yes, you can use 3G/4G for Internet access), you name it.
Net neutrality is absurd and its proponents largely resort to fearmongering to sell it.
Back in the day (early-mid 90's through late 90's), we were scared to death the government was going to come in and tax everything, censor everything, and put all kinds of regulations in place.
Now we have this new generation of Government Can Do, idealistic youngsters who think the government can protect our precious Internet without stomping all over it. Riiiight.
I remember back in my day we fought tooth and nail to keep the government _away_ from controlling the Internet. Now apparently it's fashionable to want them controlling it, but only for "good" purposes. I'm sure they'll keep their hands off except to ensure the evil corporations don't screw the noble consumer over, though. Government's pretty good at that kind of thing. Incorruptible and efficient beyond reproach, that's what the government is.
It's always had one. I can walk into a medical center and get the best healthcare available in the world for me or my family. I'm unclear what your point is. That I have to pay for it?
Lol. Apparently members of the Taliban out modding in force today.
I agree though, x86 needs to die.
Based on what? x86 processor performance has been exceptional. It's the best there is, beating everything in either performance, price/performance, or power/performance.
Anti-x86 hysteria is pretty ridiculous in the face of the fact of how much performance Intel and AMD have been able to eke out of it. It mostly seems to boil down to the vague, nonsensical blathering of "well, we could have something somehow better", much like the baseless hysteria that Microsoft has single-handedly somehow set back the IT industry 80 years (yes, somehow 80 years).
I think it's pretty cool that now you can get a patent on some stoned "what if" scenario.
"What if we could totally make like a comic book out of my game went? Wouldn't it be totally gnarly if I could make it like a comic book of my shenanigans dude?!"
It's funny those dickholes came up with literally just some idea probably 50,000 people have talked about at one point or another, and then add just a super-high level set of "details" on how to do it, the same details that anyone would come up with if asked how to do it. They like to throw in various specifics like "with an XBox" or "With a PS3" so they can claim it's specific.
Transparent dickholery.
Funny, our debt ratio was quite a bit lower in 2008, but it's been rocketing higher and higher rapidly since. I wonder why that is... It's sad when Dubya, the profligate spender, is a fond memory in terms of fiscal discipline.
Portugal, you mean that country that's less than 1/3 the population of California? Surely what works for them will work for us, right?
Riiight. What a facile application of the so-called "Streisand effect" to something completely unrelated. People were looking at this as soon as it was released, it's not pictures of someone sunbathing nude.
Lol. Allowing our enemies to form a base of operations and attack us gives us the "right". The reasons for attacking Iraq were certainly dubious, other than maybe taking the fight to a battlefield away from the US, but the reasons for attacking Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban were pretty clear.
I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”... This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored.... The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.
I'm talking specifically about EuroSocialism, the idea that a big government can solve our problems. As an example you mention, the love affair SlashDot has with "Net Neutrality". During the 90's nobody wanted the govt doing shit with the Internet - hands off. Now they can't get enough govt regulation.
Socially, sure I think the net has always been left-wing, including myself. In terms of "can government solve our problems", this is a objectively false opinion people are espousing more and more online over the last decade or so.
Bush is definitely part of it. Aside from his various booberies as CiC, he completely offput people from anything labeled the "right".
But I'm more talking about left/right in terms of the economic, fiscal, and regulatory sense. I'm pretty left on social issues myself.
My contention is that European style big government socialism is now far more popular on teh Interwebz that it would have been in the 90's.
Same thing around here. For some reason the early Internet population was rightish leaning (not neo-con Right, more like small-L libertarian right), but nowadays the trend is reversed. The general population is more left leaning. Some of it may be because the US had a larger early Internet presence. I think it's also because early on it was more of the intellectual elite and now even the common rabble is out blathering their opinions on the Internet.
Funny, the SC agrees with my interpretation (roughly). Ultimately you're simply wrong.
I grew up to, but I didn't regress in my political views, I simply refined them. Even back then I laughed at the "Durr, the roads and everything else should be private!" brigade, and I still do.
The problem with social democrats is socialism (even "socialism-light") does not work. It's almost as ridiculous as big-L Libertarianism. Looking at the debt the West has racked up over the last century or so should make it readily apparent that a large social apparatus is unsustainable and that we can't all have the same standard of living.
Even from a practical perspective, I'm not willing to sacrifice my standard of living and that of my family greatly so some welfare mother can spit out 5 kids and have a slightly better standard of living.
It's not wrong, and a corporation is not a legally created person. The whole "a corporation is a person" thing is a facile simplification of the law. A corporation can not vote, for example. A corporation has a multitude of extra laws governing its operation no person has, and lacks many rights a person does.
I can gather 50 of my closest friends and they will sign a contract stating they agree for the funds to be used in a commercial either for or against Proposition X, and that they agree to be bound by the decision of the group. We could then vote, and if 26 of us are for it and 24 against, guess what? We can do the add for it.
Again, a corporation is legally treated, in some ways, as a person but it is _also_ an aggregation of people, each of whom has rights and the sum of whom have rights.
Yeah... no. There is no right to marry, it's a state granted privilege like driving. And there are no protections in the Constitution for homosexuality or even recognition of it.
I read the decision. It's predicated on nonsense - namely that there is a liberty to get "married" where none exists.
The correct solution is to short circuit those busybody right wing nuts and just have a federal concept of a union between two people that confers all the benefits (what few there are) of "marriage" and end the concept of marriage as associated with the law.
Then anybody can get "married" who wants to in any church that will let them, and the state has a separate legal state that confers the tax and other legal trappings of marriage.
English fail. Please go look up the word (and understand the concept behind) "parenthetical". Let me explain it to you with an example, as your English appears to be a little rusty.
Let's say I'm principal of a school and I say "Due to issues with students smuggling in drugs, backpacks will no longer be allowed."
Now, you tell me - does this mean if I'm a student and I'm not smuggling in drugs that I can go ahead and bring my backpack? No, of course not. The opening phrase is (here's that word again) "parenthetical".