Now, now. While DRM is not the devil it is sometimes made up to be, and while I agree that it is their music and they can do whatever they want with it (just like I could do with mine, and I'm free not to buy theirs after all), it is also true that it DOES come into the way of honest people, either by accident (eg, not really DRM but kinda sorta, the recent WGA-induced problems for legitimate users) or on purpose (eg Sony rootkit, or preventing from doing unusual stuff - multiple backups or anyway something that while honest was not expected to be attempted).
So, while "the ones that think everything should be free and the ones who do regularly steal music and software" certainly DO have a problem with DRM, they are by far NOT the only ones.
My bad! If you're talking about moral responsibility, seeing as they are a news source and enjoy a large market share, I agree they should at least make some gesture of good will towards Linux users. Anyways in this particular case I suspect the discrimination is caused by technical deficiency rather that malice. It's like those idiot sites that check some UA string or installers that look for your Windows signature (if you know what I mean), instead of trying to use the functionality and see if it works or not. They probably think they're saving their users some frustrations, or something. Remember thay are not used to how a Linux user's mind works, they're used to accomodate lusers. Designers used to accomodating lusers tend to drive power users nuts:D
See, if it's my car, *you* are certainly not getting on it. I mean, *you specifically* because I don't like you. How about you buy your own?
BTW stake burning is so demodé... I like a clean, quick kill, preferably involving the usage of snipers.
Hey I never said that they are allowed by the law to do it... Just one more example of a stupid law. Besides... In my country discos and pubs most always have a different status than eg restaurants, they have the "club" status which means they can keep you out for any reason or no reason. Precisely because it's their property. If they are kind enough to let you in, you can enter... and give them lots of money for the dubious privilege:)
Anyways, I would probably not discriminate against people based on their skin color if I had a club. I'd be more worried about keeping streetrats out. You see I have this problem... I recognize other people's freedom to do as they like with their property even when it's something I dislike.
Agreed 100%. It's funny how people advocating such "let's not allow them to do X" attitude have some qualms applying the same concept to themselves. "Hey can I enter your house?" "No, who are you anyway?" "OMGZ discrimination!!!111oneone!"
Whereas I'm convinced that their website is their property and you have no right and no reason, really, to force them to follow your diktat. Please remember that their freedom to discriminate against you is the same freedom YOU have to keep people you don't like out of your home. Freedom goes both ways and that's a good thing.
Frankly with all the antidiscrimination laws being passed right and left (at least in my country), I am worried that soon there will be special "marriage quotas" or something similar, *forcing* people to get into a relationship with minorities, handicapped... all the usual categories that are discriminated against. "Sorry sir, your group hasn't reached its married-with-minorities quota, you can't get married with your g/f until you hir^H^H^H get married with at least...". If you think of it, it makes perfect sense. The reasoning goes as follows: they have a *right* to a job, to access facilities (well, like everyone else); *therefore* we should make special laws because of justice for all or whatever local version; *thus* it makes sense to make sure they fully enjoy the same life as everyone else, and that includes granting access to being in a couple (hey, statistically they enjoy less relationships than those not in such minorities ATM).
Before you brand me as a lunatic I can tell you that it's already happening: some kinds of couple get special treatment from the government while other ones do not. I happen to fall into that category BTW (well I used to until I broke up w/ my gf) yet I strongly oppose all of this... We were supposed to be the same before the law, to enjoy the same treatment in everything - that is the exact opposite of what is happening. Sometimes I have acted in a racist way, sometimes I have been the target of racism, sometimes I benefited from "special treatment" from the govt, sometimes I had to suffer for someone else... This is all wrong. It wouldn't happen if only the govt weren't so keen on "enforcing equality".
Anyway, to sum it up: yes this *is* discrimination, but I don't think any kind of govt should get involved with the private choices of a privately run organization which provides services to private citizens and/or commercial entities. If a charity provides help to some specific very oppressed black minority, don't you call that discrimination as well? I remember "discriminate" meant "to choose" originally.
Of course, it's their property. I guess you would have no problems simply allowing anyone and everyone to enter your house, right? That would be discrimination, I suppose.
As a matter of fact, a restaurant owner can (and soetimes will) throw out obnoxious patrons or refuse access to street bums. Do you have a problem letting people do what they like with their own property?
Since it's their own frigging website and they can whatever they feel like doing with it, including restricting access to those who know the answers to the Three Secret Questions or those who wear purple underwear. It's not oike you have some intrinsic "right" to access their content.
Don't like it? Make your own and set your own restrictions.
Care to come up with a serious study pointing out that, I dunno, maybe 10% of Christians beat wife & kids somewhat regularly? *That* qualifies for "likely to beat children and their wives". 0.001% of your hated-group-of-the-day doing something you dislike does not justify mindlessly bashing them.
As a matter of fact I am from a country where pretty much everyone is or declares to be a Christian, yet I still have to see any way their likelihood to beat anyone is different than mine (obviously I am not one). Which is, in both cases, 0% anyway. Maybe you failed to notice that normal people in normal countries are quite, you see, normal: non violent and disapproving of violence.
I take it you live by this belief, then: "We applaud people who do things like this and we don't stop members from doing it, but really it's not our fault that it happens!"
Oh yeah I just pulled the trigger, you see, it's the bullet you have to blame!
BZZZT wrong. Precisely BECAUSE his argument is logical, it's not just a prejudice - it is backed by facts.
Why aren't all Christians evil? Because most Christians (as in 99.999%) do not go around blowing shit up.
Why is prejudice acceptable? Because it is not prejudice, it is *reality*. I guess you would also advocate not discriminating against thieves because "OMGZ it's a prejudice, they're merely thieves"? Once they have been proven to be thieves it's not prejudice anymore, it is truth we're talking about. Something you definitely seem to have problems with.
So when is the next bombing planned for? What are you going to target this time with your comrades?
That's the reason why you solve such problems with the leaders' home address and a couple of snipers. It costs way less, produces better results, and taxpayers don't have to pay for 30 years of jailtime for each leader. Brilliant!
I suppose you'll have no problems telling me: your full name, home address, job address, mobile phone number, credit card number, pet's name, mother's maiden name, and maybe throw in a couple of family pictures too.
What's that you say, you don't have to do it and it would be foolish? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE? WHAT IS THE REASON YOU WON'T TELL US?
Wow. Just, wow. Care to tell me the reasons why I am so powerfully immoral? Because you see, if something has eyes, I'll probably eat it. And if it had a mother I'll eat her too, they're tasty! It's funny how you have no qualms about blowing people up yet you think the cute wittle calf "deserves better". Ah, well, an immoral being like me will probably never get it (*thank god* for that).
You should basically renounce everything that makes your life enjoyable and go live in commune in a forest where you will be one with nature and respect it and be respected by it and merry squirrels will wake you up in the morning. Following which, you will go to the fields and work 12 hours straight in order to produce barely enough to survive, and that's assuming nothing bad happens.
Yep, that sums it up pretty well. And you are surprised these nutjobs go around blowing people up?
Quite a lot of thinkers have argued (quite successfully might I add) that indeed nothing is knowable or understandable. Not even the cause-effect relationship can be proved. Our math is simply our vision of the universe. Basically, all our knowledge is based on a set of assumptions: basic ones, of course, but nontheless fundamental. We can't derive knowledge from experience and what we deem to be sure is made up by progressively more sofisticated identities.
We can thank good old Hume for modern science: when he went and said "Well gee, we don't know if the Sun will rise tomorrow but why don't we just *act* like it will and I, yessir, *I* personally guarantuee that all will be well?" he saved us quite a lot of headaches.
Just not to mention Descartes and all those who have come up with variations on the brain-in-a-vat theory.
Finally, the God as a clockmaker argument weakens your point even more.
I wouldn't be so quick in saying there is no place for God and science in the same universe. Indeed, many people seem to be quite OK dealing with both at the same time.
Oh and I am as atheist as they come. The only thing I like less than religious zealotry is FUD.
Eh, good one. Hadn't thought of that.
One of the beauties of being a libertarian is that in such circumstances you can resort to a big fat *who cares* while letting people do as they like; *and* doing what you like, on your own part.
WRT to the whole gay marriage thing; one of the most insghtful comments I've seen on/. came from a very Christian guy who basically argued he had nothing against gay guys getting married, but a lot against the gov't forcing him to recognize said marriage. Again, my libertarian POV on this is that both this guy and the gay ones are right, and both should do as they please. And possibly try to be good-mannered when dealing with each other.
Yeah, let's throw in a few more:
If you disagree with not protecting IP you're a corporate shill.
If you disagree with total drug deregulation (which BTW I agree with) you're like, totally a bigot, mon.
If you disagree with Israelis fighting for their lives you're a fascist pig.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, now. While DRM is not the devil it is sometimes made up to be, and while I agree that it is their music and they can do whatever they want with it (just like I could do with mine, and I'm free not to buy theirs after all), it is also true that it DOES come into the way of honest people, either by accident (eg, not really DRM but kinda sorta, the recent WGA-induced problems for legitimate users) or on purpose (eg Sony rootkit, or preventing from doing unusual stuff - multiple backups or anyway something that while honest was not expected to be attempted).
So, while "the ones that think everything should be free and the ones who do regularly steal music and software" certainly DO have a problem with DRM, they are by far NOT the only ones.
It looks like hitting on your hot manager and being turned down hurts a lot.
My bad! If you're talking about moral responsibility, seeing as they are a news source and enjoy a large market share, I agree they should at least make some gesture of good will towards Linux users. Anyways in this particular case I suspect the discrimination is caused by technical deficiency rather that malice. It's like those idiot sites that check some UA string or installers that look for your Windows signature (if you know what I mean), instead of trying to use the functionality and see if it works or not. They probably think they're saving their users some frustrations, or something. Remember thay are not used to how a Linux user's mind works, they're used to accomodate lusers. Designers used to accomodating lusers tend to drive power users nuts :D
See, if it's my car, *you* are certainly not getting on it. I mean, *you specifically* because I don't like you. How about you buy your own?
BTW stake burning is so demodé... I like a clean, quick kill, preferably involving the usage of snipers.
Hey I never said that they are allowed by the law to do it... Just one more example of a stupid law. Besides... In my country discos and pubs most always have a different status than eg restaurants, they have the "club" status which means they can keep you out for any reason or no reason. Precisely because it's their property. If they are kind enough to let you in, you can enter... and give them lots of money for the dubious privilege :)
Anyways, I would probably not discriminate against people based on their skin color if I had a club. I'd be more worried about keeping streetrats out. You see I have this problem... I recognize other people's freedom to do as they like with their property even when it's something I dislike.
Agreed 100%. It's funny how people advocating such "let's not allow them to do X" attitude have some qualms applying the same concept to themselves. "Hey can I enter your house?" "No, who are you anyway?" "OMGZ discrimination!!!111oneone!"
Whereas I'm convinced that their website is their property and you have no right and no reason, really, to force them to follow your diktat. Please remember that their freedom to discriminate against you is the same freedom YOU have to keep people you don't like out of your home. Freedom goes both ways and that's a good thing.
Frankly with all the antidiscrimination laws being passed right and left (at least in my country), I am worried that soon there will be special "marriage quotas" or something similar, *forcing* people to get into a relationship with minorities, handicapped... all the usual categories that are discriminated against. "Sorry sir, your group hasn't reached its married-with-minorities quota, you can't get married with your g/f until you hir^H^H^H get married with at least...". If you think of it, it makes perfect sense. The reasoning goes as follows: they have a *right* to a job, to access facilities (well, like everyone else); *therefore* we should make special laws because of justice for all or whatever local version; *thus* it makes sense to make sure they fully enjoy the same life as everyone else, and that includes granting access to being in a couple (hey, statistically they enjoy less relationships than those not in such minorities ATM). Before you brand me as a lunatic I can tell you that it's already happening: some kinds of couple get special treatment from the government while other ones do not. I happen to fall into that category BTW (well I used to until I broke up w/ my gf) yet I strongly oppose all of this... We were supposed to be the same before the law, to enjoy the same treatment in everything - that is the exact opposite of what is happening. Sometimes I have acted in a racist way, sometimes I have been the target of racism, sometimes I benefited from "special treatment" from the govt, sometimes I had to suffer for someone else... This is all wrong. It wouldn't happen if only the govt weren't so keen on "enforcing equality".
Anyway, to sum it up: yes this *is* discrimination, but I don't think any kind of govt should get involved with the private choices of a privately run organization which provides services to private citizens and/or commercial entities. If a charity provides help to some specific very oppressed black minority, don't you call that discrimination as well? I remember "discriminate" meant "to choose" originally.
Of course, it's their property. I guess you would have no problems simply allowing anyone and everyone to enter your house, right? That would be discrimination, I suppose.
As a matter of fact, a restaurant owner can (and soetimes will) throw out obnoxious patrons or refuse access to street bums. Do you have a problem letting people do what they like with their own property?
Since it's their own frigging website and they can whatever they feel like doing with it, including restricting access to those who know the answers to the Three Secret Questions or those who wear purple underwear. It's not oike you have some intrinsic "right" to access their content.
Don't like it? Make your own and set your own restrictions.
Care to come up with a serious study pointing out that, I dunno, maybe 10% of Christians beat wife & kids somewhat regularly? *That* qualifies for "likely to beat children and their wives". 0.001% of your hated-group-of-the-day doing something you dislike does not justify mindlessly bashing them.
As a matter of fact I am from a country where pretty much everyone is or declares to be a Christian, yet I still have to see any way their likelihood to beat anyone is different than mine (obviously I am not one). Which is, in both cases, 0% anyway. Maybe you failed to notice that normal people in normal countries are quite, you see, normal: non violent and disapproving of violence.
Ayup. They also beat children, the ones they do not eat that is, and also they like to FLAME LIKE MORONS. Oh no wait, that would be you.
I take it you live by this belief, then: "We applaud people who do things like this and we don't stop members from doing it, but really it's not our fault that it happens!"
Oh yeah I just pulled the trigger, you see, it's the bullet you have to blame!
BZZZT wrong. Precisely BECAUSE his argument is logical, it's not just a prejudice - it is backed by facts.
Why aren't all Christians evil? Because most Christians (as in 99.999%) do not go around blowing shit up.
Why is prejudice acceptable? Because it is not prejudice, it is *reality*. I guess you would also advocate not discriminating against thieves because "OMGZ it's a prejudice, they're merely thieves"? Once they have been proven to be thieves it's not prejudice anymore, it is truth we're talking about. Something you definitely seem to have problems with.
So when is the next bombing planned for? What are you going to target this time with your comrades?
Oh, so because his perfectly correct logical explanation clashes with your ideology-induced belief, suddenly it's wrong?
That's the reason why you solve such problems with the leaders' home address and a couple of snipers. It costs way less, produces better results, and taxpayers don't have to pay for 30 years of jailtime for each leader. Brilliant!
I suppose you'll have no problems telling me: your full name, home address, job address, mobile phone number, credit card number, pet's name, mother's maiden name, and maybe throw in a couple of family pictures too.
What's that you say, you don't have to do it and it would be foolish? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE? WHAT IS THE REASON YOU WON'T TELL US?
Wow. Just, wow. Care to tell me the reasons why I am so powerfully immoral? Because you see, if something has eyes, I'll probably eat it. And if it had a mother I'll eat her too, they're tasty!
It's funny how you have no qualms about blowing people up yet you think the cute wittle calf "deserves better". Ah, well, an immoral being like me will probably never get it (*thank god* for that).
Seriously--what is the proposal here?
You should basically renounce everything that makes your life enjoyable and go live in commune in a forest where you will be one with nature and respect it and be respected by it and merry squirrels will wake you up in the morning. Following which, you will go to the fields and work 12 hours straight in order to produce barely enough to survive, and that's assuming nothing bad happens.
Yep, that sums it up pretty well. And you are surprised these nutjobs go around blowing people up?
I'll buy it but ONLY if this speech is in the intro http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10.
Definitely useless and I'd get rid of it in a heartbeat, but why not neutral? They don't have any great hidden agendas AFAIK.
Meh, my bad. I actually meant the exact opposite. Must have been tired, or something. Bye
Quite a lot of thinkers have argued (quite successfully might I add) that indeed nothing is knowable or understandable. Not even the cause-effect relationship can be proved. Our math is simply our vision of the universe. Basically, all our knowledge is based on a set of assumptions: basic ones, of course, but nontheless fundamental. We can't derive knowledge from experience and what we deem to be sure is made up by progressively more sofisticated identities.
We can thank good old Hume for modern science: when he went and said "Well gee, we don't know if the Sun will rise tomorrow but why don't we just *act* like it will and I, yessir, *I* personally guarantuee that all will be well?" he saved us quite a lot of headaches.
Just not to mention Descartes and all those who have come up with variations on the brain-in-a-vat theory.
Finally, the God as a clockmaker argument weakens your point even more.
I wouldn't be so quick in saying there is no place for God and science in the same universe. Indeed, many people seem to be quite OK dealing with both at the same time.
Oh and I am as atheist as they come. The only thing I like less than religious zealotry is FUD.
Eh, good one. Hadn't thought of that. /. came from a very Christian guy who basically argued he had nothing against gay guys getting married, but a lot against the gov't forcing him to recognize said marriage. Again, my libertarian POV on this is that both this guy and the gay ones are right, and both should do as they please. And possibly try to be good-mannered when dealing with each other.
One of the beauties of being a libertarian is that in such circumstances you can resort to a big fat *who cares* while letting people do as they like; *and* doing what you like, on your own part.
WRT to the whole gay marriage thing; one of the most insghtful comments I've seen on
Geek uses 700 MHz. Wife has dual core 3800.
o.O
Yeah, let's throw in a few more:
If you disagree with not protecting IP you're a corporate shill.
If you disagree with total drug deregulation (which BTW I agree with) you're like, totally a bigot, mon.
If you disagree with Israelis fighting for their lives you're a fascist pig.
Nobody is innocent of this tactic. Deal with it.