Yo, there was this guy long time ago, you know, called C.J. Caesar MC, and he was, like, worried that the Man would steal his secretz, 'namean?, so he came up with this gimmick where he wrote something on a piece of dead skin, how gross is that?, man, but if you had read it it wouldn't have made no sense, but if you had known HOW to read it, then hell yeah, lotsa sense there... than his buddy later called this thingamajig ROT-13 or some such nerdy word, and then lotsa other guys did the same, but more powerful...
I hope you liked this short intro to ENCRYPTION and understand how it can solve some of your problems. Thank you and goodnight.
Ok. So. I don't like you because you're gay is bad; CENSORSHIP, immediately! I censor you because I don't like what you say about me is bad; CENSOR... no wait. Kind of a loophole here... what to do, what to do...
WTF... it's physically impossible to respect such terms! They basically say I MUST love everyone on sight. What if I, uh, don't like someone and, you know, insult them?
Wait, someone's at the door, must be the thought police coming for me...
There should be prison time for whoever decided it was a good idea to install a rootkit on their customers' computers.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, oh my, yes, let's shoot them, no wait, let's hang them, NO NO wait I got it, let's hang their severed heads on our pikes and put those on top of the city walls! Let's also burn all script kiddies alive while we're at it! Oh the hilarity! ... on a more serious tone, are fucking insane? Better yet, are you such a hypocrite that you think it's OK for some people to attack the university's servers (which of course it is) but it's not OK for someone else to attack YOU (which, again, of course it is)?
I don't care what a musician's opinion on DRM is; I DO care a lot when he says he has a certain one and behaves in the opposite way. Saying "Oh yeah I'm so sorry about that DRM thingie the corp bastards forced on me" is sheer hypocrisy.
This reeks of the right-wing fascism you so hate. Freedom for those who have the same views and death to dissenters eh?
"This is bullshit, and you're a hypocrite. For this reason, you are now being sent to a gulag." ... see my point? If you hate someone so much, please go on and say it instead of accusing him of doing the EXACT same thing YOU are doing.
Amazingly, people carrying guns don't become mindless killers that will shoot people at the slightest provocation.
But that's exactly what you would be doing according to your description. If someone pulled me out of my car through the window WITHOUT USING A WEAPON I would hit him back with punches and whatnot but I would definitely avoid killing him. Whereas you would pull out your gun and kill him. I guess when I make a mistake and step on your toe you're going to bash me in the head with a club? How about gouging out my eye if I ring your doorbell by mistake because I have the wrong address...
so I'd like to hear if anyone else thinks this is too big brother.
Pretty much, yeah. Besides, your argument is flawed where you say that this would eliminate "the need for traffic officers in police forces". Historically, it simply doesn't work that way. And one might argue that now there's a cop in every car - so it would be an increase of them.
It is a flamebait because, while apparently against racism, it was actually more racist than the comment itself. Screaming that the black ones are better is just as racist as screaming that the green ones are. So, if you do it and at the same time say that racism is bad bad bad, then you're a hypocrite./. lacks such a moderation tag, so it becomes flamebait instead. Satisfied with the explanation?
"other sociopaths who all think alike... you want me to think like you... make allowances for your ignorance or malice... I was careful not to insult you, despite it being both easy and deserved" these things all point out that you are both afraid and angry (though probably not violent, we're on/. after all). You keep insulting me more or less openly with no reason, and try to say you know my game, because you can read my thoughts.
Now I am surprised you even know what "responsibility" means. Obviously I was wasting my time, trying to debate with someone who only wants to scream louder.
My bad. You go on having fun.
Paedophilia and murder are not fine in my book, but that doesn't mean they should be regulated. If I or a small group of people find them bad bad bad, we might want to take action against them, but I don't see any need for yet another state monopoly - the one on violence, in this instance. Is outlawing stuff ineffective? Not fully, most normal guys like me do things against their will because the law forces them to do it. But I still see murder and whatnot happening. My argument is that there is no such thing more important than the individual, so society comes second. And actually, I believe in behaving responsibly. At least, that's what I do. But it is me who sets the rules. You set yours. And so on. Why? Because to me, I come first. To you, you do. Etc. About "such things as morals and ethics and agreed standards of behaviour", if such things were agreed upon, there would be no contrasts at all, which does not seem to be the case. "I have no problem with saying that I want those I agree with enforced, and I want the right to request those I don't agree with put to a vote", you say: well that does not make any sense, so I will not comment on it. Your mention of democracy shows where this is leading, so I'm not surprised you're beginning to speak nonsense. Besides, mentioning that some things only happen in my head is an insult. Weren't you the one advocating responsible behaviour? Nowhere in my post did I insult you. I guess this is to be expected by someone who believes in nonsense. "China has never officially done that" already contains the answer to the riddle. Unofficially, there have been killings. Most infanticide in poor countries is done by parents themselves? True. But some of it was done by the state, in the past. If you don't believe it, well, go and read up.
I see it more as a temporary measure before fuel cells are really a viable option. After all, biodiesel is more of a patch than a solution. Sure, it helps, and the infrastructure is mostly there.
Very true. I live in a country where alcoholism is negligible, yet we can drink since we're 16. We can also smoke when we are 16, and we DO have a problem with smoke addiction. This goes to show how such limits are not really related to the problems being discussed.
And I think you're the "trollest" of all. One said A. The other said B, where A and B are opposite to each other. So far so good. Then YOU come and say that A is a troll while B is not because you too think B, and that at the same time "another post modded as 'troll' when the viewpoint didn't necessarily agree with the popular viewpoint" hurts your feeling? While you are doing exactly the same? Good troll, get a cookie. Now go back to your cage thanks.
Once this distribution chain gets established, it's bound to escalate its content from slasher-games to porn, snuff, cocaine and 2nd hand ballistic missiles.
Wowzer! Talk about escalating privileges...
... if it is accompanied by a raider that mandates training in the proper use of cocaine and nuclear missiles
... then the kids should'nt be protected from scenes of "extreme violence"?
Protected how, and by who? You, me, the government, some political party, the army, our new children-protecting overlords...? The problem is that everything can be passed in the name of some Greater Good, in this case children's protection, but it soon turns out to be either ineffective, prone to abuse or tyrannical.
And there is nothing strange with that: we all want power, and given a certain situation we will exploit what's available to gain more/lose less of it. That's why it's quite stupid to fight these and other problems with regulation: you will certainly change the situation, but the only effect will be that people will adapt and keep doing the thing you don't like, while at the same time my freedom will be eroded more and more.
Also, on this specific topic... I guess you have no problem taking these children away from their families if the parents are irresponsible enough, right? They need to be protected, after all. First it will be because the parents beat them while doing coke, then it will be because they abuse them psycologically, then because they don't provide adequate <something> (adequate... to what?), and you see where this leads.
I don't need to remind you of soldiers drowning Chinese new-borns because their family already had one. Luckily this doesn't happen anymore, but...
Oh yes that does ring a bell! I seem to rememeber something about losing some search functionality if you downloaded the trimmed down version of the reader... You've very likely hit the spot there. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Yo, there was this guy long time ago, you know, called C.J. Caesar MC, and he was, like, worried that the Man would steal his secretz, 'namean?, so he came up with this gimmick where he wrote something on a piece of dead skin, how gross is that?, man, but if you had read it it wouldn't have made no sense, but if you had known HOW to read it, then hell yeah, lotsa sense there... than his buddy later called this thingamajig ROT-13 or some such nerdy word, and then lotsa other guys did the same, but more powerful...
I hope you liked this short intro to ENCRYPTION and understand how it can solve some of your problems. Thank you and goodnight.
Ok. So.
I don't like you because you're gay is bad; CENSORSHIP, immediately!
I censor you because I don't like what you say about me is bad; CENSOR... no wait. Kind of a loophole here... what to do, what to do...
WTF... it's physically impossible to respect such terms! They basically say I MUST love everyone on sight. What if I, uh, don't like someone and, you know, insult them?
Wait, someone's at the door, must be the thought police coming for me...
True that. You know, if it looks like a rootkat and meows like a rootkat, it's probably a rootkat.
There should be prison time for whoever decided it was a good idea to install a rootkit on their customers' computers.
... on a more serious tone, are fucking insane? Better yet, are you such a hypocrite that you think it's OK for some people to attack the university's servers (which of course it is) but it's not OK for someone else to attack YOU (which, again, of course it is)?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, oh my, yes, let's shoot them, no wait, let's hang them, NO NO wait I got it, let's hang their severed heads on our pikes and put those on top of the city walls! Let's also burn all script kiddies alive while we're at it! Oh the hilarity!
I don't care what a musician's opinion on DRM is; I DO care a lot when he says he has a certain one and behaves in the opposite way. Saying "Oh yeah I'm so sorry about that DRM thingie the corp bastards forced on me" is sheer hypocrisy.
This reeks of the right-wing fascism you so hate. Freedom for those who have the same views and death to dissenters eh?
... see my point? If you hate someone so much, please go on and say it instead of accusing him of doing the EXACT same thing YOU are doing.
"This is bullshit, and you're a hypocrite. For this reason, you are now being sent to a gulag."
So. Let me get this straight, without any trolling intended. You say you have no qualms slaying a man who attacks you like this (pulling you etc.)?
How about you actually debate? Oh I see it's just so much easier to pull out the gunz^H^H^H^Hstraw man fallacy, which BTW is not here to be found.
Amazingly, people carrying guns don't become mindless killers that will shoot people at the slightest provocation.
But that's exactly what you would be doing according to your description. If someone pulled me out of my car through the window WITHOUT USING A WEAPON I would hit him back with punches and whatnot but I would definitely avoid killing him. Whereas you would pull out your gun and kill him. I guess when I make a mistake and step on your toe you're going to bash me in the head with a club? How about gouging out my eye if I ring your doorbell by mistake because I have the wrong address...
so I'd like to hear if anyone else thinks this is too big brother.
Pretty much, yeah. Besides, your argument is flawed where you say that this would eliminate "the need for traffic officers in police forces". Historically, it simply doesn't work that way. And one might argue that now there's a cop in every car - so it would be an increase of them.
completely forgetting that "we" are all in this world together and that if "we" learn to work with "them" then "all of us" can achieve our goals.
Wow what a load of crap. How about we stick a huge "under certain conditions" label onto that?
It is a flamebait because, while apparently against racism, it was actually more racist than the comment itself. Screaming that the black ones are better is just as racist as screaming that the green ones are. So, if you do it and at the same time say that racism is bad bad bad, then you're a hypocrite. /. lacks such a moderation tag, so it becomes flamebait instead. Satisfied with the explanation?
"other sociopaths who all think alike... you want me to think like you... make allowances for your ignorance or malice... I was careful not to insult you, despite it being both easy and deserved" these things all point out that you are both afraid and angry (though probably not violent, we're on /. after all). You keep insulting me more or less openly with no reason, and try to say you know my game, because you can read my thoughts.
Now I am surprised you even know what "responsibility" means. Obviously I was wasting my time, trying to debate with someone who only wants to scream louder.
My bad. You go on having fun.
Paedophilia and murder are not fine in my book, but that doesn't mean they should be regulated. If I or a small group of people find them bad bad bad, we might want to take action against them, but I don't see any need for yet another state monopoly - the one on violence, in this instance.
Is outlawing stuff ineffective? Not fully, most normal guys like me do things against their will because the law forces them to do it. But I still see murder and whatnot happening.
My argument is that there is no such thing more important than the individual, so society comes second. And actually, I believe in behaving responsibly. At least, that's what I do. But it is me who sets the rules. You set yours. And so on. Why? Because to me, I come first. To you, you do. Etc.
About "such things as morals and ethics and agreed standards of behaviour", if such things were agreed upon, there would be no contrasts at all, which does not seem to be the case. "I have no problem with saying that I want those I agree with enforced, and I want the right to request those I don't agree with put to a vote", you say: well that does not make any sense, so I will not comment on it. Your mention of democracy shows where this is leading, so I'm not surprised you're beginning to speak nonsense.
Besides, mentioning that some things only happen in my head is an insult. Weren't you the one advocating responsible behaviour? Nowhere in my post did I insult you. I guess this is to be expected by someone who believes in nonsense.
"China has never officially done that" already contains the answer to the riddle. Unofficially, there have been killings. Most infanticide in poor countries is done by parents themselves? True. But some of it was done by the state, in the past. If you don't believe it, well, go and read up.
I see it more as a temporary measure before fuel cells are really a viable option. After all, biodiesel is more of a patch than a solution. Sure, it helps, and the infrastructure is mostly there.
Man, you're advocating responsibility... How naive is that?
Very true. I live in a country where alcoholism is negligible, yet we can drink since we're 16. We can also smoke when we are 16, and we DO have a problem with smoke addiction. This goes to show how such limits are not really related to the problems being discussed.
And I think you're the "trollest" of all. One said A. The other said B, where A and B are opposite to each other. So far so good. Then YOU come and say that A is a troll while B is not because you too think B, and that at the same time "another post modded as 'troll' when the viewpoint didn't necessarily agree with the popular viewpoint" hurts your feeling? While you are doing exactly the same? Good troll, get a cookie. Now go back to your cage thanks.
Once this distribution chain gets established, it's bound to escalate its content from slasher-games to porn, snuff, cocaine and 2nd hand ballistic missiles.
... if it is accompanied by a raider that mandates training in the proper use of cocaine and nuclear missiles
:)
Wowzer! Talk about escalating privileges...
Just what kind of school did you go to?!
So. I guess we should abolish freedom of speech and shut the corps up once and for all, then?
... then the kids should'nt be protected from scenes of "extreme violence"?
Protected how, and by who? You, me, the government, some political party, the army, our new children-protecting overlords...? The problem is that everything can be passed in the name of some Greater Good, in this case children's protection, but it soon turns out to be either ineffective, prone to abuse or tyrannical.
And there is nothing strange with that: we all want power, and given a certain situation we will exploit what's available to gain more/lose less of it. That's why it's quite stupid to fight these and other problems with regulation: you will certainly change the situation, but the only effect will be that people will adapt and keep doing the thing you don't like, while at the same time my freedom will be eroded more and more.
Also, on this specific topic... I guess you have no problem taking these children away from their families if the parents are irresponsible enough, right? They need to be protected, after all. First it will be because the parents beat them while doing coke, then it will be because they abuse them psycologically, then because they don't provide adequate <something> (adequate... to what?), and you see where this leads.
I don't need to remind you of soldiers drowning Chinese new-borns because their family already had one. Luckily this doesn't happen anymore, but...
You can do that already, just kill the explorer.exe process and restart it. It's been possible since 2k if not before.
Oh yes that does ring a bell! I seem to rememeber something about losing some search functionality if you downloaded the trimmed down version of the reader... You've very likely hit the spot there. Thanks.
So if I step on your toe while in a crowded train you expect me to GO TO JAIL? Are you crazy or what? Oh... Kentucky... I see... sorry.