A concept like "good manners" is irrelevant when discussing freedom. Freedom is one of the few things that is absolute: either you have true freedom, or you do not. If you want to limit what people can express based on some subjective concept like "good manners", then you do not support freedom. It's as simple as that.
It doesn't matter who posted it, or why they posted it. Any true American, who truly does believe in freedom of expression, will support such expression.
And did you bother to read the comments? They were rather well written. They included decent capitalization, spelling, grammar and punctuation. You label them as "31337 speakers", but in reality those reviews are of a far higher quality than most postings here.
Suppose a man wishes to have sexual intercourse with a video game CD, and proceeds to place his penis into the hole in the centre. Now let us suppose that while thrusting, the CD manages to tear his cock's knob off. Should the video game designers and the CD pressers be held liable for creating a dangerous product, one so heinous that it resulted in a man losing his glans penis?
It should be noted that some of the comments contain the name/word "LUEshi".
LUEshi is apparently an ASCII image of Mario riding on Yoshi. Some research suggests that it originated from posters at the "Life, the Universe, and Everything." forum at GameFAQs.com [1]. That particular forum itself was shut down or had its access limited by the administrators there, apparently due to excessive abuses by the members.
Considering GameFAQs' focus on gaming, it is quite plausible to see why people associated with GameFAQs might choose to post such reviews. It sounds like the users of that particular forum are known for intentionally causing trouble, as well.
The forums at GameFAQs widely known for having excessive rules, overzealous moderators, and what amounts to an extreme lack of freedom. It seems unusual that they wish to speak out against those who wish to limit free speech, while at the same time being members of a community that actively supports and practises censorship.
Note:
I have been informed that there is a moderator at GameFAQs.com who also uses the name CyricZ. We are not the same person. I am Cyric Zndovzny, while his name is Scott, if I'm not mistaken. I repeat, I am not the CyricZ at GameFAQs. We are different people.
You talk about letting him express his point of view, but then you turn around and suggest that it is "defacement" when others express their opinion. Let's have some consistency, okay?
Like it is often said, a picture is worth a thousand words. That one picture of the person vomiting very concisely shows what many apparently feel about him, and the views he expresses. He chooses to write a book to get his ideas out, they choose to use a single photo.
Indeed, any true American should consider censorship of any medium, be it computer games, books, radio, television or photos, to be absolutely sickening. Such a picture is an apt description of that feeling.
As a Brit, I'm not familiar with Spike TV. I assume they're a TV station.
But who are they? More specifically, what about them gives them any credibility when it comes to judging computer and video games? Does their regular programming even focus on video games?
One of my grandchildren attends university in California. He was telling me that one of his friends always brought a laptop to one of their Biology classes. My grandson and some of his other friends were particularly annoyed with their friend who'd always be playing games or watching DVDs.
One of my grandson's friends ended up recording a soundfile that said "PENIS PENIS COCK PENIS PENIS VAGINA CUNT ANUS BUTTFUCK", and other sayings like that. They ended up putting it on their friend's laptop, and waited for a lecture when he left the class to go to the washroom. Once he was gone they turned up the volume, started looping that soundfile, and waited until their friend got back and sat down. As soon as he did, they pulled out the headphones, blaring out the audio.
I think he said that the professor flipped, and told the kid to get out of his class. They had a meeting later on, and my grandson's friend was told never to bring the laptop to class again.
While it is expensive to get the infrastructure in place, you also need to convince people to switch over. In the case of areas serviced by Rogers, that may not be easy. My relatives in Ontario who use Rogers for their Internet do so only because they can also get discounts on their cable and mobile phone services as part of a bundle. You may not be able to price your cable service low enough to compete with such bundles.
Not only that, but you have to obtain content to transmit over the cables you just ran, to the subscribers you just convinced to switch over.
It's not just putting your own cables in place that leads to massive entry costs.
It's not a government granted monopoly!
on
Requiem for Usenet
·
· Score: 1, Informative
You obviously do not understand monopolies. What Rogers has is a natural monopoly. It occurs because of economies of scale. The cost of entry becomes too great for any real competition to enter the market. Hence whoever managed to lay the most cable (ie. Rogers) captured the market. The government of Canada did not grant them a monopoly in any way, as you incorrectly suggest.
CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC and the NY Times are not "left wing" at all. They don't even lean towards the true left in any way. Sure, they're not as far to the right as FOX is, but that doesn't mean they can be considered "left".
I'm not sure why you are so fascinated with my penis, Hal Porter. Talk about it if you must, but please, consider thinking about other topics. Topics like Linux, baseball, and reading.
Look at your definition. It specifically contains the word "employs". That means that to be considered a "terrorist", he would have had to have a political motive, and he would have actually had to carry out his threats. Until then he's just a threatener of violence.
This isn't a matter of not knowing everything. This is a matter of using common sense.
Common sense dictates that if you receive an unexpected notice demanding money from you, that you should investigate it before paying (assuming you pay at all). It's a very simple concept that most children would be able to understand.
If people lack common sense, then too fucking bad for them. Let them get hurt. It'll teach them a good lesson.
Yes, anyone who voluntarily goes around flaunting their body should be aware that he or she may be raped, and should be prepared to accept if it does happen to them. That may not make it "right", but a little common sense could have prevented the situation.
I believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions. The people in this case voluntarily mailed him money. He didn't force them to do it. They chose to do it. And as such, they should own up to the fact that they made a mistake, and ended up getting hurt financially.
What exactly is your point? If people purchase something that they have no idea how to use, it's not surprising that they'll run into problems.
Even if they didn't do a WHOIS lookup themselves, they could have always asked a relative or a friend to look into the matter for them.
Then again, these are people who voluntarily mailed this guy money. It's almost as if taking responsibility for their actions is something they cannot handle.
It's easy enough for such a customer to run a whois on their domain name. It will list whatever name the registrar is currently using. It's easy enough to then locate contact information from the registrar's website or via a phone book, and to see if it corresponds with that of the notice they received.
I think the problem might be our age differences. You see, I'm in my late 60s. I grew up in a time when people took responsibility for their stupidity. If you fucked up and harmed yourself, then you were the only one who was to blame.
But that attitude has since been replaced. It doesn't surprise me that a 15-year-old such as yourself takes the stance that people shouldn't have to be responsible for their own actions. It seems that kids these days are taught to blame everyone else for their own stupidity. So at least I can see why you're so against the idea of responsibility; you've never had to be responsible in your life.
It's important to complain, as that provides them with feedback on their decision. Everyone is better off if there is dialogue between the two parties.
If enough people voice their opposition, then perhaps Apple will realize that it is not in their best interests to switch to such a scheme. Thus everyone is potentially better off if Apple listens and responds accordingly. Customers can then continue to purchase the songs they want, rather than to boycott. Apple can continue to receive revenue from such customers, rather than having the customers go elsewhere.
Notice that the same thing happened recently with regards to Novell/SuSE and their switch from KDE to GNOME. They announced the switch, and many customers complained. The customers let them know that KDE was still wanted. And what did Novell do? They agreed to keep offering KDE.
It's better to work out such problems before involving money.
Slashdot Mirror
A concept like "good manners" is irrelevant when discussing freedom. Freedom is one of the few things that is absolute: either you have true freedom, or you do not. If you want to limit what people can express based on some subjective concept like "good manners", then you do not support freedom. It's as simple as that.
It doesn't matter who posted it, or why they posted it. Any true American, who truly does believe in freedom of expression, will support such expression.
And did you bother to read the comments? They were rather well written. They included decent capitalization, spelling, grammar and punctuation. You label them as "31337 speakers", but in reality those reviews are of a far higher quality than most postings here.
I suffer from severe impotency. I haven't been able to obtain, let alone maintain, and erection for well over a decade.
Indeed, my penis is probably small enough to place through the centre of a CD or DVD. But it would not get stuck, as it cannot become stiff.
Suppose a man wishes to have sexual intercourse with a video game CD, and proceeds to place his penis into the hole in the centre. Now let us suppose that while thrusting, the CD manages to tear his cock's knob off. Should the video game designers and the CD pressers be held liable for creating a dangerous product, one so heinous that it resulted in a man losing his glans penis?
LUEshi is apparently an ASCII image of Mario riding on Yoshi. Some research suggests that it originated from posters at the "Life, the Universe, and Everything." forum at GameFAQs.com [1]. That particular forum itself was shut down or had its access limited by the administrators there, apparently due to excessive abuses by the members.
Considering GameFAQs' focus on gaming, it is quite plausible to see why people associated with GameFAQs might choose to post such reviews. It sounds like the users of that particular forum are known for intentionally causing trouble, as well.
The forums at GameFAQs widely known for having excessive rules, overzealous moderators, and what amounts to an extreme lack of freedom. It seems unusual that they wish to speak out against those who wish to limit free speech, while at the same time being members of a community that actively supports and practises censorship.
- Note:
I have been informed that there is a moderator at GameFAQs.com who also uses the name CyricZ. We are not the same person. I am Cyric Zndovzny, while his name is Scott, if I'm not mistaken. I repeat, I am not the CyricZ at GameFAQs. We are different people.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameFAQs_message_boa
You talk about letting him express his point of view, but then you turn around and suggest that it is "defacement" when others express their opinion. Let's have some consistency, okay?
Like it is often said, a picture is worth a thousand words. That one picture of the person vomiting very concisely shows what many apparently feel about him, and the views he expresses. He chooses to write a book to get his ideas out, they choose to use a single photo.
Indeed, any true American should consider censorship of any medium, be it computer games, books, radio, television or photos, to be absolutely sickening. Such a picture is an apt description of that feeling.
As a Brit, I'm not familiar with Spike TV. I assume they're a TV station.
But who are they? More specifically, what about them gives them any credibility when it comes to judging computer and video games? Does their regular programming even focus on video games?
One of my grandchildren attends university in California. He was telling me that one of his friends always brought a laptop to one of their Biology classes. My grandson and some of his other friends were particularly annoyed with their friend who'd always be playing games or watching DVDs.
One of my grandson's friends ended up recording a soundfile that said "PENIS PENIS COCK PENIS PENIS VAGINA CUNT ANUS BUTTFUCK", and other sayings like that. They ended up putting it on their friend's laptop, and waited for a lecture when he left the class to go to the washroom. Once he was gone they turned up the volume, started looping that soundfile, and waited until their friend got back and sat down. As soon as he did, they pulled out the headphones, blaring out the audio.
I think he said that the professor flipped, and told the kid to get out of his class. They had a meeting later on, and my grandson's friend was told never to bring the laptop to class again.
No, it does not imply that he is one of them.
4 is between 3 and 5. But 4 is not 5, and 4 is not 3.
Quod erat demonstrandum, motherfucker.
Asking them to stop probably won't work. They'll turn around and reply, "Fuck off".
While it is expensive to get the infrastructure in place, you also need to convince people to switch over. In the case of areas serviced by Rogers, that may not be easy. My relatives in Ontario who use Rogers for their Internet do so only because they can also get discounts on their cable and mobile phone services as part of a bundle. You may not be able to price your cable service low enough to compete with such bundles.
Not only that, but you have to obtain content to transmit over the cables you just ran, to the subscribers you just convinced to switch over.
It's not just putting your own cables in place that leads to massive entry costs.
You obviously do not understand monopolies. What Rogers has is a natural monopoly. It occurs because of economies of scale. The cost of entry becomes too great for any real competition to enter the market. Hence whoever managed to lay the most cable (ie. Rogers) captured the market. The government of Canada did not grant them a monopoly in any way, as you incorrectly suggest.
Sending somebody large amounts of email is not terrorism. You're a fool if you think it is.
CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC and the NY Times are not "left wing" at all. They don't even lean towards the true left in any way. Sure, they're not as far to the right as FOX is, but that doesn't mean they can be considered "left".
No. They would not rise up. They would sit on their asses and do nothing.
My penis weeps for you. It weeps with sorrow.
I'm not sure why you are so fascinated with my penis, Hal Porter. Talk about it if you must, but please, consider thinking about other topics. Topics like Linux, baseball, and reading.
Look at your definition. It specifically contains the word "employs". That means that to be considered a "terrorist", he would have had to have a political motive, and he would have actually had to carry out his threats. Until then he's just a threatener of violence.
This isn't a matter of not knowing everything. This is a matter of using common sense.
Common sense dictates that if you receive an unexpected notice demanding money from you, that you should investigate it before paying (assuming you pay at all). It's a very simple concept that most children would be able to understand.
If people lack common sense, then too fucking bad for them. Let them get hurt. It'll teach them a good lesson.
Yes, anyone who voluntarily goes around flaunting their body should be aware that he or she may be raped, and should be prepared to accept if it does happen to them. That may not make it "right", but a little common sense could have prevented the situation.
I believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions. The people in this case voluntarily mailed him money. He didn't force them to do it. They chose to do it. And as such, they should own up to the fact that they made a mistake, and ended up getting hurt financially.
What exactly is your point? If people purchase something that they have no idea how to use, it's not surprising that they'll run into problems.
Even if they didn't do a WHOIS lookup themselves, they could have always asked a relative or a friend to look into the matter for them.
Then again, these are people who voluntarily mailed this guy money. It's almost as if taking responsibility for their actions is something they cannot handle.
It's easy enough for such a customer to run a whois on their domain name. It will list whatever name the registrar is currently using. It's easy enough to then locate contact information from the registrar's website or via a phone book, and to see if it corresponds with that of the notice they received.
Georgia, in the mainland United States.
I think the problem might be our age differences. You see, I'm in my late 60s. I grew up in a time when people took responsibility for their stupidity. If you fucked up and harmed yourself, then you were the only one who was to blame.
But that attitude has since been replaced. It doesn't surprise me that a 15-year-old such as yourself takes the stance that people shouldn't have to be responsible for their own actions. It seems that kids these days are taught to blame everyone else for their own stupidity. So at least I can see why you're so against the idea of responsibility; you've never had to be responsible in your life.
My penis weeps for your terrible code, Hal.
It's important to complain, as that provides them with feedback on their decision. Everyone is better off if there is dialogue between the two parties.
If enough people voice their opposition, then perhaps Apple will realize that it is not in their best interests to switch to such a scheme. Thus everyone is potentially better off if Apple listens and responds accordingly. Customers can then continue to purchase the songs they want, rather than to boycott. Apple can continue to receive revenue from such customers, rather than having the customers go elsewhere.
Notice that the same thing happened recently with regards to Novell/SuSE and their switch from KDE to GNOME. They announced the switch, and many customers complained. The customers let them know that KDE was still wanted. And what did Novell do? They agreed to keep offering KDE.
It's better to work out such problems before involving money.