To be accurate, Blizzard isn't moving to 'ban' the gay players, it's more like they want to avoid the whole issue in the first place by encouraging the gays to stay in the closet. "It's for their own good," the reasoning goes, "because if they don't tell anyone, they won't be targetted." Hear no evil.
Of course, anti-gay rhetoric gets thrown around anyway, with or without a gay guild. Many still use phrases like "that's gay" in a strongly pejorative sense, much the way words like 'nigger' were used by prior generations. A gay-friendly, open-to-all-who-are-open type guild makes sense.
Comparing RIM to SCO just doesn't fly. SCO is basically using some nearly-worthless old patents to try to extort money from those who put in the actual hard work. Remind you of someone? Consider NTP's (admitted) business strategy. They sat on some nearly-worthless patents for years with no intention of developing them, instead lying in wait for someone (like RIM) to do the hard work of transforming an airy concept into a commercially successful reality. Companies like NTP are parasites in the truest sense of the term. RIM should be hailed for having the spine to stand up to those leeches, instead of cravenly giving in to a settlement.
Heh... silly me. Here I was, thinking that there was a meaning to things beyond their simple biological explanation. Ima call up my old professor, still childless after decades of marriage, and fill him in on what a failure he is compared to the man who raped and impregnated his niece. Good to see things in their proper perspective.
Note to the slow: yes, that was a made-up example. Just wanted to be snarky.
As I've written elsewhere, there are a few problems with this:
a) pulling a gun on a criminal is basically upping the ante, which could easily escalate minor crimes like robbery into major ones, like murder b) the same gun that the owner thinks will protect him can just as easily be used against him if he is not careful c) people make mistakes. The gun owner can end up killing an innocent man in cases of mistaken intentions or mistaken identities, or even just through bad aim.
The way to reduce crime isn't by allowing more dangerous weapons into more hands... it is by enhancing the effectiveness of the people who we pay to fight criminals for us. After all, the police are the ones who are trained to use guns effectively and responsibly... the same cannot be said of the average citizen.
Oppressing people who like to stretch in parks for stretching in parks because they scare you is not the same as arresting terrorists because they are planning to blow up more citizens.
One of my problems with the Bush administration is that they're *not* arresting terrorists. Instead, they (a) capture large numbers of people who in the end turn out to be innocent, but not before they've had their rights systematically violated, and (b) created a needless Iraqi civil war which is tying down the American army and generating hatred of America.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing moral equivalence between what America is doing and what is happening in China. The former reveals an unbelievable and dangerous level of incompetence; the latter is outright malicious. However, as one slashdotter wrote in his signature, "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Forget flicking the dog's nose; with a robotic pet you could kick as hard as you like, all without worrying about causing pain to a 'real' thing. Just like some people who post flames online would never dream of saying the same things in a face-to-face conversation, there are probably many who would welcome the consequence-free disconnect from reality offered by a non-living, fully repairable dog.
When a dog wimpers or barks, its actions are probably a mixture of learned behavior and instinct. Instinct is nature's genetic programming, if you will. Arguing over whether a behavior is more 'real' because it was learned or programmed strikes me as a little pointless... the real metric should be how closely the machine mimics life, and what are the fail-conditions or boundaries of that minicry.
The people talking to evildoers are still innocent, they have not been to trial and convicted. We are talking about gathering evidence against them and the legality of evidence.
Exactly my point. Let's review, shall we?
Legal: Obtaining a warrent (which requires minimal justification under FISC) and invading privacy to gather evidence.
Illegal: Secretly invading privacy without warrent or judicial oversight.
Regardless of how convinced the spy is that someone talking to Osama's dog walker is guilty of something, the point is that there are legal ways of doing this business of fighting terror. Think a law is in the way of fighting terrorists? Then change it, openly and through the mechanisms of Congress and judicial review as prescribed by the Constitution. The more we take unnecessary shortcuts and cheat the laws, the less the laws can protect us when we need them. Oh, and spare me the label of "you guys from moveon.org"; being pro-rule-of-law isn't leftist or rightist. It should be one thing that all Americans could stand for.
Maybe things are done differently nowadays in Jesusland, but in Canada one of the best things we've imported from the US is this concept called "innocent until proven guilty." This means wiretaps must be backed up by at least some evidence, not merely presumed guilt. Increase the ability of the police to work secretly if need be; but balance it through increased accountability and oversight, not less. By wiretapping without even notifying FISC, the spies were cutting out legal oversight altogether, a dangerous challenge to the notion of rule of law and government by Constitution.
Moreover, the damage done by these wiretaps goes beyond the erosion of privacy (an erosion which impacts all American citizens, by the way, not just 'evildoers.') To justify the violations, President Bush has essentially argued that his role as Commander in Chief during a time of war gives him the authority to override the legal limits on the behavior of his administration. Considering the fact that the War of Terror can last indefinitely, this line of reasoning translates roughly into "L'etate, c'est moi"
the art of spying on an exhibitionist
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My taste in music is my business and I don't want other people knowing that my most listened to album is Tom Dooley and Other Hits by The Kingston Trio.
/me tries avoid posting just to point out the irony of writing this on/.
I would argue that today's current generation of instant-messaging web users ("LOl, wyt R U diong??;)") is somewhat less literate than yesterday's generation of forum-posting netizens.
Slashdot Mirror
To be accurate, Blizzard isn't moving to 'ban' the gay players, it's more like they want to avoid the whole issue in the first place by encouraging the gays to stay in the closet. "It's for their own good," the reasoning goes, "because if they don't tell anyone, they won't be targetted." Hear no evil.
Of course, anti-gay rhetoric gets thrown around anyway, with or without a gay guild. Many still use phrases like "that's gay" in a strongly pejorative sense, much the way words like 'nigger' were used by prior generations. A gay-friendly, open-to-all-who-are-open type guild makes sense.
Comparing RIM to SCO just doesn't fly. SCO is basically using some nearly-worthless old patents to try to extort money from those who put in the actual hard work. Remind you of someone? Consider NTP's (admitted) business strategy. They sat on some nearly-worthless patents for years with no intention of developing them, instead lying in wait for someone (like RIM) to do the hard work of transforming an airy concept into a commercially successful reality. Companies like NTP are parasites in the truest sense of the term. RIM should be hailed for having the spine to stand up to those leeches, instead of cravenly giving in to a settlement.
Heh... silly me. Here I was, thinking that there was a meaning to things beyond their simple biological explanation. Ima call up my old professor, still childless after decades of marriage, and fill him in on what a failure he is compared to the man who raped and impregnated his niece. Good to see things in their proper perspective.
Note to the slow: yes, that was a made-up example. Just wanted to be snarky.
As I've written elsewhere, there are a few problems with this:
a) pulling a gun on a criminal is basically upping the ante, which could easily escalate minor crimes like robbery into major ones, like murder
b) the same gun that the owner thinks will protect him can just as easily be used against him if he is not careful
c) people make mistakes. The gun owner can end up killing an innocent man in cases of mistaken intentions or mistaken identities, or even just through bad aim.
The way to reduce crime isn't by allowing more dangerous weapons into more hands... it is by enhancing the effectiveness of the people who we pay to fight criminals for us. After all, the police are the ones who are trained to use guns effectively and responsibly... the same cannot be said of the average citizen.
Oppressing people who like to stretch in parks for stretching in parks because they scare you is not the same as arresting terrorists because they are planning to blow up more citizens.
One of my problems with the Bush administration is that they're *not* arresting terrorists. Instead, they (a) capture large numbers of people who in the end turn out to be innocent, but not before they've had their rights systematically violated, and (b) created a needless Iraqi civil war which is tying down the American army and generating hatred of America.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing moral equivalence between what America is doing and what is happening in China. The former reveals an unbelievable and dangerous level of incompetence; the latter is outright malicious. However, as one slashdotter wrote in his signature, "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Forget flicking the dog's nose; with a robotic pet you could kick as hard as you like, all without worrying about causing pain to a 'real' thing. Just like some people who post flames online would never dream of saying the same things in a face-to-face conversation, there are probably many who would welcome the consequence-free disconnect from reality offered by a non-living, fully repairable dog.
When a dog wimpers or barks, its actions are probably a mixture of learned behavior and instinct. Instinct is nature's genetic programming, if you will. Arguing over whether a behavior is more 'real' because it was learned or programmed strikes me as a little pointless... the real metric should be how closely the machine mimics life, and what are the fail-conditions or boundaries of that minicry.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
I, for one, welcome our dvd-pirating masters:
1) Tax payer dollars
2) Government-run piracy lab
3) ???
4) Profit!
Exactly my point. Let's review, shall we?
Legal: Obtaining a warrent (which requires minimal justification under FISC) and invading privacy to gather evidence.
Illegal: Secretly invading privacy without warrent or judicial oversight.
Regardless of how convinced the spy is that someone talking to Osama's dog walker is guilty of something, the point is that there are legal ways of doing this business of fighting terror. Think a law is in the way of fighting terrorists? Then change it, openly and through the mechanisms of Congress and judicial review as prescribed by the Constitution. The more we take unnecessary shortcuts and cheat the laws, the less the laws can protect us when we need them. Oh, and spare me the label of "you guys from moveon.org"; being pro-rule-of-law isn't leftist or rightist. It should be one thing that all Americans could stand for.
Maybe things are done differently nowadays in Jesusland, but in Canada one of the best things we've imported from the US is this concept called "innocent until proven guilty." This means wiretaps must be backed up by at least some evidence, not merely presumed guilt. Increase the ability of the police to work secretly if need be; but balance it through increased accountability and oversight, not less. By wiretapping without even notifying FISC, the spies were cutting out legal oversight altogether, a dangerous challenge to the notion of rule of law and government by Constitution.
Moreover, the damage done by these wiretaps goes beyond the erosion of privacy (an erosion which impacts all American citizens, by the way, not just 'evildoers.') To justify the violations, President Bush has essentially argued that his role as Commander in Chief during a time of war gives him the authority to override the legal limits on the behavior of his administration. Considering the fact that the War of Terror can last indefinitely, this line of reasoning translates roughly into "L'etate, c'est moi"
My taste in music is my business and I don't want other people knowing that my most listened to album is Tom Dooley and Other Hits by The Kingston Trio.
/me tries avoid posting just to point out the irony of writing this on /.
*strain*
I would argue that today's current generation of instant-messaging web users ("LOl, wyt R U diong?? ;)") is somewhat less literate than yesterday's generation of forum-posting netizens.