your argument about business size is disingenuous. how big do you have to be *not* to implement a tiered service structure, which no ISP in the US has yet implemented? Seems like a regulation that says 'keep doing what you've been doing' isn't too hard to comply with.
For bias purposes, you should know I want the FCC to mandate net neutrality.
1) we're against the principle that google can censor, even in only a subset of their searches 2) i never used it either. but i'm complaining now, rather than when it comes to the full search engine, because people will say 'its been like this in google instant forever'
I should make this a moment for my 'I hate dubya, but he's not dumb' speech, but maybe another time. It is sad that we can't vote out someone who is as bad a liar as Obama because the alternative is Palin. Obama is a politician -- sneaky, and needing to do different from what he says for his own agenda -- but Palin and her ilk are beyond a joke. They've become a nightmare because people are so divorced from reality that they really think MILF status is enough to become leader of the country (and, historically, the 'free world'). If nobody took Palin seriously we could relax and allow her to return to cheesy joke status, and exile her back to Alaska where she clearly belongs.
Even with a solid resume like mine, I hate keyword searches. They send me completely irrelevant job postings, often in the wrong markets and locations, obviously based on a simple keyword search and form-letter copy/paste job. I usually ask them to remove me from their lists, and only work with recruiters who treat you like a human being. Don't have a degree, BTW, which may be relevant to the discussion. Never stopped me from getting top-level IT jobs with companies big or small.
I just don't understand why any gamer, casual or otherwise, would choose a gaming platform that requires so much personal information. I didn't give it to Microsoft, and I'm not giving it to Facebook. plenty of flash games elsewhere!
quick note on gucci: if the consumer can't tell whether it's gucci, it probably never mattered in the first place. defending gucci's ability to sell things on brand name alone doesn't seem like a strong cause for moral outrage.
if new users use debian, they stand a better chance of actually learning something about operating systems and computers. we *all* need open-source, what you call free and open
why did you 'tada'? you didn't pull a rabbit out of a hat so far as i can see oh, i get it. you're being a smug asshole. didn't realize that was such a trick.
GP has a point: you can't tout how awesome open-source is when you make your living off of proprietary/closed-source software and expect us to be pleased.
If you can find *nothing* bad about google, you aren't looking hard enough. "people is worried" heheheh.. but anyway, here's an example of privacy issues: when rolling out google voice, the text-transcribed voicemails of users were viewable through google. They've fixed this since, but it was an issue. How about the leaks of google searches, tied to a unique identifier?
I don't want my email on the cloud; I host my own. Adblock can tell the difference in terms of URLs the advertisements were loaded from; this isn't readily viewable to a human.
aside from whether anyone considers facebook necessary, the issue is that the service they signed up for, and the service they now use, have different privacy issues. so it is now an opt-out procedure every time they add some new security debacle. the opt-out is, if you're lucky, a setting. if unlucky, it means leaving facebook. I myself have what I call a read-only facebook, I post nothing and comment rarely. It is similar to twitter (but more universally used). Still, I get concerned about who can see my friendship network.
this is terrible logic.. the iPhone jailbreak does not prevent you from using pirated 'apps', but neither does it require you to do so. the xboxjailbreak does not prevent you from using pirated software, but neither does it require you to do so.
our rate of response is far too slow to correct the issue.. instead of iPads, you need to NOT be spending hundreds of dollars on luxury electronics which cost our planet dearly to make even considering starting offworld colonies shows that you're completely cut off from reality.. the costs to our society and planet would be far too massive. the only thing that will ever work is massive cultural change, BEFORE it's too late. of course, this will never happen. and it may already be too late.
>"partisan trolls" partisan means strongly identifying with or voting along party lines, aka a person who votes republican because "he's a republican, damnit" rather than the issues being weighed a troll is someone who posts things for the sole purpose of garnering attention, anger, flames, etc. he rarely posts with his actual belief system, he posts whatever will be most inflammatory.
so these words really don't go together. don't just throw words together to sound smart.
less profit equals less motivation, and thus less violence; not more. people don't get violent over a nickel, they get violent over a multi-million dollar industry (which has no protection under the law from theft or violent takeover).
I'm also not sure why you think legal drugs would be less profitable; it would just move the profit from gangs to corporations.
I agree with your point about bureaucracy, but I think it's better to have drugs saddled with taxes than paid for in blood.
>Fuck this nanny state shit. >Tax the fuck out of people that want to do things that are unhealthy for them.
You do realise these are competing viewpoints, right? Taxing people for doing things you consider unhealthy or morally 'wrong' (sin tax) is nannying. "No no, you mustn't do that" "If you dont want to pay the extra taxes, you'll be a better person and quit all that nasty smoking!"
1) There is a strong implication that the Constitution as it stands today is wrong, and the connotation of the warning label is of an attempt to prevent people from placing faith in it as the guiding document of our society. 2) We have a good reason to feel strongly about any attempt to downplay the importance or viability of our constitution, especially given the numerous contemporary attacks on the rights and processes it outlines. 3) I personally see it as an attempt at brainwashing or propaganda, as in "dont let your kids grow up to believe in the constitution", with the flimsy argument that the passage of time alone has somehow marred it's efficacy or rationale.
Of course we want people to consider the historical context and think for themselves whether the constitution is a good document for America to continue to follow, as that's a question we must continually ask. But as there is no context for this, it is akin to someone saying "I believe in the constitution" being reminded that the constitution belongs in it's historical place. It raises the question: "what part are you saying you don't agree with?"
you have no 'right' to profit from having an idea. no such right is granted to you anywhere, by anyone, nor does any philosophy imply it is a natural right. except perhaps the philosophy of 'i want money, so you better quit "stealing" from me'. the 'need' to sustain the sources is not a moral imperative to make their works sacred or uncopyable, it is a need only in that we would consider it nicer to have creative people in our society. but i think it's well-proven that creative people will create, profit or no. if you want to make money off creating, please find a way to do so, and don't punish me for not helping.
Slashdot Mirror
your argument about business size is disingenuous. how big do you have to be *not* to implement a tiered service structure, which no ISP in the US has yet implemented? Seems like a regulation that says 'keep doing what you've been doing' isn't too hard to comply with.
For bias purposes, you should know I want the FCC to mandate net neutrality.
1) we're against the principle that google can censor, even in only a subset of their searches
2) i never used it either. but i'm complaining now, rather than when it comes to the full search engine, because people will say 'its been like this in google instant forever'
they didn't censor anything! they just hid certain words they didn't like
I should make this a moment for my 'I hate dubya, but he's not dumb' speech, but maybe another time.
It is sad that we can't vote out someone who is as bad a liar as Obama because the alternative is Palin. Obama is a politician -- sneaky, and needing to do different from what he says for his own agenda -- but Palin and her ilk are beyond a joke. They've become a nightmare because people are so divorced from reality that they really think MILF status is enough to become leader of the country (and, historically, the 'free world'). If nobody took Palin seriously we could relax and allow her to return to cheesy joke status, and exile her back to Alaska where she clearly belongs.
Even with a solid resume like mine, I hate keyword searches. They send me completely irrelevant job postings, often in the wrong markets and locations, obviously based on a simple keyword search and form-letter copy/paste job. I usually ask them to remove me from their lists, and only work with recruiters who treat you like a human being.
Don't have a degree, BTW, which may be relevant to the discussion. Never stopped me from getting top-level IT jobs with companies big or small.
I just don't understand why any gamer, casual or otherwise, would choose a gaming platform that requires so much personal information. I didn't give it to Microsoft, and I'm not giving it to Facebook. plenty of flash games elsewhere!
quick note on gucci: if the consumer can't tell whether it's gucci, it probably never mattered in the first place.
defending gucci's ability to sell things on brand name alone doesn't seem like a strong cause for moral outrage.
if new users use debian, they stand a better chance of actually learning something about operating systems and computers.
we *all* need open-source, what you call free and open
are you intentionally cribbing from http://xkcd.com/743/ ??
why did you 'tada'? you didn't pull a rabbit out of a hat so far as i can see
oh, i get it. you're being a smug asshole. didn't realize that was such a trick.
GP has a point: you can't tout how awesome open-source is when you make your living off of proprietary/closed-source software and expect us to be pleased.
"exponents don't seem useful"
this doesn't seem like a fact worth accepting.
If you can find *nothing* bad about google, you aren't looking hard enough.
"people is worried" heheheh.. but anyway, here's an example of privacy issues: when rolling out google voice, the text-transcribed voicemails of users were viewable through google. They've fixed this since, but it was an issue.
How about the leaks of google searches, tied to a unique identifier?
I don't want my email on the cloud; I host my own.
Adblock can tell the difference in terms of URLs the advertisements were loaded from; this isn't readily viewable to a human.
"why is a boring muggle like you even doing here?"
-1 for HP reference, -1 for grammatical failure
aside from whether anyone considers facebook necessary, the issue is that the service they signed up for, and the service they now use, have different privacy issues. so it is now an opt-out procedure every time they add some new security debacle. the opt-out is, if you're lucky, a setting. if unlucky, it means leaving facebook.
I myself have what I call a read-only facebook, I post nothing and comment rarely. It is similar to twitter (but more universally used). Still, I get concerned about who can see my friendship network.
this is terrible logic..
the iPhone jailbreak does not prevent you from using pirated 'apps', but neither does it require you to do so.
the xboxjailbreak does not prevent you from using pirated software, but neither does it require you to do so.
Where's the difference?
our rate of response is far too slow to correct the issue..
instead of iPads, you need to NOT be spending hundreds of dollars on luxury electronics which cost our planet dearly to make
even considering starting offworld colonies shows that you're completely cut off from reality.. the costs to our society and planet would be far too massive. the only thing that will ever work is massive cultural change, BEFORE it's too late.
of course, this will never happen. and it may already be too late.
John Gilmore was right; as soon as people have to contemplate dealing with spam, all rights and liberties go out the window.
>"partisan trolls"
partisan means strongly identifying with or voting along party lines, aka a person who votes republican because "he's a republican, damnit" rather than the issues being weighed
a troll is someone who posts things for the sole purpose of garnering attention, anger, flames, etc. he rarely posts with his actual belief system, he posts whatever will be most inflammatory.
so these words really don't go together. don't just throw words together to sound smart.
I forgive you the 'que' thing. it happens.
less profit equals less motivation, and thus less violence; not more.
people don't get violent over a nickel, they get violent over a multi-million dollar industry (which has no protection under the law from theft or violent takeover).
I'm also not sure why you think legal drugs would be less profitable; it would just move the profit from gangs to corporations.
I agree with your point about bureaucracy, but I think it's better to have drugs saddled with taxes than paid for in blood.
>Fuck this nanny state shit.
>Tax the fuck out of people that want to do things that are unhealthy for them.
You do realise these are competing viewpoints, right? Taxing people for doing things you consider unhealthy or morally 'wrong' (sin tax) is nannying. "No no, you mustn't do that" "If you dont want to pay the extra taxes, you'll be a better person and quit all that nasty smoking!"
As can SC2, though you need net to install it.
"right to try and sentence people without so much as a trial"
just to nitpick, if they try you, that's a trial.
1) There is a strong implication that the Constitution as it stands today is wrong, and the connotation of the warning label is of an attempt to prevent people from placing faith in it as the guiding document of our society.
2) We have a good reason to feel strongly about any attempt to downplay the importance or viability of our constitution, especially given the numerous contemporary attacks on the rights and processes it outlines.
3) I personally see it as an attempt at brainwashing or propaganda, as in "dont let your kids grow up to believe in the constitution", with the flimsy argument that the passage of time alone has somehow marred it's efficacy or rationale.
Of course we want people to consider the historical context and think for themselves whether the constitution is a good document for America to continue to follow, as that's a question we must continually ask. But as there is no context for this, it is akin to someone saying "I believe in the constitution" being reminded that the constitution belongs in it's historical place. It raises the question: "what part are you saying you don't agree with?"
you have no 'right' to profit from having an idea. no such right is granted to you anywhere, by anyone, nor does any philosophy imply it is a natural right. except perhaps the philosophy of 'i want money, so you better quit "stealing" from me'.
the 'need' to sustain the sources is not a moral imperative to make their works sacred or uncopyable, it is a need only in that we would consider it nicer to have creative people in our society. but i think it's well-proven that creative people will create, profit or no. if you want to make money off creating, please find a way to do so, and don't punish me for not helping.