Perhaps, but it must seriously burn your jocks that none of your comments are moderated above 1.
Nope. My karma is excellent, which means I've had my posts get moderated up before, but I don't post for moderation points. If you want to get a lot of upmods you have to post early in the story. Other helpful advice is to go with the prevailing groupthink, or preface your post with "I know I'll be modded down for this..." or similar when you don't. I don't play that game.
I am hardly anonymous, quite the opposite.
The post that called me a troll and told me to die was posted anonymously. Are you belatedly taking credit for it now?
But i do feel your worldview is overly sarcastic, deply negative and well, rejected.
Funny that you're calling me out for being negative when your post was the one that shallowly complained about how we aren't "really" free. As for "rejected", you offered no counter-argument except to appeal to the prevailing groupthink.
The drawings were decent (except for the hands, the mark of a great cartoonist), but I hate shitty animations that bounce around. The story itself was a simplistic revenge story and uninteresting.
As a Scientist I say: If the Patent System is beneficial, then WHERE THE FUCK IS THE EVIDENCE? Let's do a test, and see?! No, they say? Then they're insane! You don't have to be Evil or a Genius to realize we have ZERO evidence for or against patents being benefical.
All I have is your assertion that there is ZERO evidence. The common example of where patents are important is in the pharmaceutical industry. It is very expensive to develop drugs, but cheap to copy them once developed. We have seen many successful drugs developed under the patent system. There are counter-arguments against this, but to say that there is ZERO evidence is just a biased assertion.
They are not asking for the science, they are asking for the personal conversations between scientists... the same type of thing that the same companies argue would hamper national security or trade secrets if outsiders saw their's.
It's the science behind the science, or how the sausage is made. In court, these companies have had to give up their email in the same spirit. Look at some of the email that came out of Microsoft or Google during lawsuits. I don't see why these scientists demand special privilege.
There's nothing stupid at all about dusting off a lesser known word and holding it up to see if it should regain some stature.
You should generally write to the level of your audience. However, some people are just infatuated with their knowledge of vocabulary. In this case I would have said, "when the Internet was just beginning".
Traditionally, it has been the distribution or copying itself that is illegal, unlike stolen goods which remain tainted, Copies made without authorization have no lasting taint to them. So traditionally it has been the case that if someone serves you a song, they are the ones that are liable.
What "tradition" would this be? The copy is only created and served to you by your initiation, and you cannot download something without making another copy on your computer where it did not exist before. This was actually the whole "making available" defense, where it was claimed that it was the downloader who was the infringing party, not the person who "merely" made available the work online.
If there's any "tradition" here, it's that it was easier to go after the servers than the individuals, but that changed when RIAA started going after individual downloaders in 2003. The cases have been grinding their way through the courts ever since, with mixed results.
He didn't change his tune at all. There's actually another video where he bashes on "cloud" computing, but he says, "We'll make cloud computing announcements. Because if orange is the new pink, we'll make orange blouses. I mean, I'm not going to fight this thing."
His main complaint is that "cloud" computing is just the latest fad term for existing technology.
Anybody who thinks Kim Dotcom is a sympathetic figure has his head up his ass. He was making lots of money off of piracy while trying to be about as respectable as a "massage parlor" fronting for prostitution. It fits completely with his shady history. Sure, the governments fucked up in how they went after him, but the guy is still a worm.
And then there are individuals like me, with ambition, whose wants are achieved through ambition, and that shiny new car will be mine when I want it, because I have the capabilities to achieve my goals...
So you buy your shiny new car, and then another shiny new car because you want that one too, and then a McMansion because bigger is better, and you need all that extra space to store all your shiny possessions. At the end of the day are you satisfied with your shiny possessions? No, you need more shiny possessions, and your life is centered around a vapid cycle of consumerism while you sacrifice your ethics and free time to attain them.
To get elected he will have to mostly agree with Obama and everything he has done, and appeal to the majority
No, he hasn't done that. About the only thing he publicly agrees with on Obama is about killing Osama bin Laden. Everything else he just states that Obama is doing the wrong thing.
Politicians are two faced for a reason....
I understand that, but Romney is like a blade of grass in the wind, extreme even by political standards. About the only thing that he's shown any constancy in is greed/ambition and Mormonism.
So the GNOME haters are going to host an indefinite protest to try and drown out any GNOME-related discussion in verbal noise?
Yup, at least for a while. That's the nature of animosity. It also doesn't help when one of the highlight features of the new version is a clock widget.
Instead there's a whole bunch of people who seem to take any GNOME article as a chance to complain loudly without citing any specifics and mention how they switched to something entirely different without even mentioning what it does better.
Because they really pissed people off with the way they handled Gnome 3. It was arrogant and reckless. The Gnome hate isn't going to go away for a long, long time.
The sad part here is that you fell for the liberal media view that Romney's campaign pulled the statement out of context, when no such thing happend. Yes, there were a few pundits who did just that, but not the official capaign.
"The Romney campaign replays Obama saying "if you've got a business, you didn't build that" five times in a 15-second video as part of a "petition" drive. It also uses the quote in an email fundraising appeal."
In fact, Romney even made an alalogy to the event that sums it up nicely. (paraphrasing here) You don't give the school bus driver credit for the honour student's success. Yes, the school bus driver got the kid to school, but it was the hard work of the student that is celebrated.
In my mind, the full context of President Obama's words are just as bad. He continually denigrates successfull buisnesses, this just being one example.
So here is a quote from the full context: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." [bold mine]
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but it must seriously burn your jocks that none of your comments are moderated above 1.
Nope. My karma is excellent, which means I've had my posts get moderated up before, but I don't post for moderation points. If you want to get a lot of upmods you have to post early in the story. Other helpful advice is to go with the prevailing groupthink, or preface your post with "I know I'll be modded down for this..." or similar when you don't. I don't play that game.
I am hardly anonymous, quite the opposite.
The post that called me a troll and told me to die was posted anonymously. Are you belatedly taking credit for it now?
But i do feel your worldview is overly sarcastic, deply negative and well, rejected.
Funny that you're calling me out for being negative when your post was the one that shallowly complained about how we aren't "really" free. As for "rejected", you offered no counter-argument except to appeal to the prevailing groupthink.
The drawings were decent (except for the hands, the mark of a great cartoonist), but I hate shitty animations that bounce around. The story itself was a simplistic revenge story and uninteresting.
Ah, you've learned how to call people who you disagree with on the Internet a troll. Congratulations.
But I see this as a fun project, not educational.
Why isn't it educational? Are you seriously claiming you can work your way through those problems without having learned about bioinformatics?
They all suck. [..] The whole meme of "tech will fix education" is tired, obsolete, and needs to go away.
What needs to go away are people constantly complaining how everything sucks while ignoring all the positives.
As a Scientist I say: If the Patent System is beneficial, then WHERE THE FUCK IS THE EVIDENCE? Let's do a test, and see?! No, they say? Then they're insane! You don't have to be Evil or a Genius to realize we have ZERO evidence for or against patents being benefical.
All I have is your assertion that there is ZERO evidence. The common example of where patents are important is in the pharmaceutical industry. It is very expensive to develop drugs, but cheap to copy them once developed. We have seen many successful drugs developed under the patent system. There are counter-arguments against this, but to say that there is ZERO evidence is just a biased assertion.
I don't think we have ever been really free, at least in a modern sense.
You mean we aren't free to choose our jobs (not slaves), or that we don't have free speech to criticize the government?
I suspect the early Picts, Vikings and other tribes had significantly more freedom than we have today.
I suspect you don't know shit about the ordinary lives and freedoms of the people from those times.
We live in a pervasive information society, one where the government is the biggest customer and companies are all too happy to sell our data to it.
Oh, so you mean because there is information about us, we are not free. Ho hum.
Our grandchildren will piss on our graves for what we have allowed.
Why would our grandchildren care any more than the current generation?
It was your reincarnation assertion.
Spot on.
They are not asking for the science, they are asking for the personal conversations between scientists... the same type of thing that the same companies argue would hamper national security or trade secrets if outsiders saw their's.
It's the science behind the science, or how the sausage is made. In court, these companies have had to give up their email in the same spirit. Look at some of the email that came out of Microsoft or Google during lawsuits. I don't see why these scientists demand special privilege.
There's nothing stupid at all about dusting off a lesser known word and holding it up to see if it should regain some stature.
You should generally write to the level of your audience. However, some people are just infatuated with their knowledge of vocabulary. In this case I would have said, "when the Internet was just beginning".
Traditionally, it has been the distribution or copying itself that is illegal, unlike stolen goods which remain tainted, Copies made without authorization have no lasting taint to them. So traditionally it has been the case that if someone serves you a song, they are the ones that are liable.
What "tradition" would this be? The copy is only created and served to you by your initiation, and you cannot download something without making another copy on your computer where it did not exist before. This was actually the whole "making available" defense, where it was claimed that it was the downloader who was the infringing party, not the person who "merely" made available the work online.
If there's any "tradition" here, it's that it was easier to go after the servers than the individuals, but that changed when RIAA started going after individual downloaders in 2003. The cases have been grinding their way through the courts ever since, with mixed results.
He didn't change his tune at all. There's actually another video where he bashes on "cloud" computing, but he says, "We'll make cloud computing announcements. Because if orange is the new pink, we'll make orange blouses. I mean, I'm not going to fight this thing."
His main complaint is that "cloud" computing is just the latest fad term for existing technology.
Wow, I am so relieved by your completely unsubstantiated mythology.
The problem Blizzard faced with Diablo 3 is that you cant have the real money auction house with a game playable offline.
Of course you can. If that was your concern, then you could make items acquired during offline play wouldn't be auctionable.
A lot of people say blizzard took away offline play because of DRM, but thats not the case.
They started down this path with Starcraft II, and it's rather naive to think DRM wasn't their #1 motivation.
I get quality, but the level of greed and ambition for the example "shiny new car" is what is on display.
Sorry, I don't believe your asserted fantasies any more than I believe anybody else's.
Anybody who thinks Kim Dotcom is a sympathetic figure has his head up his ass. He was making lots of money off of piracy while trying to be about as respectable as a "massage parlor" fronting for prostitution. It fits completely with his shady history. Sure, the governments fucked up in how they went after him, but the guy is still a worm.
Unless someone in the government is charged with the crimes and subsequently convicted, the "apology" is meaningless.
So you'd rather the official in question deny any wrongdoing? If not, then it isn't meaningless.
And then there are individuals like me, with ambition, whose wants are achieved through ambition, and that shiny new car will be mine when I want it, because I have the capabilities to achieve my goals...
So you buy your shiny new car, and then another shiny new car because you want that one too, and then a McMansion because bigger is better, and you need all that extra space to store all your shiny possessions. At the end of the day are you satisfied with your shiny possessions? No, you need more shiny possessions, and your life is centered around a vapid cycle of consumerism while you sacrifice your ethics and free time to attain them.
(p.s., GrammerNazi time... The word is spelled "crumb". FTFY)
The word is spelled grammar. Also, to be more precise, you are being a spelling Nazi, not a grammar Nazi.
To get elected he will have to mostly agree with Obama and everything he has done, and appeal to the majority
No, he hasn't done that. About the only thing he publicly agrees with on Obama is about killing Osama bin Laden. Everything else he just states that Obama is doing the wrong thing.
Politicians are two faced for a reason....
I understand that, but Romney is like a blade of grass in the wind, extreme even by political standards. About the only thing that he's shown any constancy in is greed/ambition and Mormonism.
So the GNOME haters are going to host an indefinite protest to try and drown out any GNOME-related discussion in verbal noise?
Yup, at least for a while. That's the nature of animosity. It also doesn't help when one of the highlight features of the new version is a clock widget.
Instead there's a whole bunch of people who seem to take any GNOME article as a chance to complain loudly without citing any specifics and mention how they switched to something entirely different without even mentioning what it does better.
Because they really pissed people off with the way they handled Gnome 3. It was arrogant and reckless. The Gnome hate isn't going to go away for a long, long time.
Oh please. Atheists are just are ignorant as Theists. At least the Agnostics are intelligent enough to admit it.
"Hey look, a bunch of people all around the world making up stuff. But, um, maybe one of them is right. Who knows?"
I call myself an atheist, but that doesn't mean I 100% know for sure that there is no personal god. It's just the evidence so far points to not.
The sad part here is that you fell for the liberal media view that Romney's campaign pulled the statement out of context, when no such thing happend. Yes, there were a few pundits who did just that, but not the official capaign.
Oh really?
"The Romney campaign replays Obama saying "if you've got a business, you didn't build that" five times in a 15-second video as part of a "petition" drive. It also uses the quote in an email fundraising appeal."
In fact, Romney even made an alalogy to the event that sums it up nicely. (paraphrasing here) You don't give the school bus driver credit for the honour student's success. Yes, the school bus driver got the kid to school, but it was the hard work of the student that is celebrated.
In my mind, the full context of President Obama's words are just as bad. He continually denigrates successfull buisnesses, this just being one example.
So here is a quote from the full context: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." [bold mine]
Now compare that to Romney and his 47%.