The reason several categories ended up with no award is because the nominations made by the Puppies were shit. They forced the good ones out because they wanted to make sure that a white male won by excluding all other options.
Some of the people they nominated declined to be part of an identity politics culture war, so they withdrew. One of those who withdrew was even given an award by RR Martin at his "losers" party -- Annie Bellet, who is a woman. Damn those MRAs, nominating women writers! And this is all from the Wired article, which is heavily biased against "Puppies" -- or the "MRA" boogeymen you like to invoke who think only white males should write science fiction... or maybe they just think garbage isn't award worthy just because it features an identity politics trope.
You seem to be missing the main point: the router can data mine all your traffic at a very low level. Google is spreading its tendrils everywhere, not to make people, "safe, secure, and happy" online, but to be there watching what you do so it may better sell ads.
So, not only are you suggesting that people who through no fault of their own develop an allergy should accept an economic punishment they did nothing to deserve
The alternative is that you force an economic punishment on the 99% that they did nothing to deserve. Life isn't fair.
but then you add insult to economic injury by suggesting that businessmen should exploit those people and their handicap for personal gain, doubling the economic burden they face
Oh no, you're "exploiting" somebody by selling something they need. Damn you free market! If only the wise government, who totally wouldn't screw up allocation of resources, decided who should be able to purchase what and for what price in a completely "fair" manner: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Somebody should really try that system.
This is what's wrong with the world today; instead of helping each other succeed, we seek out the weak to bleed them out
What's wrong is that when it comes to somebody else's money, there's no shortage of people deciding that it should be taken for somebody else in need. Yet when it comes to their own personal finances, they don't give away the bulk of it to alleviate somebody worse off than them. Then you end up with situations like Greece.
This is why Godwinning a thread is stupid unless it's a spot-on analogy. I'm not advocating shoving 15 million people into an oven. Rather, I'm advocating that the less than 1% "seek out services that cater to them" -- you know, take personal responsibility for their special needs instead of asking the rest of the world adapt to their needs. If anything, your 15 million number shows a business opportunity.
Yes, just yes. Just how much does the rest of the world have to adapt to the needs of the tiniest few? When does it end? Is it really so much to ask that the tiny few seek out services that cater to them? It's "heartless" in the same manner you don't give all your money to charity and live on a subsistence income.
Except I don't really think that's the game. In the case of copyright, they're just politicians trying to please their corporate overlords. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Now it's true that enforcement tends to be abused in the manner she describes, but that doesn't mean it was the intent.
Frankly, it's terrible behavior on the part of food manufacturers, and I'd much rather have legislation that requires manufacturers to properly clean their equipment instead of simply labeling their food as poison.
In the case of tree nuts, it's poison for less than 1% of the population, according to the first link I found. For everybody else, it's a harmless trace of food. It's really a question of how much expense you want to force everybody to go through to cater to a tiny percentage of the population. If food allergies can kill you, wouldn't it make more sense to only eat food catering to your specific needs?
"Look, I know I'm letting you fuck my wife while I watch and rummage around my stuff, but could you please be polite about it? This is a partnership here."
Actually, while the old Microsoft was a serial abuser of its monopoly power, it was fairly good about privacy. They were making boatloads of money from their desktop monopoly and they started out in a computer age where "phoning home" wasn't the norm -- many people didn't even have modems! Siphoning up user data was a PR problem it didn't need or want for a long time.
Now PC sales are stagnant, Microsoft is flailing in mobile, the network is ubiquitous, and it's the norm to take your data and use it for advertising. Microsoft is just catching up with Google.
I distrust Microsoft and their new privacy directions, but you're not being honest by withholding the full section you pulled that from:
Finally, we will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to:
comply with applicable law or respond to valid legal process, including from law enforcement or other government agencies;
protect our customers, for example to prevent spam or attempts to defraud users of the services, or to help prevent the loss of life or serious injury of anyone;
operate and maintain the security of our services, including to prevent or stop an attack on our computer systems or networks; or
protect the rights or property of Microsoft, including enforcing the terms governing the use of the services - however, if we receive information indicating that someone is using our services to traffic in stolen intellectual or physical property of Microsoft, we will not inspect a customer's private content ourselves, but we may refer the matter to law enforcement.
Please note that some of our services include links to services of third parties whose privacy practices differ from Microsoft's. If you provide personal data to any of those services, your data is governed by their privacy statements.
Sounds like time to bring a few boxes to the second hand or charity bookshop. (Another advantage of paper books.)
I think its' a bigger advantage to take up virtually no space and be able to keep all your books. I've got dozens of physical books, and one day when I get around to it I'm going to scan them all in and ditch the physical copies.
What makes you think Iceweasel "cleans" things up? Most, if not all, of the Firefox behaviors are left as is in Iceweasel, with the exception of auto-updating being the major exception, as far as I can tell.
I didn't say "takedowns for anything and everything". However, given the case law, I can see why that is the default position. Losing your trademark is a real possibility.
I had a CEO who would always ask if you liked your job. Anything but a yes was grounds for termination.
Sounds like a typical jackass CEO who uses lame litmus tests to make important decisions. Just about anybody will instinctively answer that question in the affirmative, regardless of how they feel, because they know it's a sensitive question being asked by a person in a position of power.
Personally, work is work, and I can take something I enjoy, and when I'm forced to do it to make a living, it's not fun anymore. My guess is that's true for a lot of people.
If you want a counterexample, BSD has split many times over into FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD being the largest. Linus has for most practical purposes with the temporary exception of the Android fork managed to keep Linux unified.
This is nonsense. Linus is only in charge of the kernel. The Linux distros that use that kernel are fragmented much worse than BSD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The tea party, so named after an anti-tax movement, has as its core ideology, the idea of lowering taxes and preventing government from functioning. That is a radical idea- that govt works best when it is completely broken and can't act at all. This naturally would create a power vacuum where corporations and oligarchs would gain power. I don't understand how the solution to a broken government is to break it more? It's an irrational platform, designed at its very core to shift power into the hands of unelected power brokers.
It's only irrational if you believe that taking a dollar out of government results in being penalized worth a dollar (or more) of corporate power. You haven't proved that case. There are many factors at play here, but I think the bottom line for the Tea Party is that they'd rather have their money to spend on themselves than tossed into an inefficient, bloated bureaucracy which oftentimes ends up doing more harm than good. They aren't calling for a complete dismantling of the government, but rather one of limited scope and size.
The left wing response is to blame money in politics as having undue influence, hurting democracy and turning it into an oligarchy, and the fix is to limit money, and impose higher taxes on the super wealthy to try to create a more balanced society.
I can take that to the "logical" extreme, too, and say it's already been tried with communism and failed spectacularly. It really isn't a black and white issue.
Most of it is, except for the, paraphrasing, "How dare you reverse engineer our code to look for vulnerabilities, violating your license agreement, you naughty customer!"
You know Romney's infamous, "corporations are people", line? It's true, in that they are made up of people. It's just people working together for a common cause, in this case, profit.
A once hugely profitable company that got hit hard by competitors. What's your point?
Sprint
Another once successful company that fell on hard times.
Amazon
Unlike Tesla, could have been profitable years and years ago, but chose to plow money into expanding. They could cut all that expansion money and be instantly profitable.
Instagram, Snapchat, Box, Twitter
Internet companies that may never justify the high evaluations or prices paid for them.
Tesla may or may not pay off in the long run. They've got plenty of competition and lots of expenses, and they need investors to keep on pumping money into them to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much every anti-gamer is a white male in their late 20s and 30s.
And a significant number of those are trannies. Identity politics, ho!
The reason several categories ended up with no award is because the nominations made by the Puppies were shit. They forced the good ones out because they wanted to make sure that a white male won by excluding all other options.
Some of the people they nominated declined to be part of an identity politics culture war, so they withdrew. One of those who withdrew was even given an award by RR Martin at his "losers" party -- Annie Bellet, who is a woman. Damn those MRAs, nominating women writers! And this is all from the Wired article, which is heavily biased against "Puppies" -- or the "MRA" boogeymen you like to invoke who think only white males should write science fiction... or maybe they just think garbage isn't award worthy just because it features an identity politics trope.
If you've been downvoted too many times, your comments automatically get -1. So basically Slashdot has you categorized as a troll.
You seem to be missing the main point: the router can data mine all your traffic at a very low level. Google is spreading its tendrils everywhere, not to make people, "safe, secure, and happy" online, but to be there watching what you do so it may better sell ads.
So, not only are you suggesting that people who through no fault of their own develop an allergy should accept an economic punishment they did nothing to deserve
The alternative is that you force an economic punishment on the 99% that they did nothing to deserve. Life isn't fair.
but then you add insult to economic injury by suggesting that businessmen should exploit those people and their handicap for personal gain, doubling the economic burden they face
Oh no, you're "exploiting" somebody by selling something they need. Damn you free market! If only the wise government, who totally wouldn't screw up allocation of resources, decided who should be able to purchase what and for what price in a completely "fair" manner: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Somebody should really try that system.
This is what's wrong with the world today; instead of helping each other succeed, we seek out the weak to bleed them out
What's wrong is that when it comes to somebody else's money, there's no shortage of people deciding that it should be taken for somebody else in need. Yet when it comes to their own personal finances, they don't give away the bulk of it to alleviate somebody worse off than them. Then you end up with situations like Greece.
I suppose I was naive to be so disillusioned that he was obviously just more of the same.
Yup. The best part was Obama's response to criticism, where he basically said, "What's your alternative? Voting for the Republican?"
And of course, he was right.
This is the most depressing comment I've read in quite some time.
This is why Godwinning a thread is stupid unless it's a spot-on analogy. I'm not advocating shoving 15 million people into an oven. Rather, I'm advocating that the less than 1% "seek out services that cater to them" -- you know, take personal responsibility for their special needs instead of asking the rest of the world adapt to their needs. If anything, your 15 million number shows a business opportunity.
Yes, just yes. Just how much does the rest of the world have to adapt to the needs of the tiniest few? When does it end? Is it really so much to ask that the tiny few seek out services that cater to them? It's "heartless" in the same manner you don't give all your money to charity and live on a subsistence income.
Except I don't really think that's the game. In the case of copyright, they're just politicians trying to please their corporate overlords. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Now it's true that enforcement tends to be abused in the manner she describes, but that doesn't mean it was the intent.
Frankly, it's terrible behavior on the part of food manufacturers, and I'd much rather have legislation that requires manufacturers to properly clean their equipment instead of simply labeling their food as poison.
In the case of tree nuts, it's poison for less than 1% of the population, according to the first link I found. For everybody else, it's a harmless trace of food. It's really a question of how much expense you want to force everybody to go through to cater to a tiny percentage of the population. If food allergies can kill you, wouldn't it make more sense to only eat food catering to your specific needs?
"Look, I know I'm letting you fuck my wife while I watch and rummage around my stuff, but could you please be polite about it? This is a partnership here."
Actually, while the old Microsoft was a serial abuser of its monopoly power, it was fairly good about privacy. They were making boatloads of money from their desktop monopoly and they started out in a computer age where "phoning home" wasn't the norm -- many people didn't even have modems! Siphoning up user data was a PR problem it didn't need or want for a long time.
Now PC sales are stagnant, Microsoft is flailing in mobile, the network is ubiquitous, and it's the norm to take your data and use it for advertising. Microsoft is just catching up with Google.
I distrust Microsoft and their new privacy directions, but you're not being honest by withholding the full section you pulled that from:
Finally, we will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary to:
Please note that some of our services include links to services of third parties whose privacy practices differ from Microsoft's. If you provide personal data to any of those services, your data is governed by their privacy statements.
Sounds like time to bring a few boxes to the second hand or charity bookshop. (Another advantage of paper books.)
I think its' a bigger advantage to take up virtually no space and be able to keep all your books. I've got dozens of physical books, and one day when I get around to it I'm going to scan them all in and ditch the physical copies.
What makes you think Iceweasel "cleans" things up? Most, if not all, of the Firefox behaviors are left as is in Iceweasel, with the exception of auto-updating being the major exception, as far as I can tell.
I didn't say "takedowns for anything and everything". However, given the case law, I can see why that is the default position. Losing your trademark is a real possibility.
https://encrypted.google.com/s...
I had a CEO who would always ask if you liked your job. Anything but a yes was grounds for termination.
Sounds like a typical jackass CEO who uses lame litmus tests to make important decisions. Just about anybody will instinctively answer that question in the affirmative, regardless of how they feel, because they know it's a sensitive question being asked by a person in a position of power.
Personally, work is work, and I can take something I enjoy, and when I'm forced to do it to make a living, it's not fun anymore. My guess is that's true for a lot of people.
If you want a counterexample, BSD has split many times over into FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD being the largest. Linus has for most practical purposes with the temporary exception of the Android fork managed to keep Linux unified.
This is nonsense. Linus is only in charge of the kernel. The Linux distros that use that kernel are fragmented much worse than BSD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The tea party, so named after an anti-tax movement, has as its core ideology, the idea of lowering taxes and preventing government from functioning. That is a radical idea- that govt works best when it is completely broken and can't act at all. This naturally would create a power vacuum where corporations and oligarchs would gain power. I don't understand how the solution to a broken government is to break it more? It's an irrational platform, designed at its very core to shift power into the hands of unelected power brokers.
It's only irrational if you believe that taking a dollar out of government results in being penalized worth a dollar (or more) of corporate power. You haven't proved that case. There are many factors at play here, but I think the bottom line for the Tea Party is that they'd rather have their money to spend on themselves than tossed into an inefficient, bloated bureaucracy which oftentimes ends up doing more harm than good. They aren't calling for a complete dismantling of the government, but rather one of limited scope and size.
The left wing response is to blame money in politics as having undue influence, hurting democracy and turning it into an oligarchy, and the fix is to limit money, and impose higher taxes on the super wealthy to try to create a more balanced society.
I can take that to the "logical" extreme, too, and say it's already been tried with communism and failed spectacularly. It really isn't a black and white issue.
It's the "Nobody every got fired for buying (IBM|Microsoft|Oracle|Cisco|...)" argument. Bloat likes bloat.
That actually sounds pretty sensible.
Most of it is, except for the, paraphrasing, "How dare you reverse engineer our code to look for vulnerabilities, violating your license agreement, you naughty customer!"
You know Romney's infamous, "corporations are people", line? It's true, in that they are made up of people. It's just people working together for a common cause, in this case, profit.
Sony
A once hugely profitable company that got hit hard by competitors. What's your point?
Sprint
Another once successful company that fell on hard times.
Amazon
Unlike Tesla, could have been profitable years and years ago, but chose to plow money into expanding. They could cut all that expansion money and be instantly profitable.
Instagram, Snapchat, Box, Twitter
Internet companies that may never justify the high evaluations or prices paid for them.
Tesla may or may not pay off in the long run. They've got plenty of competition and lots of expenses, and they need investors to keep on pumping money into them to survive.