Ummm... "distroy"? Is that a Linux thing, like distro-y?
Grow up.
Clinton never got a war in Iraq!
Right. I suppose he never bombed the shit out of Serbia, either.
And is it any wonder considering they're thick-as-thieves pals with Saudi princes?
Given the ignorance displayed in your previous two sentences, I probably shouldn't be surprised that you're unaware of the connection between all American presidents - democrat or republican - and Saudi Arabia. Still, it always throws me for a loop when I see someone suggesting that there's some kind of split between the parties when it comes to the Saudis. How can you be that ignorant of the politics of your own nation?
So just to follow up, do you think the actions of Apple are morally reprehensible?
Not really, no. I can appreciate the fact that they don't want to appear to be supporting bigots. On the other hand, my personal preference would be to relegate offensive material to a different category. Forcefully shutting people up is the least effective way of dismissing their beliefs/claims. The whole idea behind democracy and freedom of speech is that the free exchange of ideas allows people to sort out their difference through discussion, rather than violence. If you marginalize and exclude a faction, they tend to grow bigger, more fanatical, and more violent. So while their actions aren't "morally reprehensible", they're certainly not "good", either.
And I think they're assholes and control-freaks, in general, and I refuse to use any of their products. Of course, I held that opinion prior to this incident - now I just have one more thing I can point to in order to support my opinion.
So if you don't reply to this and post "c6gunner is a fucking idiot" that is an act of censorship? As long as we agree on Websters absurd definition.
FTFY. I sure am glad that we have people like you around to rewrite the language for us, though. Don't know how we'd survive without geniuses who can't wrap their brains around the definitions of simple words.
censor verb censoredcensoring\sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\ Definition of CENSOR transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable See censor defined for English-language learners Examples of CENSOR
1. The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
2. His report was heavily censored.
The reason I added that as my tagline is because far-left twits kept assuming I was American, and calling me a right-wing christian hick. I found that adding the disclaimer tended to cut down on pointless flamewars because it let them know that I wasn't sticking up for the US due to mindless militant nationalism. It was a response to people who DO hold the views you accuse me of having.
I'm not at all surprised that someone like you would completely misunderstand, and go for the opposite extreme.
Is banning a bigoted app from the Appstore remotely close to sitting idle and allowing the Holocaust to happen? The amount of re-purposing of this quote has frankly watered down its original meaning.
That was the intent. I am, frankly, amazed by the number of people who seem to have missed the tounge-in-cheek nature of my comment. Yes, I was making a serious point, but I was attempting to use some humour in the process.
Censorship in the Appstore is not exactly a great thing, but I'm willing to give them a pass on it since it is their walled garden that they have built.
I'll give them a pass, I just won't use their product(s). There are a number of reasons to avoid Apple like the plague; this latest bit just shows that anyone who cares about the suppression of unpopular views should also be avoiding them.
Alternatively, societies brainwashed by decades of political correctness to bring about their own destruction because they're oblivious of the historical precendents they're repeating.
Yep, those eeeebil homersexuals are going to wipe us of the map! It's just like in the animal kingdom - gay Bonobos enslave straight Bonobos to work in their underground dildo mines!
No, numbnuts, acknowledging reality is not "political correctness". You can try to disguise your bigotry by pretending to be "fighting PC!" but don't for a second think that you're fooling anyone other than like-minded simpletons.
And who exactly are you to tell me what I should or should not believe? Do you insist that I don't have the right to choose my belief system and world view, or do you instead believe the all powerful State or some other group of people should dictate to me my beliefs?
I didn't tell you what to believe - I said that you're immoral. Learn to read. If you want to believe that a flat earth was created 6,000 years ago by an all-powerful invisible man who hates gays but created them in every species on the planet, that's awesome! I have absolutely no desire to change your mind - you're way too entertaining in your present state.
It's not censorship when a private company does it.
Yes, it is. Get yourself a dictionary and look it up.
The difference is that the governments of most western nations have a legal requirement to not engage in censorship, whereas no such legal requirement exists for private companies. That doesn't mean that "it's not censorship when companies do it" - it means that when private companies engage in censorship, it's not illegal. Whether it's moral is a whole different question.
Homosexuality was once widely considered to be a mental disorder until the APA deemed it not to be one back in the 1970's
Imagine that - societies brainwashed by hundreds of years of religious indoctrination thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Wow. Next you'll be telling me that people used to think Witches needed to be burned at the stake.
That those screaming "Intolerant Bigot!" are demonstrating their own intolerance of an opposing view is somewhat telling all by itself.
Absolutely: any moral human being should be intolerant of intolerance. That you see this as a bad thing speaks volumes about your own moral code.
Perhaps they're simply happy that in a situation where censorship is already a given, it's better to accept that's the case and focus on the new battle- that of ensuring any censorship that does happen equally squeezes right wing religious bigotry and ignorance out of the equation. This doesn't stop protesting against censorship in general too, merely it's the case that that's just not what the battle was here.
First they came for the Porn Apps. And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and, anyway, it's kinda overrated.
Then they came for the Right-Wing-Bigots. And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and anyway, they kinda suck.
Then they came for the Jews. And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and anyway, there's that whole Palestine thing...
Then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak out for me.
But you don't need to run the turbines at max capacity to get some power output from them. Run it at a few hundred RPM and use a rectifier to recharge your backup batteries, or use transformers to get some useful current out of 'em. I realize it wouldn't be easy since they clearly didn't plan for it ahead of time, but it's also far from impossible to quickly rig up a temporary solution. Unless the turbines really are damaged to the point where they can't even get them started.
A related question is - why can't the decay heat be used to actually produce power? Why can't the steam turbines continue to operate after shutting down the reactor, since it's still producing a lot of heat?
Yeah, that's been bugging me for quite a while now. They have steam-turbines and generators, and a fuckload of steam. What's the problem?
That's cute, but, in reality, Hong Kong is one of the worlds largest trade centers, and THE largest re-exporter on the planet. The value of imports and exports is larger than the nations GDP. It's a free-market traders wet dream, and the antithesis of a self-sustaining community.
We should be putting solar power in by default, and using other sources if solar fails, period.
Sure, but why stop there? Obviously it would make WAY more sense to have them grow their own food, too. Two floors out of every three should be farms! And, of course, they should process their own sewage by default. And weave their own curtains. And there should be a factory level for making TV's and computers. And maybe a forest and a pulp-mill on the roof, to create all those TPS reports from scratch.
Yep, trade is for fools - a REAL building should be completely self contained!
When you consider the inefficiencies of powering it through the grid, going through miles and miles of resistance on the wire, you're going to offset much more than 2MW.
I think it's more an issue that most horny kids online don't want to talk to 50 year old men, especially ones with a mustache like that.
When I walk into a night-club, I can be fairly certain that most of the women there aren't looking to sleep with me at the end of the night. Yet I'll bet you any amount of money you want that by the end of the night I can have one of them back at my place.
I mean, yeah, you're right, in the sense that they're idiots for not being more weary, but the rarity of kids willing to do such things is kinda irrelevant when there are millions of them online. If they keep trying, they're guaranteed to find one eventually. And if they're willing to pray on the damaged ones, they'll get results much faster; like my night-club analogy, if I REALLY want to win the bet I'll just look for the clumsiest, ugliest, fattest woman in the house.
Good overview. However, I gotta disagree with this bit:
There's probably a significantly lower number of males at that age engaged in a significantly older sexual relationship, but I'd also say that it's safe to assume an even larger percentage would be willing and eager to do so given favorable opportunity
I seriously doubt that the number is significantly lower. It seems like every week, a teacher somewhere in the US is getting busted for sleeping with one of her students - it just generally doesn't make national news so most people aren't aware of it. Also, let's not forget the catholic church abuse scandals, many (most?) of which involved boys. We could quibble over whether they count as "relationships", but they certainly do count as cases of young teens engaging in sexual activity with adults.
Interestingly enough, of the two cases I'm personally familiar with (teens I knew when I was a teen) one involved a 15 year old female with a 40 year old female, and the other involved a 15 year old male with a 52 year old male. The former was actually completely legal because it occurred in Canada, and the age of consent was 14 at the time. The latter happened in the US, and the adult was caught and prosecuted (and the kid was so upset about his "boyfriend" going to jail that he attempted suicide - but that's a whole other story).
Now, I'm sure that these two cases are most likely not the norm, and it's probably a statistical fluke that both involved homosexual relationships. But it does show the complexity of the situation. I would want some pretty solid data before being willing to conclude that there is "a significantly lower number of males at that age engaged in a significantly older sexual relationship".
Yes, it is. The manufacturer didn't design those routers with the intent that people would run their own applications on them.
Actually, the Asus routers were specifically designed to be able to run third-party firmware. Seems irrelevant, though - what the manufacturer intended doesn't have anything to do with the definition of "computer". If I make a car but tell people they have to use it as a boat, that doesn't stop it from being a car. And if I remove the wheels from it, it's not "hacking" when the customer goes and puts on a new set.
You know, as in "exceptionally clever programming"
If you think that flashing firmware is "exceptionally clever programming", I don't think we're going to resolve this discussion in a civil manner.
I wouldn't really want to go into orbit with current levels of technology
That's you. Personally, I'd gladly go into orbit wearing a pressure-suit and strapped to a rocket-powered office-chair, if that was the only means available. I doubt I'm all that rare in that respect, either...
Not that I have anything against hardware reuse... but seriously, if you shelled out some cash to upgrade to an Atom-based box, the reduction in electrical usage would probably be enough to recoup the cost within a year.
However, it still isn't a computer. Embedded devices might be functionally capable of doing many of the same things, but what distinguishes a computer is whether it provides the ability to install and run arbitrary software (not just whatever the manufacturer installed) that allows the user to create and store significant amounts of information without hacking the device in any way.
Ever hear of DD-WRT? Optware? And no, before you say it, a firmware update is not "hacking the device" by any stretch of the imagination. By your logic, my Asus router would be a computer, but my linksys router wouldn't be.
Nonsense. Here's what Miriam Webster has to say on the issue:
computer noun, often attributive \km-pyü-tr\ Definition of COMPUTER : one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data
Any router I've ever seen would fit into that definition.
I suppose a poor analogy would be picking the lock on a house, but not opening the door... when no law against 'lock picking' exists... which in this case also did not share the key with anyone else, nor leave the house vulnerable to another person with ill intent
A better analogy would be picking the lock, walking in, kicking your feet up on the coffee table, turning on the TV, and using their phone to call up the local pizza and/or beer delivery place. Might not be illegal, but it certainly should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... "distroy"? Is that a Linux thing, like distro-y?
Grow up.
Clinton never got a war in Iraq!
Right. I suppose he never bombed the shit out of Serbia, either.
And is it any wonder considering they're thick-as-thieves pals with Saudi princes?
Given the ignorance displayed in your previous two sentences, I probably shouldn't be surprised that you're unaware of the connection between all American presidents - democrat or republican - and Saudi Arabia. Still, it always throws me for a loop when I see someone suggesting that there's some kind of split between the parties when it comes to the Saudis. How can you be that ignorant of the politics of your own nation?
... as weapons of mass destruction? Why invade Iraq if you can just make a few volcanoes pop up where ya needs 'em?
Why screw with volcanoes when you can drop a couple nukes where ya needs 'em?
You don't invade to distroy - you invade to control. Clinton's Iraq war was the former - GW's Iraq war was the latter.
I wonder if this new one will have a GBL as well?
Well, yeah, if it's got fruit flies it's bound to have a fruit.
So just to follow up, do you think the actions of Apple are morally reprehensible?
Not really, no. I can appreciate the fact that they don't want to appear to be supporting bigots. On the other hand, my personal preference would be to relegate offensive material to a different category. Forcefully shutting people up is the least effective way of dismissing their beliefs/claims. The whole idea behind democracy and freedom of speech is that the free exchange of ideas allows people to sort out their difference through discussion, rather than violence. If you marginalize and exclude a faction, they tend to grow bigger, more fanatical, and more violent. So while their actions aren't "morally reprehensible", they're certainly not "good", either.
And I think they're assholes and control-freaks, in general, and I refuse to use any of their products. Of course, I held that opinion prior to this incident - now I just have one more thing I can point to in order to support my opinion.
So if you don't reply to this and post "c6gunner is a fucking idiot" that is an act of censorship? As long as we agree on Websters absurd definition.
FTFY. I sure am glad that we have people like you around to rewrite the language for us, though. Don't know how we'd survive without geniuses who can't wrap their brains around the definitions of simple words.
Not broadcasting an idea because you don't agree with it is not censorship
Yeah, I know, searching miriam-webster is really, REALLY hard, so here, I'll help you out:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor%5B2%5D
censor
verb
censoredcensoring\sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\
Definition of CENSOR
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
See censor defined for English-language learners
Examples of CENSOR
1. The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
2. His report was heavily censored.
First Known Use of CENSOR
1882
You're welcome.
Heh. Awesome.
The reason I added that as my tagline is because far-left twits kept assuming I was American, and calling me a right-wing christian hick. I found that adding the disclaimer tended to cut down on pointless flamewars because it let them know that I wasn't sticking up for the US due to mindless militant nationalism. It was a response to people who DO hold the views you accuse me of having.
I'm not at all surprised that someone like you would completely misunderstand, and go for the opposite extreme.
Is banning a bigoted app from the Appstore remotely close to sitting idle and allowing the Holocaust to happen? The amount of re-purposing of this quote has frankly watered down its original meaning.
That was the intent. I am, frankly, amazed by the number of people who seem to have missed the tounge-in-cheek nature of my comment. Yes, I was making a serious point, but I was attempting to use some humour in the process.
Censorship in the Appstore is not exactly a great thing, but I'm willing to give them a pass on it since it is their walled garden that they have built.
I'll give them a pass, I just won't use their product(s). There are a number of reasons to avoid Apple like the plague; this latest bit just shows that anyone who cares about the suppression of unpopular views should also be avoiding them.
Alternatively, societies brainwashed by decades of political correctness to bring about their own destruction because they're oblivious of the historical precendents they're repeating.
Yep, those eeeebil homersexuals are going to wipe us of the map! It's just like in the animal kingdom - gay Bonobos enslave straight Bonobos to work in their underground dildo mines!
No, numbnuts, acknowledging reality is not "political correctness". You can try to disguise your bigotry by pretending to be "fighting PC!" but don't for a second think that you're fooling anyone other than like-minded simpletons.
And who exactly are you to tell me what I should or should not believe? Do you insist that I don't have the right to choose my belief system and world view, or do you instead believe the all powerful State or some other group of people should dictate to me my beliefs?
I didn't tell you what to believe - I said that you're immoral. Learn to read. If you want to believe that a flat earth was created 6,000 years ago by an all-powerful invisible man who hates gays but created them in every species on the planet, that's awesome! I have absolutely no desire to change your mind - you're way too entertaining in your present state.
It's not censorship when a private company does it.
Yes, it is. Get yourself a dictionary and look it up.
The difference is that the governments of most western nations have a legal requirement to not engage in censorship, whereas no such legal requirement exists for private companies. That doesn't mean that "it's not censorship when companies do it" - it means that when private companies engage in censorship, it's not illegal. Whether it's moral is a whole different question.
Homosexuality was once widely considered to be a mental disorder until the APA deemed it not to be one back in the 1970's
Imagine that - societies brainwashed by hundreds of years of religious indoctrination thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Wow. Next you'll be telling me that people used to think Witches needed to be burned at the stake.
That those screaming "Intolerant Bigot!" are demonstrating their own intolerance of an opposing view is somewhat telling all by itself.
Absolutely: any moral human being should be intolerant of intolerance. That you see this as a bad thing speaks volumes about your own moral code.
Perhaps they're simply happy that in a situation where censorship is already a given, it's better to accept that's the case and focus on the new battle- that of ensuring any censorship that does happen equally squeezes right wing religious bigotry and ignorance out of the equation. This doesn't stop protesting against censorship in general too, merely it's the case that that's just not what the battle was here.
First they came for the Porn Apps.
And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and, anyway, it's kinda overrated.
Then they came for the Right-Wing-Bigots.
And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and anyway, they kinda suck.
Then they came for the Jews. ...
And I didn't speak out because that wasn't the battle, and anyway, there's that whole Palestine thing
Then they came for me.
And there was no one left to speak out for me.
But you don't need to run the turbines at max capacity to get some power output from them. Run it at a few hundred RPM and use a rectifier to recharge your backup batteries, or use transformers to get some useful current out of 'em. I realize it wouldn't be easy since they clearly didn't plan for it ahead of time, but it's also far from impossible to quickly rig up a temporary solution. Unless the turbines really are damaged to the point where they can't even get them started.
A related question is - why can't the decay heat be used to actually produce power? Why can't the steam turbines continue to operate after shutting down the reactor, since it's still producing a lot of heat?
Yeah, that's been bugging me for quite a while now. They have steam-turbines and generators, and a fuckload of steam. What's the problem?
That's cute, but, in reality, Hong Kong is one of the worlds largest trade centers, and THE largest re-exporter on the planet. The value of imports and exports is larger than the nations GDP. It's a free-market traders wet dream, and the antithesis of a self-sustaining community.
We should be putting solar power in by default, and using other sources if solar fails, period.
Sure, but why stop there? Obviously it would make WAY more sense to have them grow their own food, too. Two floors out of every three should be farms! And, of course, they should process their own sewage by default. And weave their own curtains. And there should be a factory level for making TV's and computers. And maybe a forest and a pulp-mill on the roof, to create all those TPS reports from scratch.
Yep, trade is for fools - a REAL building should be completely self contained!
When you consider the inefficiencies of powering it through the grid, going through miles and miles of resistance on the wire, you're going to offset much more than 2MW.
Yeah! Like 2.2MW at least! Maybe even 2.3!
I think it's more an issue that most horny kids online don't want to talk to 50 year old men, especially ones with a mustache like that.
When I walk into a night-club, I can be fairly certain that most of the women there aren't looking to sleep with me at the end of the night. Yet I'll bet you any amount of money you want that by the end of the night I can have one of them back at my place.
I mean, yeah, you're right, in the sense that they're idiots for not being more weary, but the rarity of kids willing to do such things is kinda irrelevant when there are millions of them online. If they keep trying, they're guaranteed to find one eventually. And if they're willing to pray on the damaged ones, they'll get results much faster; like my night-club analogy, if I REALLY want to win the bet I'll just look for the clumsiest, ugliest, fattest woman in the house.
Good overview. However, I gotta disagree with this bit:
There's probably a significantly lower number of males at that age engaged in a significantly older sexual relationship, but I'd also say that it's safe to assume an even larger percentage would be willing and eager to do so given favorable opportunity
I seriously doubt that the number is significantly lower. It seems like every week, a teacher somewhere in the US is getting busted for sleeping with one of her students - it just generally doesn't make national news so most people aren't aware of it. Also, let's not forget the catholic church abuse scandals, many (most?) of which involved boys. We could quibble over whether they count as "relationships", but they certainly do count as cases of young teens engaging in sexual activity with adults.
Interestingly enough, of the two cases I'm personally familiar with (teens I knew when I was a teen) one involved a 15 year old female with a 40 year old female, and the other involved a 15 year old male with a 52 year old male. The former was actually completely legal because it occurred in Canada, and the age of consent was 14 at the time. The latter happened in the US, and the adult was caught and prosecuted (and the kid was so upset about his "boyfriend" going to jail that he attempted suicide - but that's a whole other story).
Now, I'm sure that these two cases are most likely not the norm, and it's probably a statistical fluke that both involved homosexual relationships. But it does show the complexity of the situation. I would want some pretty solid data before being willing to conclude that there is "a significantly lower number of males at that age engaged in a significantly older sexual relationship".
Yes, it is. The manufacturer didn't design those routers with the intent that people would run their own applications on them.
Actually, the Asus routers were specifically designed to be able to run third-party firmware. Seems irrelevant, though - what the manufacturer intended doesn't have anything to do with the definition of "computer". If I make a car but tell people they have to use it as a boat, that doesn't stop it from being a car. And if I remove the wheels from it, it's not "hacking" when the customer goes and puts on a new set.
You know, as in "exceptionally clever programming"
If you think that flashing firmware is "exceptionally clever programming", I don't think we're going to resolve this discussion in a civil manner.
I wouldn't really want to go into orbit with current levels of technology
That's you. Personally, I'd gladly go into orbit wearing a pressure-suit and strapped to a rocket-powered office-chair, if that was the only means available. I doubt I'm all that rare in that respect, either ...
If it is inaccurately worded, it is not true
"The Earth is round" - inaccurate, but true.
I run a dual core 400 MHz P-II as a router ...
Ouch.
Not that I have anything against hardware reuse ... but seriously, if you shelled out some cash to upgrade to an Atom-based box, the reduction in electrical usage would probably be enough to recoup the cost within a year.
However, it still isn't a computer. Embedded devices might be functionally capable of doing many of the same things, but what distinguishes a computer is whether it provides the ability to install and run arbitrary software (not just whatever the manufacturer installed) that allows the user to create and store significant amounts of information without hacking the device in any way.
Ever hear of DD-WRT? Optware? And no, before you say it, a firmware update is not "hacking the device" by any stretch of the imagination. By your logic, my Asus router would be a computer, but my linksys router wouldn't be.
Nonsense. Here's what Miriam Webster has to say on the issue:
computer
noun, often attributive \km-pyü-tr\
Definition of COMPUTER
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data
Any router I've ever seen would fit into that definition.
I suppose a poor analogy would be picking the lock on a house, but not opening the door... when no law against 'lock picking' exists... which in this case also did not share the key with anyone else, nor leave the house vulnerable to another person with ill intent
A better analogy would be picking the lock, walking in, kicking your feet up on the coffee table, turning on the TV, and using their phone to call up the local pizza and/or beer delivery place. Might not be illegal, but it certainly should be.