Your point would work if surveillance camera footage was published on a website for everyone else to see as well, and the government was using it to make money.
You're dodging the point by doing the exact same thing again - pulling one line, out of context, and using it to demonstrate why you shouldn't have read the rest of his post. You've still failed to argue the actual point he was making, only serving to shout "YOU'RE WRONG" as loudly as possible with your fingers in your ears while barely offering anything but your opinion of language and grammar as a reason why.
I'm pretty much done explaining to you why you're a complete asshole, now. I shall take the fact that someone like you has marked me as a 'foe' as a compliment and leave it at that.
No, I don't. I think any person or organisation who photographs everything possible in a city and then publishes them to, say, a publically accessible website without asking the people in the photograph first should come under a similar amount of scrutiny.
Considering there are photos which point inside people's living rooms and are of people on their private property, I think Google should be asking first, not doing it and then providing a mechanism by which someone can have the photo removed after. A photo which clearly violates the privacy of a member of the public could be available for months before someone in the photo finds out.
the cameras have come along way from the days when crazy cat ladies and other privacy freaks scuppered Street View in San Francisco a couple of years back."
Too right! I mean, everybody should just let Google photograph whoever they want and publish it on the web to drive hits to their website. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a privacy freak!
That Twitter is pretty much open source already...
Anyway, in his defense, he's been pretty good with using only the one account recently - and although I don't agree with anything he says, I'm perfectly alright with him expressing it as long as he's stopped resorting to the shilling that got all his accounts karmabombed.
Yes, that includes all the times I apparently threatened to kill him, which he has apparently diligently recorded. There goes a man with no sarcasm-meter.
MSN Messenger has supported it since it changed to Windows Live Messenger, if not before that.
Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
They're not the FSF
Clearly. FTFA:
Ernest Park: [...] Do you have any comments on the GPLv3 site and the progress that we've been maintaining?
Richard Stallman: In general, I'm rather unhappy with Palamida, both for terminology (it generally uses the term "open source", which stands for values I disagree with), and for substance (it promotes some non-free software).
Burn.
Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From the article you linked to, the reason that IPv6 had problems on Vista is because of issues with tunnelling over IPv4 and a lack of diagnostic tools and responses - if the entire world switched to IPv6 tomorrow, Vista would be fine.
That's not to mention that the article you cite is nearly a year old - and in my office and here at home we have Vista machines running IPv4 and IPv6 with no problems at all, which would suggest that it's no longer an issue.
You're displaying a fair amount of ignorance there.
Custom firmwares have many uses that don't involve piracy in any way, shape or form - including legal emulation, VOIP and messenger software and homebrew games and applications.
That's what the friend/foe system is for. Good luck trying to do that with Twitter though, he'll just make more sockpuppets and you'll never be able to ignore him.
It's pretty obvious that you, willyhill, dedazo and associated accounts are the same person Yawn. We don't all play the same game as you.
What do you do with yourself when he's on vacation? Don't know about anyone else, but when you're not posting I merely feel somewhat satisfied that I can read Slashdot without it being tainted with your stupidity.
Probably for the same reason as he's started accusing everyone of being from Anti-Slash.
Somebody should point out to him that Anti-Slash hasn't been updated in months, and that there's really no global conspiracy to mod him down... no, wait, I already did that and he's still being a cunt.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you make it easy.
WARNING -- byolinux is a twitter sockpuppet!
Nope.
Your point would work if surveillance camera footage was published on a website for everyone else to see as well, and the government was using it to make money.
You're dodging the point by doing the exact same thing again - pulling one line, out of context, and using it to demonstrate why you shouldn't have read the rest of his post. You've still failed to argue the actual point he was making, only serving to shout "YOU'RE WRONG" as loudly as possible with your fingers in your ears while barely offering anything but your opinion of language and grammar as a reason why.
I'm pretty much done explaining to you why you're a complete asshole, now. I shall take the fact that someone like you has marked me as a 'foe' as a compliment and leave it at that.
Can you point out where I 'freaked out'?
I don't think I'm the one suffering from two-tone perception disorder here.
No, you cherry picked the lines you thought you could argue without any context to them.
No, I don't. I think any person or organisation who photographs everything possible in a city and then publishes them to, say, a publically accessible website without asking the people in the photograph first should come under a similar amount of scrutiny.
Considering there are photos which point inside people's living rooms and are of people on their private property, I think Google should be asking first, not doing it and then providing a mechanism by which someone can have the photo removed after. A photo which clearly violates the privacy of a member of the public could be available for months before someone in the photo finds out.
the cameras have come along way from the days when crazy cat ladies and other privacy freaks scuppered Street View in San Francisco a couple of years back."
Too right! I mean, everybody should just let Google photograph whoever they want and publish it on the web to drive hits to their website. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a privacy freak!
Why don't you actually reply to what he's saying instead of being a complete cunt? Is that too hard?
That article has nothing to do with philanthropic donations to the medical field, unless you have some good evidence to the contrary.
That Twitter is pretty much open source already...
Anyway, in his defense, he's been pretty good with using only the one account recently - and although I don't agree with anything he says, I'm perfectly alright with him expressing it as long as he's stopped resorting to the shilling that got all his accounts karmabombed.
Yes, that includes all the times I apparently threatened to kill him, which he has apparently diligently recorded. There goes a man with no sarcasm-meter.
Repeat after me:
Slashdot karma is not worth getting angry over.
Again:
Slashdot karma is not worth getting angry over.
You can't fool me - it's turtles all the way down.
I think it was optional for Perfect Dark - you could play without it, but only single player and it looked a lot worse.
MSN Messenger has supported it since it changed to Windows Live Messenger, if not before that.
They're not the FSF
Clearly. FTFA:
Ernest Park: [...] Do you have any comments on the GPLv3 site and the progress that we've been maintaining?
Richard Stallman: In general, I'm rather unhappy with Palamida, both for terminology (it generally uses the term "open source", which stands for values I disagree with), and for substance (it promotes some non-free software).
Burn.
From the article you linked to, the reason that IPv6 had problems on Vista is because of issues with tunnelling over IPv4 and a lack of diagnostic tools and responses - if the entire world switched to IPv6 tomorrow, Vista would be fine.
That's not to mention that the article you cite is nearly a year old - and in my office and here at home we have Vista machines running IPv4 and IPv6 with no problems at all, which would suggest that it's no longer an issue.
You're displaying a fair amount of ignorance there.
Custom firmwares have many uses that don't involve piracy in any way, shape or form - including legal emulation, VOIP and messenger software and homebrew games and applications.
Coming from the absolute master of crapflooding, I'll take that as a compliment.
Zing!
You, sir, win this round.
That's what the friend/foe system is for. Good luck trying to do that with Twitter though, he'll just make more sockpuppets and you'll never be able to ignore him.
I'll verb your noun in a minute!
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Of course I do. That's the only conclusion a reasonable person could come to.
*rolls eyes*
Get lost, Twit.
Probably for the same reason as he's started accusing everyone of being from Anti-Slash.
Somebody should point out to him that Anti-Slash hasn't been updated in months, and that there's really no global conspiracy to mod him down... no, wait, I already did that and he's still being a cunt.
Ah well.