So every time somebody says gays should be denied all rights, or should all be murdered, and you have a problem with it but then they claim they were just joking, how about I tell you it's something you need to work on rather than attempt to change everyone around you?
Wouldn't that come under knowing the difference between attempted humour from actual sexism? Why is it in your world, you're the only one enlightened to the difference while everyone else is completely oblivious?
As many people have stated, you're not improving society - you're just making society less tolerant in your own way, which doesn't actually fare better in the long run than allowing people to make bad jokes.
The problem you seem to have is that you can't distinguish attempted humour from actual sexism. There is a lot of difference between "haha women can't park" and "durhur men a jerks", and actual sexist behaviour. And before you start, I'm gay, so yes I do know what both are like.
I think this is something you need to work on rather than attempt to change everyone around you.
Even better than that, the phones they're offering are the HTC Surround, LG Quantum or the Samsung Focus - not the more popular phones such as the Omnia or the HD7, which one can learn from other sources are selling like the proverbial hot cakes.
Step 8: Someone does a stupid step-by-step post explaining "shit everyone knows except that one guy" in a patronising fashion;)
I do sort of agree with him. Virii is at the very least bad English, and absolutely bloody awful Latin. I am semi-reliably informed that if you're talking about Virii, you're more likely to be talking about lots and lots of men. Admittedly, for about 40% of the world, that may still be something you don't want all over your hard drive.
(I hold no responsibility for the accuracy of second-hand information - any corrections are welcome)
Of course, it doesn't really help discussion if you only answer the points you want to, either.
So, because I'm interested: how does restricting the badging on hardware products help users to be more free? Surely it only helps them to be less informed?
Police can arrest you if they have a valid arrest warrant. There are also some situations where they can arrest you without a warrant. These are where:
* you are in the act of committing certain offences
* they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you are committing certain offences
* they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have committed certain offences
* you are about to commit certain offences
* they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you are about to commit certain offences.
So they can't arrest without reasonable grounds for a start. That includes having evidence of the crime being committed. Furthermore from the same article that I "didn't read":
Drage was convicted of failing to disclose an encryption key in September. He was sentenced at Preston Crown Court on Monday.
Hence: they had to convince a judge that they had reasonable grounds to request the encryption key, or he wouldn't have been sentenced at all.
You either failed to read the article, or failed to comprehend the article. I trust you're done being a rude, ill-informed little prick?
Ah, sorry. I forgot that I have to give a direct citation despite the preponderance of evidence in my favour, but you're allow to make paranoid accusations without a shred of proof.
He was arrested as part of ongoing investigations into the sexual abuse of children. What generally doesn't happen during these investigations is that police get no evidence, so they randomly break down someone's door and take their computer. Also, In order to invoke RIPA to get access to his computer, they had to go before a judge who had to decide if it was legitimate. Is that enough, or do you want me to head up to Liverpool and ask them?
It's hard to give a coherent response to a comment located somewhere else, but I'll have a stab.
Your example of "Tell us where the body is. If you don't tell us where the body is, we'll throw you into the slammer" isn't very comparable. I think you're trying to suggest that he can't prove a negative, but this guy isn't even willing to try and prove the positive. He's refusing to do anything at all.
In this case, a warrant has been handed out because there is already reasonable evidence that something will be found. Now the judge is saying "We have evidence that you have incriminating material, so we would like to see what you have". What this guy is doing is akin to police knocking on his door with a search warrant, and him locking the door. At the very least, that's ridiculously naive.
And yet by allowing access, you give yourself the tools to actually argue that you're innocent (browser caches can be accidental, etc). Innocent until proven guilty still applies, but if you are innocent you have a better chance if you're open about your hard drive than if you block the police at every turn possible.
If he doesn't have anything incriminating, why wouldn't he give up the password? He walks free and he'll probably get a nice amount of compensation from the police for being wrongly accused.
I don't think your "fuck the pigs" attitude really works for him in this situation.
If they claim it and still claim themselves a Christian, then I can argue that from their own books of faith.
A lot of what I'm reading here is basically "Religion sucks because human beings act human". Well, everything sucks because human beings act that way. Pretending it's the fault of a concept isn't going to help resolve any of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've gone back and read your comments, and I have no idea how I came to the conclusion that I did.
You have my apologies.
So every time somebody says gays should be denied all rights, or should all be murdered, and you have a problem with it but then they claim they were just joking, how about I tell you it's something you need to work on rather than attempt to change everyone around you?
Wouldn't that come under knowing the difference between attempted humour from actual sexism? Why is it in your world, you're the only one enlightened to the difference while everyone else is completely oblivious?
As many people have stated, you're not improving society - you're just making society less tolerant in your own way, which doesn't actually fare better in the long run than allowing people to make bad jokes.
The problem you seem to have is that you can't distinguish attempted humour from actual sexism. There is a lot of difference between "haha women can't park" and "durhur men a jerks", and actual sexist behaviour. And before you start, I'm gay, so yes I do know what both are like.
I think this is something you need to work on rather than attempt to change everyone around you.
Even better than that, the phones they're offering are the HTC Surround, LG Quantum or the Samsung Focus - not the more popular phones such as the Omnia or the HD7, which one can learn from other sources are selling like the proverbial hot cakes.
A poor attempt, really.
Step 8: Someone does a stupid step-by-step post explaining "shit everyone knows except that one guy" in a patronising fashion ;)
I do sort of agree with him. Virii is at the very least bad English, and absolutely bloody awful Latin. I am semi-reliably informed that if you're talking about Virii, you're more likely to be talking about lots and lots of men. Admittedly, for about 40% of the world, that may still be something you don't want all over your hard drive.
(I hold no responsibility for the accuracy of second-hand information - any corrections are welcome)
You're preaching to the converted here - that's why I replied to the post saying it hadn't changed in centuries, rather than the one before.
I don't think basic calculus has changed in a few centuries.
Are you sure the way we teach calculus hasn't changed at all in that time?
I think it might have been when you said "Winblows". Not exactly mature, and easily taken as baiting someone.
Don't start being reasonable about it... You'll spoil everyone else's fun.
Of course, it doesn't really help discussion if you only answer the points you want to, either.
So, because I'm interested: how does restricting the badging on hardware products help users to be more free? Surely it only helps them to be less informed?
Everything I said is deduced from the article that you claimed I didn't read:
Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool, was arrested in May 2009 by police tackling child sexual exploitation.
From advice on UK law:
Police can arrest you if they have a valid arrest warrant. There are also some situations where they can arrest you without a warrant. These are where:
* you are in the act of committing certain offences
* they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you are committing certain offences
* they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have committed certain offences
* you are about to commit certain offences
* they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you are about to commit certain offences.
So they can't arrest without reasonable grounds for a start. That includes having evidence of the crime being committed. Furthermore from the same article that I "didn't read":
Drage was convicted of failing to disclose an encryption key in September. He was sentenced at Preston Crown Court on Monday.
Hence: they had to convince a judge that they had reasonable grounds to request the encryption key, or he wouldn't have been sentenced at all.
You either failed to read the article, or failed to comprehend the article. I trust you're done being a rude, ill-informed little prick?
Wrong country.
Ah, sorry. I forgot that I have to give a direct citation despite the preponderance of evidence in my favour, but you're allow to make paranoid accusations without a shred of proof.
He was arrested as part of ongoing investigations into the sexual abuse of children. What generally doesn't happen during these investigations is that police get no evidence, so they randomly break down someone's door and take their computer. Also, In order to invoke RIPA to get access to his computer, they had to go before a judge who had to decide if it was legitimate. Is that enough, or do you want me to head up to Liverpool and ask them?
Believe what you like, it's no skin off my nose.
The RIAA aren't the police. This is a criminal action, not civil.
Furthermore, who said they didn't have any evidence?
by toastar (573882)
Yah know, I could see a market for this.
You would ;)
Being 'previously of good character' does not suggest the police had no evidence of wrongdoing.
Who were you replying to? I certainly didn't suggest anything of the sort.
Which part of 'innocent until proven guilty' confuses you?
Which part of 'the police already have evidence of his guilt' confuses you?
It's hard to give a coherent response to a comment located somewhere else, but I'll have a stab.
Your example of "Tell us where the body is. If you don't tell us where the body is, we'll throw you into the slammer" isn't very comparable. I think you're trying to suggest that he can't prove a negative, but this guy isn't even willing to try and prove the positive. He's refusing to do anything at all.
In this case, a warrant has been handed out because there is already reasonable evidence that something will be found. Now the judge is saying "We have evidence that you have incriminating material, so we would like to see what you have". What this guy is doing is akin to police knocking on his door with a search warrant, and him locking the door. At the very least, that's ridiculously naive.
And yet by allowing access, you give yourself the tools to actually argue that you're innocent (browser caches can be accidental, etc). Innocent until proven guilty still applies, but if you are innocent you have a better chance if you're open about your hard drive than if you block the police at every turn possible.
If he doesn't have anything incriminating, why wouldn't he give up the password? He walks free and he'll probably get a nice amount of compensation from the police for being wrongly accused.
I don't think your "fuck the pigs" attitude really works for him in this situation.
Microsoft BOPS... Seriously?
No, Slashdot got it wrong, in a move that has surprised literally nobody. It's BPOS.
EVERYtime some bullshit comes up like this, someone comes up with 'context'
That's because EVERYtime this comes up, someone tries to actually make people think instead of bleating out some knee-jerk stupidity.
Opera doesn't force upgrades on it's users - or are you using a different definition of 'force' from the rest of us?
If they claim it and still claim themselves a Christian, then I can argue that from their own books of faith.
A lot of what I'm reading here is basically "Religion sucks because human beings act human". Well, everything sucks because human beings act that way. Pretending it's the fault of a concept isn't going to help resolve any of it.