No mention of RD in my post, that's all in your head - there is enough room for that kind of shit obviously.
False. Roughly drafted was in the subject of your post. Don't you even read your own comments?
I can't believe you think Digg is more biased than R.D. Liar, liar, pants on fire. I can believe that you are more biased than RD, and digg, and Microsoft.com together. And more stupid too.
Well, this is getting a little childish. I guess that's what happens when children get caught out explicitly denying something that can be proven.
I can't believe you think Digg is more biased than R.D.
Your orginal comment sure made it look like you believe RD is less biased than Digg tho' My original "quote" was saying that you were talking about digg when you were talking about a site that was biased. The rest is a figment from your bias.
Nope. Your original quote was in reply to a comment clearly about R.D's biase, but you replied saying the bias was digg's.
I can't believe you admit you think Digg is more biased than R.D.
So the fact that any story on digg can easily be manipulated is proof that the site is without any bias. SUUUURE.
Please read the thread you're replying to.
1) I said any biased story on digg would be countered by stories/comments with counter opinions. Which doesn't help Slashdot when you submit stories from digg
2) I didn't say Digg was without any bias. I said it was less blatently biased than R.D.
Are you really arguing that Digg is more biased than R.D? No, I'm proving that you are more biased than RD.
If that's all you want to prove, why don't you just ask me if I'm more biased than RD?
Your orginal comment sure made it look like you believe RD is less biased than Digg tho'
So the fact that any story on digg can easily be manipulated is proof that the site is without any bias. SUUUURE.
Please read the thread you're replying to.
1) I said any biased story on digg would be countered by stories/comments with counter opinions. 2) I didn't say Digg was without any bias. I said it was less blatently biased than R.D.
Are you really arguing that Digg is more biased than R.D?
Bullshit - when you can manipulate something that peddles oppinions, you add bias. What are you, dumb? Why, yes, you have proven that already.
Wrong. Firstly, you're changing your tune from ease of manipulation==bias to manipulation adds bias.
Secondly, manipulation may add bias to a single story, but not to the entire site. A good example would be roughly drafted's attempt to manipulate digg to get digg to peddle Eran's bias. Eran created multiple accounts to get R.D. stories voted up. Before he was caught, many of his stories were voted down. In addition, there was plenty of comments & stories offering counter opinions.
Do you seriously think Digg is more biased than Roughly Drafted? I find that hard to believe.
While digg may be biased at least its reign in by its users. Also, it is pretty obvious from the context that I was referring to the far more blatantly biased Roughly Drafted.
I completely agree with your post apart from the sentence
Hes a complete and utter Apple shill,
I find it hard to believe that Apple would pay someone to write a blog as stupid & irritating as Roughly Drafted. Their money's better spent on more subtle shillery.
Not only is that site biased, but it attempts to push its bias onto other sites. I think it's a real pity that Slashdot accepts submissions from there.
You wrote: Sure, you just can't complain that somebody else is "breaking" the GPL, simply because he agrees with you on the copyright issue.
That sentence is vague beyond belief. What do you mean by 'breaking' the GPL? Do you mean finding a loophole in it that would mean all GPL licensing is null & void? Or do you mean violating the GPL. When you say 'agrees with you', does 'you' mean 'one', 'wmf' or the hypothetical person who supports both the GPL and the end of copyright?
You have proven not to be able to understand even the most simple concepts, so why should I bother.
What a miserable troll you are - unbelievable that someone can make a comment without bothering to clarify what they mean when politely asked.
In future, please don't comment unless you can be bothered writing enough that your meaning is clear.
You can't support GPL without supporting copyright, as it would be unenforceable without copyright.
Bullshit.
It's possible to think that copyright is wrong, but accept the GPL as way of enforcing sharing while copyright exists. That's not an opinion I hold, but at least some seem to.
This idea is even stupidder than people who fall for phishing attacks. Another tld gold rush isn't going to solve anything because the problem is people's credulousness,
They just need the software to work (TM). Open sauce may be cheaper, but in the end the districts will get what they need to educate not what will "stick it to the man" or whatever.
Unbelievably stupid. Do you really think Red Hat, IBM, Sun, fortune 500 companies, etc are running FOSS to stick it to the man?
There are many pragmatic reasons to run open source - cost is only one of them.
We do all of the research and development, and they sell it at cost with no reimbursement, thus destroying our system of innovation,
Don't worry, the US did exactly the same thing in its infancy, ignoring European patents & copyrights at the govt level.
As soon as it became in the elite's interests to protect patents, copyright, etc, they were protected - the protections have become stronger & stronger over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
No mention of RD in my post, that's all in your head - there is enough room for that kind of shit obviously.
False. Roughly drafted was in the subject of your post. Don't you even read your own comments?
I can't believe you think Digg is more biased than R.D.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. I can believe that you are more biased than RD, and digg, and Microsoft.com together. And more stupid too.
Well, this is getting a little childish. I guess that's what happens when children get caught out explicitly denying something that can be proven.
I can't believe you think Digg is more biased than R.D.
No mention of RD in my post, that's all in your head - there is enough room for that kind of shit obviously.
False. Roughly drafted was in the subject of your post. Don't you even read your own comments?
I can't believe you think Digg is more biased than R.D.
Now Steve Jobs doesn't like DRM, surely you should be against it to?
I can't believe you admit you think Digg is more biased than R.D.
Your orginal comment sure made it look like you believe RD is less biased than Digg tho'
Righteo - that clears that up.
I'm glad google had a change of heart & congrats to you for your role in breaking the story.
They've forced xenu.net to be delisted from google
Are you sure?.
So the fact that any story on digg can easily be manipulated is proof that the site is without any bias. SUUUURE.
Please read the thread you're replying to.
1) I said any biased story on digg would be countered by stories/comments with counter opinions.
2) I didn't say Digg was without any bias. I said it was less blatently biased than R.D.
Are you really arguing that Digg is more biased than R.D?
Bullshit - when you can manipulate something that peddles oppinions, you add bias. What are you, dumb? Why, yes, you have proven that already.
Wrong. Firstly, you're changing your tune from ease of manipulation==bias to manipulation adds bias.
Secondly, manipulation may add bias to a single story, but not to the entire site. A good example would be roughly drafted's attempt to manipulate digg to get digg to peddle Eran's bias. Eran created multiple accounts to get R.D. stories voted up. Before he was caught, many of his stories were voted down. In addition, there was plenty of comments & stories offering counter opinions.
Do you seriously think Digg is more biased than Roughly Drafted? I find that hard to believe.
You are even more naive than I thought. Digg is easier to manipulate than an US election using Diebold machines.
Ease of manipulation & bias are completely different concepts. Go read up on them & come back when you understand the difference.
Disney's largest shareholder probably gave Iger a bollocking. After all, Apple is on the blue ray Association Board of Directors.
Never have truer words about digg been said.
While digg may be biased at least its reign in by its users. Also, it is pretty obvious from the context that I was referring to the far more blatantly biased Roughly Drafted.
That's the point, you already know he's going to have a perspective,
Yes. That's why I questioned the GP saying he was not biased.
Are you really still stuck on the idea that there's such a thing out there as the objective truth?
I still think you can strive for objectivity (whilst admitting to your biases). Roughly Drafted makes no such attempt.
Obviously. Biased? No, I don't think so. The reason I think that way is because of the way he puts his influences and beliefs up front.
Sorry? He's not biased because he admits to his bias upfront?
You're a moron.
Daniel Eran was busted spamming digg and consquently banned.
Not only is that site biased, but it attempts to push its bias onto other sites. I think it's a real pity that Slashdot accepts submissions from there.
OK, let me break it down for you.
You wrote: Sure, you just can't complain that somebody else is "breaking" the GPL, simply because he agrees with you on the copyright issue.
That sentence is vague beyond belief. What do you mean by 'breaking' the GPL? Do you mean finding a loophole in it that would mean all GPL licensing is null & void? Or do you mean violating the GPL. When you say 'agrees with you', does 'you' mean 'one', 'wmf' or the hypothetical person who supports both the GPL and the end of copyright?
You have proven not to be able to understand even the most simple concepts, so why should I bother.
What a miserable troll you are - unbelievable that someone can make a comment without bothering to clarify what they mean when politely asked.
In future, please don't comment unless you can be bothered writing enough that your meaning is clear.
Sure, you just can't complain that somebody else is "breaking" the GPL, simply because he agrees with you on the copyright issue.
I don't understand what you mean. Please elaborate.
Everyone knows that badgers are strictly a web 1.0 phenomena. (it's been around since the web went from 0.9b4 to 1.0 RC1)
;-)
Oh - anyone who hasn't already seen the animation linked above, make sure you watch right to the end - the punch line is hilarious!
You can't support GPL without supporting copyright, as it would be unenforceable without copyright.
Bullshit.
It's possible to think that copyright is wrong, but accept the GPL as way of enforcing sharing while copyright exists. That's not an opinion I hold, but at least some seem to.
Do you realise that when you buy a second hand album that the music industry thinks you're stealing that music?
After all, you've acquired a copy of the songs, but the artist has recieved no compensation from you.
*sighs* These people just do not understnad some conecpts integral to society (reuse, second hand sales, etc).
This idea is even stupidder than people who fall for phishing attacks. Another tld gold rush isn't going to solve anything because the problem is people's credulousness,
I'd expect to see a rush of tld registrations to Macedonia (citybank.ba.mk) and Saint Kitts and Nevis (citibank.ba.kn)
Even if you could train people to look at the URL properly, theres always the chance that we'll see another Internet Explorer URL Spoofing Vulnerability.
They just need the software to work (TM). Open sauce may be cheaper, but in the end the districts will get what they need to educate not what will "stick it to the man" or whatever.
Unbelievably stupid. Do you really think Red Hat, IBM, Sun, fortune 500 companies, etc are running FOSS to stick it to the man?
There are many pragmatic reasons to run open source - cost is only one of them.
We do all of the research and development, and they sell it at cost with no reimbursement, thus destroying our system of innovation,
Don't worry, the US did exactly the same thing in its infancy, ignoring European patents & copyrights at the govt level.
As soon as it became in the elite's interests to protect patents, copyright, etc, they were protected - the protections have become stronger & stronger over the years.
The same thing will happen in China. Get over it.
Today, Disney. Tomorrow, GM.
Errr, you meant: Today, Disney. Today GM. China's been accused of 'Auto Piracy' already.
Get used to it
Yup.