I don't want any part of a troll belief system that allows its members to go around telling people that it's a joke. Come on, don't break the first and second rules of Flat Earth Club.
No, "your" was correct. It is referencing [a round earther's] action, not stating what [the round earther] is doing. It's the same as saying, "your behavior" or "your action".
The release of IE 7 has done more, generally, to improve the web than any particular Firefox release to date. If Firefox 3 is the one to break that, that's awesome. But IE 7 is what broke IE 6's stronghold, not Firefox 2, not 3, not Safari, not Opera, all of which are better.
What is stopping YOU or a million other environmentalists from buying forested land
Well, aside from the huge barrier of entry (cost; even "cheap" land is expensive if you're poor, which by and large people are, and environmentalists are a usually a particularly poor subset thereof, with some exceptions), there simply isn't that much forested land left. 98% of North American old growth forest, for example, is gone [citation needed?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldgrowth3.jpg ]. It's difficult to buy something that doesn't exist.
For the record, yes, I am trying to buy land and (not, for the most part) manage it exactly as I see fit. In the meantime and even in the event I can ever afford to become a member of the propertied class, I believe in decision-making by those affected to the extent they're affected; in other words, if deforestation affects me (it does), I should have a say in stopping it, regardless of who "owns" the forest they're destroying.
I have no disagreements with your distrust and rejection of state intervention, and your preference for cumulative social experience.
Old growth is "sacred" because healthy forests are composed of more than trees, and old growth supports a much broader range of species than just itself, which new growth alone cannot do for a long time. But you're right. Growing and cutting new growth is not the solution to that. Stopping logging is the solution to that.
Sometimes, rarely, I read something on slashdot that's remotely encouraging. This is one of those rare times. I know the parent you replied to was kind of tongue in cheek, but in the context of mass corporate greenwashing this response is golden, and I thank you. Anyone with mod points please mod parent up.
No one had ever thought of government without rulers before Linux. Not especially the anarchists (self-identified) of the last two centuries, theoretical Marxists advocating more or less anarchism as the future goal, or the "primitive communists" of nearly every indigenous culture that's ever existed.
Ironically, it's probably 10+% of geeks, and they probably also get headaches working with Windows. Just because Windows is "perfectly serviceable" or whatever excuse, doesn't mean it works as expected or desired, or works without annoyance or frustration or a lot more effort than should be required (hello, installing an application should not require more than a single drag and drop; and yes, some Mac apps are this stupid too, but they're all from big cross-platform software corporations).
I customize my Mac a fair amount, and I can think of one utility among dozens if not hundreds I've ever used that cost anything. Maybe you just don't know where to look?
"Ok...so I only see this as an issue for people trying to hide their identity for something nefarious."
Or something unpopular. Or something illegal which shouldn't be. Or something frowned upon by the powers that be which shouldn't be. "You have nothing to hide unless you've done something wrong" only works when those with the power to punish you are unquestionably morally in the right, which is never the case.
Or if you simply don't want to see unscrupulous marketing and datamining operations improved.
'damned near every other statement you might make when calling another company is almost IMMEDIATELY followed by "Can I have your name please?"'
Unless they need to look up an account under my name, they don't get my name. They don't need it, and I don't know how they'll use it.
"but almost anyone worth anything in terms of sales/technical/etc reps will give you their full name, email address, phone number, etc."
Their personal email address or phone number? Really? Have you seen that Seinfeld? "Oh, I'm a little busy now, but I'd like to call you about this offer at my leisure, can I please have your home phone number?" Click.
"In other news, purchasing cigarettes and alcohol require you to disclose your first and last name when you show your ID!"
Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right.
"It isn't like names are even really unique identifiers."
No, but activities and names combined can be. Suppose you anonymously leak information about a company or organization dumping hazardous waste into the drinking water supply. If you're not that keen with technology, you stand to be outed. This can lead to all sorts of consequences that you really don't deserve, up to and including harm to your person, depending on the nature of your leak and the nature of the offender you're reportingâ"and for that matter, up to and including finding means to silence you and continue whatever offense it is that you're leaking. You know, for example.
"Now if it revealed birthdays or SSNs or credit card numbers or something then I would understand."
Why birthdays and not names?
'Generally it is considered "normal" to give them your name so they have something to call you'
No, generally it's considered "normal" to give your name or any other personal information only when you volunteer it or are asked and consent to the exchange of information.
But this is not about personal freedom, this is abut one private citizen attempting to tell another private citizen how to manage their privately owned property.
It's actually about whether or not another person is entitled to root through your belongings in order for you to gain entry into their place of business. In other words, where your privacy ends. It's a personal freedom issue. If private power (eg corporations) have rights to invade your privacy that public powers (eg the state) don't, something is wrong. This applies to both.
In this case it is the movie patron that is trying to force the movie theater to operate business in a specific way. The Theater was only setting policy that states how one can use it's property, and that policy included a search, which was very easy to avoid simply by not entering the establishment.
And like the debate about whether a business may or may not require its employees have an RFID chip implanted (an issue of personal freedom), this is a case which seeks to determine whether businesses may require an invasion of privacy to permit entry. Clearly you think the business may, and I don't, which is why it's an issue of personal freedom, not an issue of an exercise of property rights.
News flash: property rights don't entitle you to break the law with your own property.
You come into my house I have the right to demand the exact same thing, or have you arrested for trespass. For some reason people forget that businesses are private establishments, much like a persons home.
First of all, that remains to be seen. Second of all, your house and a business are two different matters, and two totally different kinds of property. And if you don't believe me, you should consider the extremely different legal status they experience.
Consent by definition is what it is and there is no way to construe it otherwise. Just as No means No, Yes means Yes.
Apparently I do need to go into other matters of consent.
Okay. So if a man has sex with a woman, and she says neither no nor yes, is it consent? Apparently by not issuing a clear, barking "no!", a woman is permitting a man to do whatever he wishes with his property.
Handing someone your personal possession after they have requested to search it is most certainly consent. Hand the theater employee pull the property from the patrons hands then that would not have been consent.
It sounds to me like the latter is what took place.
"In this case, I strongly suspect the user was NOT suggesting that the moderators were downs afflicted, and rather more generally suggesting an association with Mongols, specifically in a historical sense as Mongoloid is most often used to refer to skulls and other remnants from cave man eras."
Of course. They just happened to use a term that has those connotations, while obviously insulting the intelligence of the people in question, but the reference in no way was intended to refer to those connotations, it's just a mistaken coincidence. I see now.
People with Downs are not a race, but the term "mongoloid" is a racial term, which came to have connotations with Downs due to racist perceptions about biological traits of Mongols. Hence my fucking comment.
wanting to see a movie does not entitle someone to enter a private establishment.
Yeah, that's what the ticket's for.
As I have said before this is no different than a policy that required "proper attire." Had the lady shown up to see a show not wearing a shirt, or shoes and was asked to leave we wouldn't even be seeing this news.
For the record, I consider that social expectation bullshit as well. Just so we're clear.
In this case the "victim" consented to a search
Apparently not.
and then decided it was inappropriate, where as the right thing to do would have been to refuse the search and request a refund, and if no refund was given (which I am fairly certain it would have been) then they could have gone to small claims court for the cost of the ticket and possibly court costs, nothing more.
Perhaps it's more prudent to make it a privacy case rather than about the cost of a ticket, which it quite obviously is or we wouldn't be discussing it.
I personally find it astonishing that people's resentment of personal freedom goes so far as to resent people actually trying to increase it rather than accept further curtailments of it. I don't really think this case is where I'd focus my energy, but frankly anything helps. The idea that buying a ticket to enter a place entitles the people at the door to view the contents of my bag is fucking absurd, regardless of what you construe as "consent" (and I'm sure we could talk about other issues of "consent" where it'd be clear that manipulated consent isn't genuine consent).
She would have been denied entry (which she'd paid for) by not "consenting". She didn't "allow" the search, she exercised her right to enter and was subjected to an invasion of privacy.
Jesus christ. Buying a ticket to a show does not entitle someone to root through my bags. Ever.
It might be more prudent to provide Cocoa compatibility and forego Carbon based on the knowledge that the remaining Carbon apps are cross-platform and would likely work under Wine (eg Office, Photoshop) with the notable exception of the Finder, which nobody wants to emulate anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there isn't an edge they can reach? Because all manner of trickery prevents them from reaching the edge? Where is your imagination?
I don't want any part of a troll belief system that allows its members to go around telling people that it's a joke. Come on, don't break the first and second rules of Flat Earth Club.
No, "your" was correct. It is referencing [a round earther's] action, not stating what [the round earther] is doing. It's the same as saying, "your behavior" or "your action".
If you have to explain it...
Funny, I would guess some 35 year old got jealous of being left out and modded yours offtopic.
So, just like a pool, deck, or other improvement to the home.
The release of IE 7 has done more, generally, to improve the web than any particular Firefox release to date. If Firefox 3 is the one to break that, that's awesome. But IE 7 is what broke IE 6's stronghold, not Firefox 2, not 3, not Safari, not Opera, all of which are better.
Well, aside from the huge barrier of entry (cost; even "cheap" land is expensive if you're poor, which by and large people are, and environmentalists are a usually a particularly poor subset thereof, with some exceptions), there simply isn't that much forested land left. 98% of North American old growth forest, for example, is gone [citation needed?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldgrowth3.jpg ]. It's difficult to buy something that doesn't exist.
For the record, yes, I am trying to buy land and (not, for the most part) manage it exactly as I see fit. In the meantime and even in the event I can ever afford to become a member of the propertied class, I believe in decision-making by those affected to the extent they're affected; in other words, if deforestation affects me (it does), I should have a say in stopping it, regardless of who "owns" the forest they're destroying.
I have no disagreements with your distrust and rejection of state intervention, and your preference for cumulative social experience.
Old growth is "sacred" because healthy forests are composed of more than trees, and old growth supports a much broader range of species than just itself, which new growth alone cannot do for a long time. But you're right. Growing and cutting new growth is not the solution to that. Stopping logging is the solution to that.
Sometimes, rarely, I read something on slashdot that's remotely encouraging. This is one of those rare times. I know the parent you replied to was kind of tongue in cheek, but in the context of mass corporate greenwashing this response is golden, and I thank you. Anyone with mod points please mod parent up.
No one had ever thought of government without rulers before Linux. Not especially the anarchists (self-identified) of the last two centuries, theoretical Marxists advocating more or less anarchism as the future goal, or the "primitive communists" of nearly every indigenous culture that's ever existed.
Ironically, it's probably 10+% of geeks, and they probably also get headaches working with Windows. Just because Windows is "perfectly serviceable" or whatever excuse, doesn't mean it works as expected or desired, or works without annoyance or frustration or a lot more effort than should be required (hello, installing an application should not require more than a single drag and drop; and yes, some Mac apps are this stupid too, but they're all from big cross-platform software corporations).
I customize my Mac a fair amount, and I can think of one utility among dozens if not hundreds I've ever used that cost anything. Maybe you just don't know where to look?
No offense but... wtf were you trying to do that failed?
Evil definitely doesn't require intent.
That said, this isn't evil. It's just an oversight.
"Ok...so I only see this as an issue for people trying to hide their identity for something nefarious."
Or something unpopular. Or something illegal which shouldn't be. Or something frowned upon by the powers that be which shouldn't be. "You have nothing to hide unless you've done something wrong" only works when those with the power to punish you are unquestionably morally in the right, which is never the case.
Or if you simply don't want to see unscrupulous marketing and datamining operations improved.
'damned near every other statement you might make when calling another company is almost IMMEDIATELY followed by "Can I have your name please?"'
Unless they need to look up an account under my name, they don't get my name. They don't need it, and I don't know how they'll use it.
"but almost anyone worth anything in terms of sales/technical/etc reps will give you their full name, email address, phone number, etc."
Their personal email address or phone number? Really? Have you seen that Seinfeld? "Oh, I'm a little busy now, but I'd like to call you about this offer at my leisure, can I please have your home phone number?" Click.
"In other news, purchasing cigarettes and alcohol require you to disclose your first and last name when you show your ID!"
Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right.
"It isn't like names are even really unique identifiers."
No, but activities and names combined can be. Suppose you anonymously leak information about a company or organization dumping hazardous waste into the drinking water supply. If you're not that keen with technology, you stand to be outed. This can lead to all sorts of consequences that you really don't deserve, up to and including harm to your person, depending on the nature of your leak and the nature of the offender you're reportingâ"and for that matter, up to and including finding means to silence you and continue whatever offense it is that you're leaking. You know, for example.
"Now if it revealed birthdays or SSNs or credit card numbers or something then I would understand."
Why birthdays and not names?
'Generally it is considered "normal" to give them your name so they have something to call you'
No, generally it's considered "normal" to give your name or any other personal information only when you volunteer it or are asked and consent to the exchange of information.
News flash: property rights don't entitle you to break the law with your own property. First of all, that remains to be seen. Second of all, your house and a business are two different matters, and two totally different kinds of property. And if you don't believe me, you should consider the extremely different legal status they experience. Apparently I do need to go into other matters of consent.
Okay. So if a man has sex with a woman, and she says neither no nor yes, is it consent? Apparently by not issuing a clear, barking "no!", a woman is permitting a man to do whatever he wishes with his property. It sounds to me like the latter is what took place.
"In this case, I strongly suspect the user was NOT suggesting that the moderators were downs afflicted, and rather more generally suggesting an association with Mongols, specifically in a historical sense as Mongoloid is most often used to refer to skulls and other remnants from cave man eras."
Of course. They just happened to use a term that has those connotations, while obviously insulting the intelligence of the people in question, but the reference in no way was intended to refer to those connotations, it's just a mistaken coincidence. I see now.
People with Downs are not a race, but the term "mongoloid" is a racial term, which came to have connotations with Downs due to racist perceptions about biological traits of Mongols. Hence my fucking comment.
Of course not. Your point?
Oh fuck. Its use to describe people with Downs Syndrome is racist, and it was obviously intended in that way.
I personally find it astonishing that people's resentment of personal freedom goes so far as to resent people actually trying to increase it rather than accept further curtailments of it. I don't really think this case is where I'd focus my energy, but frankly anything helps. The idea that buying a ticket to enter a place entitles the people at the door to view the contents of my bag is fucking absurd, regardless of what you construe as "consent" (and I'm sure we could talk about other issues of "consent" where it'd be clear that manipulated consent isn't genuine consent).
Wait, that's not right. Not at all.
She would have been denied entry (which she'd paid for) by not "consenting". She didn't "allow" the search, she exercised her right to enter and was subjected to an invasion of privacy.
Jesus christ. Buying a ticket to a show does not entitle someone to root through my bags. Ever.
I was with you until you used a racist slur against people from Mongolia. Seriously, is that fucking necessary?
It might be more prudent to provide Cocoa compatibility and forego Carbon based on the knowledge that the remaining Carbon apps are cross-platform and would likely work under Wine (eg Office, Photoshop) with the notable exception of the Finder, which nobody wants to emulate anyway.