If you were face to face with Obama at a town hall and started calling him a "communist gay ni**er muslim", the crowd, liberal or not, would run you out of the building, and rightly so.
What you won't be, because this is a free country, is convicted of a crime for doing it.
LOL how cute, somebody whose been in a cave all year and doesn't know about Trump rallies!
No, actually, right now only liberal SJWs would even ask you to stop.
Well, if I had a social media website I wouldn't really care about alliterate content from write-only morons who don't know censorship from speech. Me not reprinting what you said because it offended me? That is my speech not yours.
Notice that when you say something offensive to twitter, and they don't republish it... not only did nobody arrest you, nobody even tried to stop you from saying it! They just didn't reprint it. Wow, thinking is hard, words are so hard!
You have to log in to have a lawn. You're just a homeless cowherd, making a mess on grandpappy's lawn. I shout at you to get off of it, but I think he's napping. Or dead, it gets hard to tell at his age.
You know what? This is what happens when you put your speech in the hands of a private owner. They can take their liberties with what's in their control. Isn't really anything you can do, other than put your message into another channel of communications.
Same thing happened when I wrote a letter to the editor. They had the nerve to publish it, but without any of the swear words or offensive zingers I had carefully included. I had to take my letter to a more appropriate forum, and shout it at the sky.
Well, one "side of the political spectrum" did embrace open hatred, so it actually might be true. Probably explains why so many center-right Conservatives in the US are without a "side" this year.
Expect a new political party to replace the Republicans by next year. But for this year... yeah, one side of the political spectrum is indeed embracing hate speech. And then complaining that "#$@ you you #$@^%$ing #@$%#$%" isn't given full consideration by those darned libraals and in their censor ship.
No President in history has, and no General has ever asked for or recommended, a wartime policy where persons engaged in combat are excepted from being shot depending on what passport they have, are believed to have, or might have since you haven't searched them.
You're talking about people overseas in war zones. Nobody cares what fucking passport they have; if you go to war, you might die. If you go to war with the United States, you might die at the hands of US military equipment. That has absolutely fucking nothing to do with indictments, convictions, or courtrooms.
In the imaginary world you seem to believe exists, every rebellion would succeed, because there would be no way to get convictions before the rebels took over everything, and you couldn't even shoot them.
Try engaging even one brain cell before regurgitating crap you read in the letters section of the local free weekly paper.
he is the President of the USA and for that alone deserves at least some basic level of respect.
Fuck you. He signed extensions of the PATRIOT act multiple times. He deserves no more respect than any other power-grubbing scumbag who ever held that office.
-jcr
That's what Democrats do. That is why I voted for Obama, twice. That is why I am going to vote for Hillary.
Have a policy that we don't like? Guess what, we have a policy you don't like. Maybe we can compromise, and take the stuff you hate most out of my policy, and the stuff I hate most out of your policy, and pass them both together. That's what happened with Patriot Act under Obama. He agreed to water it down and keep parts of it, in exchange for other stuff that the Republicans Congress wouldn't other agree to. It is called "compromise."
Their mistake was hiding the fact that they did it, if they had just been open and said "this is a moderated Q&A session" there would be no cause to complain.
By not being open they have just give the conspiracy theorists more to work with.
Well, if by "work with" you mean, "show themselves to be aligned with racist twitter trolls." I don't think many legit, hardworking conspiracy theorists are going to get twisted up over social media companies being private companies, or trying to make their services look good during public events. That is just obvious stuff that any minor cynic will automatically expect, conspiracy theorists would be suspicious if you said it wasn't the way things happen.
The people grousing are the ones who see the word "Obama" and start saying, "WooahwooahUHAHuaahblubuaah!" It is about 20% of the country, and much higher in some regions.
This is not a left -vs- right issue -- I would hope that there is some kind of filtering in place regardless of the politics.
LOLOLOL didn't check the news in a few years, eh?
When I was a kid, what you said was true. Now? Not even close! Currently, one side won't even agree not to make death threats. False equivalency is a pretty hard sell this year.
If you can't tell the difference between being blatantly offensive, and a "no-negativity culture," then you're probably not adding anything of value that would be lost if you get tossed out for reasons you claim to not understand. There has to be a minimum bar where if you don't at least have enough "theory of mind" to understand why people don't consider shouting obscenities to be constructive, then they aren't going to want to listen to you anymore.
You don't have any right for me to care what you have to say, or to include your ideas in what I say.
Nobody cares "how many people agree." That isn't what the event is, or what the people you're talking about are saying about it, or using it for. You didn't even bother to check what is going on before re-writing what other people must think.
Yeah, very not news. IMO if you're doing a sponsored Q&A with a VIP and you don't moderate it, you're just trolling for trolls. And what VIP is going to say yes to you? Of course you better moderate.
I'm not a VIP, and I wouldn't agree to something like that as a published event if they didn't even have ushers. Even a waiter in a restaurant is going to kick people out if they're hurtling abuse at other diners.
Like at a baseball game; you can shout whatever you want at the umpire. If you're sitting near the front in an identifiable spot and you shout clearly offensive stuff at the VIPs during intermission events, you might very well get kicked out of the stadium. This is to be expected.
And no, when you're providing a service you don't really need to warn people that if they're abusive or hateful to other participants, they might get kicked out. That is really basic and obvious.
Try running for office and your "masturbation" details will be released. Oops.
This isn't the 1950s, or even the `80s. The entire scandal would be if you were overly embarrassed by it. As long as you laugh about it or make a joke about your libido, then you pass that test.
If that's the sort of thing you have to worry about people finding, you're as squeaky clean as the most saintly politicians.
People without ad blockers are product. People with ad blockers are content providers. It isn't just one basket of people. Millions of normals come here to find out what the nerds have to say.
My first thought was, for a lot of people this is a feature because future models will be better at getting them off.
But if you read Dan Savage, you might be skeptical that it will help their sex lives.
If they disclose it, I don't see why it is a problem. I wouldn't want to use it, but a lot of people would. Especially if they offer free software upgrades for people who share their data.
The general case is scarier to me. My banking data or my political activities seem more in need of protection than masturbation details. The only people in the world who care about this data are people who sell devices to aid the activity. Whereas with my banking data, it is not only people who sell banking services that might want to steal it!
The vast majority of people are going to be creeped out because "somebody is watching them" but have basically no emotional response at all to "data is being recorded." If you phrase it as, "personal information being recorded for later playback" then you'll get a rise out of a lot more of them. But you're not going to get comprehension if you say "data connection." Data, that means it is just impersonal numbers, right?
B-52s are big and expensive with a large crew and are not an efficient choice for dropping individual small precise "smart" weapons.
And you're not sure what it has to do with close air support, because you're alliterate. If you were able to read the words and actually parse them, instead of just sounding them out, you'd figure out what is being said: Dropping shit from up high is what the job of close air support is. The job doesn't mean you're close to what you're supporting. It means that the stuff you're blowing up is close to the friendlies who want you to blow it up. And that is done from high up in the air, using sensors, not by looking out the window at the MANPAD hitting your engine.
Right, but that is like saying that malware is OK, because I personally won't be affected by it.
Also, sometimes, rarely but sometimes, I temporarily allow an otherwise-lame or poorly known domain to use javascript. It has to be considered, I have to know what the dangers are, I can't just ignore the specific dangers; if I did I wouldn't even be able to guesstimate if I'm protected or when.
The standards would be different except that bottled water is from the same sources. That is how bottled water is made. You buy already treated municipal water on a standard commercial contract, and move it from the pipe to the bottle.
The places with the largest water volumes available have lower quality water that needs more treatment. The vast majority of people who have access to municipal water have better water locally than what is in the bottle. But if the water in your pipes sucks, then the bottled water is at least from a place with minimally good water.
It isn't that mystical. It isn't an easy thing to use radio for in the first place. A low frequency beam is too big to provide good location data. It isn't realistic for an airplane to control the angle it bounces off at, because the wavelength is too wide relative to the size of the plane. But for the same reason, you can't really tell where it was when it bounced. You don't have a big enough return signal. You need a bunch of stuff that bounced so you can do statistical analysis and predict a location. With a high frequency beam you get more stuff to bounce, but the wavelength is tiny compared to the size of the airplane; the plane can control the way it bounces just by the shape of the contours of the craft, at least on the forwards-facing parts of it. The back is a bit harder to do. So are missiles, which is why the F-35's extra interior space is so important. It can be stealthy, and carry weapons at the same time. Stealth isn't magic, it is symmetrical to the physical abilities of radar, and is mostly about shape. Radar that bounces off an aircraft easily can detect its location, but the reflection can be controlled by design. Radar that doesn't bounce off the aircraft easily can still detect that there is something inside a broad area, if it has a really huge array with massive broadcast power and lots of statistical analysis, but it isn't going to give you a location good enough for targeting.
oh, and systemd needs to be mixed into this somehow. I feel it will be more complete if they do that (lol).
That is exactly the point; systemd should be worrying about activating any hot-plugged multimedia devices that would affect the browser experience, and the browser doesn't need to know about it. It just needs to know what audio inputs and outputs it is allowed to use.
How are native applications more secure than web applications?
They're safer because I didn't start them, and I don't feed code from public sources to them to execute. If it isn't running, it isn't going to have a security bug that makes it accessible to some random malware user.
Well gosh, that would explain why they spend their money on high frequency radar, and trying to copy stealth tech. They must be intelligent humans who don't have magic WWII radar, they just have less money than us and so their equipment isn't as good.
it's like the US carrier fleets if during exercises they turn out to be less than invincible , they just declare they are by changing the rules and restart the exercise.
No, if you could read you'd understand that it is like if somebody who isn't the US Navy made up their own carrier simulation without any real life data, and then claimed the result tells you about real carriers. It would be fucking stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were face to face with Obama at a town hall and started calling him a "communist gay ni**er muslim", the crowd, liberal or not, would run you out of the building, and rightly so.
What you won't be, because this is a free country, is convicted of a crime for doing it.
LOL how cute, somebody whose been in a cave all year and doesn't know about Trump rallies!
No, actually, right now only liberal SJWs would even ask you to stop.
Well, if I had a social media website I wouldn't really care about alliterate content from write-only morons who don't know censorship from speech. Me not reprinting what you said because it offended me? That is my speech not yours.
Notice that when you say something offensive to twitter, and they don't republish it... not only did nobody arrest you, nobody even tried to stop you from saying it! They just didn't reprint it. Wow, thinking is hard, words are so hard!
You have to log in to have a lawn. You're just a homeless cowherd, making a mess on grandpappy's lawn. I shout at you to get off of it, but I think he's napping. Or dead, it gets hard to tell at his age.
You know what? This is what happens when you put your speech in the hands of a private owner. They can take their liberties with what's in their control. Isn't really anything you can do, other than put your message into another channel of communications.
Same thing happened when I wrote a letter to the editor. They had the nerve to publish it, but without any of the swear words or offensive zingers I had carefully included. I had to take my letter to a more appropriate forum, and shout it at the sky.
Well, one "side of the political spectrum" did embrace open hatred, so it actually might be true. Probably explains why so many center-right Conservatives in the US are without a "side" this year.
Expect a new political party to replace the Republicans by next year. But for this year... yeah, one side of the political spectrum is indeed embracing hate speech. And then complaining that "#$@ you you #$@^%$ing #@$%#$%" isn't given full consideration by those darned libraals and in their censor ship.
No President in history has, and no General has ever asked for or recommended, a wartime policy where persons engaged in combat are excepted from being shot depending on what passport they have, are believed to have, or might have since you haven't searched them.
You're talking about people overseas in war zones. Nobody cares what fucking passport they have; if you go to war, you might die. If you go to war with the United States, you might die at the hands of US military equipment. That has absolutely fucking nothing to do with indictments, convictions, or courtrooms.
In the imaginary world you seem to believe exists, every rebellion would succeed, because there would be no way to get convictions before the rebels took over everything, and you couldn't even shoot them.
Try engaging even one brain cell before regurgitating crap you read in the letters section of the local free weekly paper.
he is the President of the USA and for that alone deserves at least some basic level of respect.
Fuck you. He signed extensions of the PATRIOT act multiple times. He deserves no more respect than any other power-grubbing scumbag who ever held that office.
-jcr
That's what Democrats do. That is why I voted for Obama, twice. That is why I am going to vote for Hillary.
Have a policy that we don't like? Guess what, we have a policy you don't like. Maybe we can compromise, and take the stuff you hate most out of my policy, and the stuff I hate most out of your policy, and pass them both together. That's what happened with Patriot Act under Obama. He agreed to water it down and keep parts of it, in exchange for other stuff that the Republicans Congress wouldn't other agree to. It is called "compromise."
Their mistake was hiding the fact that they did it, if they had just been open and said "this is a moderated Q&A session" there would be no cause to complain.
By not being open they have just give the conspiracy theorists more to work with.
Well, if by "work with" you mean, "show themselves to be aligned with racist twitter trolls."
I don't think many legit, hardworking conspiracy theorists are going to get twisted up over social media companies being private companies, or trying to make their services look good during public events. That is just obvious stuff that any minor cynic will automatically expect, conspiracy theorists would be suspicious if you said it wasn't the way things happen.
The people grousing are the ones who see the word "Obama" and start saying, " WooahwooahUHAHuaahblubuaah! " It is about 20% of the country, and much higher in some regions.
This is not a left -vs- right issue -- I would hope that there is some kind of filtering in place regardless of the politics.
LOLOLOL didn't check the news in a few years, eh?
When I was a kid, what you said was true. Now? Not even close! Currently, one side won't even agree not to make death threats. False equivalency is a pretty hard sell this year.
If you can't tell the difference between being blatantly offensive, and a "no-negativity culture," then you're probably not adding anything of value that would be lost if you get tossed out for reasons you claim to not understand. There has to be a minimum bar where if you don't at least have enough "theory of mind" to understand why people don't consider shouting obscenities to be constructive, then they aren't going to want to listen to you anymore.
You don't have any right for me to care what you have to say, or to include your ideas in what I say.
Nobody cares "how many people agree." That isn't what the event is, or what the people you're talking about are saying about it, or using it for. You didn't even bother to check what is going on before re-writing what other people must think.
Yeah, very not news. IMO if you're doing a sponsored Q&A with a VIP and you don't moderate it, you're just trolling for trolls. And what VIP is going to say yes to you? Of course you better moderate.
I'm not a VIP, and I wouldn't agree to something like that as a published event if they didn't even have ushers. Even a waiter in a restaurant is going to kick people out if they're hurtling abuse at other diners.
Like at a baseball game; you can shout whatever you want at the umpire. If you're sitting near the front in an identifiable spot and you shout clearly offensive stuff at the VIPs during intermission events, you might very well get kicked out of the stadium. This is to be expected.
And no, when you're providing a service you don't really need to warn people that if they're abusive or hateful to other participants, they might get kicked out. That is really basic and obvious.
Try running for office and your "masturbation" details will be released. Oops.
This isn't the 1950s, or even the `80s. The entire scandal would be if you were overly embarrassed by it. As long as you laugh about it or make a joke about your libido, then you pass that test.
If that's the sort of thing you have to worry about people finding, you're as squeaky clean as the most saintly politicians.
People without ad blockers are product. People with ad blockers are content providers. It isn't just one basket of people. Millions of normals come here to find out what the nerds have to say.
My first thought was, for a lot of people this is a feature because future models will be better at getting them off.
But if you read Dan Savage, you might be skeptical that it will help their sex lives.
If they disclose it, I don't see why it is a problem. I wouldn't want to use it, but a lot of people would. Especially if they offer free software upgrades for people who share their data.
The general case is scarier to me. My banking data or my political activities seem more in need of protection than masturbation details. The only people in the world who care about this data are people who sell devices to aid the activity. Whereas with my banking data, it is not only people who sell banking services that might want to steal it!
The vast majority of people are going to be creeped out because "somebody is watching them" but have basically no emotional response at all to "data is being recorded." If you phrase it as, "personal information being recorded for later playback" then you'll get a rise out of a lot more of them. But you're not going to get comprehension if you say "data connection." Data, that means it is just impersonal numbers, right?
B-52s are big and expensive with a large crew and are not an efficient choice for dropping individual small precise "smart" weapons.
And you're not sure what it has to do with close air support, because you're alliterate. If you were able to read the words and actually parse them, instead of just sounding them out, you'd figure out what is being said: Dropping shit from up high is what the job of close air support is. The job doesn't mean you're close to what you're supporting. It means that the stuff you're blowing up is close to the friendlies who want you to blow it up. And that is done from high up in the air, using sensors, not by looking out the window at the MANPAD hitting your engine.
Right, but that is like saying that malware is OK, because I personally won't be affected by it.
Also, sometimes, rarely but sometimes, I temporarily allow an otherwise-lame or poorly known domain to use javascript. It has to be considered, I have to know what the dangers are, I can't just ignore the specific dangers; if I did I wouldn't even be able to guesstimate if I'm protected or when.
The standards would be different except that bottled water is from the same sources. That is how bottled water is made. You buy already treated municipal water on a standard commercial contract, and move it from the pipe to the bottle.
The places with the largest water volumes available have lower quality water that needs more treatment. The vast majority of people who have access to municipal water have better water locally than what is in the bottle. But if the water in your pipes sucks, then the bottled water is at least from a place with minimally good water.
It isn't that mystical. It isn't an easy thing to use radio for in the first place. A low frequency beam is too big to provide good location data. It isn't realistic for an airplane to control the angle it bounces off at, because the wavelength is too wide relative to the size of the plane. But for the same reason, you can't really tell where it was when it bounced. You don't have a big enough return signal. You need a bunch of stuff that bounced so you can do statistical analysis and predict a location. With a high frequency beam you get more stuff to bounce, but the wavelength is tiny compared to the size of the airplane; the plane can control the way it bounces just by the shape of the contours of the craft, at least on the forwards-facing parts of it. The back is a bit harder to do. So are missiles, which is why the F-35's extra interior space is so important. It can be stealthy, and carry weapons at the same time. Stealth isn't magic, it is symmetrical to the physical abilities of radar, and is mostly about shape. Radar that bounces off an aircraft easily can detect its location, but the reflection can be controlled by design. Radar that doesn't bounce off the aircraft easily can still detect that there is something inside a broad area, if it has a really huge array with massive broadcast power and lots of statistical analysis, but it isn't going to give you a location good enough for targeting.
oh, and systemd needs to be mixed into this somehow. I feel it will be more complete if they do that (lol).
That is exactly the point; systemd should be worrying about activating any hot-plugged multimedia devices that would affect the browser experience, and the browser doesn't need to know about it. It just needs to know what audio inputs and outputs it is allowed to use.
How are native applications more secure than web applications?
They're safer because I didn't start them, and I don't feed code from public sources to them to execute. If it isn't running, it isn't going to have a security bug that makes it accessible to some random malware user.
Talk about a solution trying to create a problem, wowsers!
I hate features more and more all the time.
You can imagine whatever you want, but you don't have the data.
A-10s don't do "dirty fighting" very much of the time, they get shot down if they do that.
1) The current primary plane doing close air support is the F-16
2) The A-10 does the job the same way the F-16 does, it circles at 30,000 ft and then drops shit downwards on coordinates.
Don't use magical thinking, find out how the tool is used currently, that will explain what the military is going to want.
Well gosh, that would explain why they spend their money on high frequency radar, and trying to copy stealth tech. They must be intelligent humans who don't have magic WWII radar, they just have less money than us and so their equipment isn't as good.
it's like the US carrier fleets if during exercises they turn out to be less than invincible , they just declare they are by changing the rules and restart the exercise.
No, if you could read you'd understand that it is like if somebody who isn't the US Navy made up their own carrier simulation without any real life data, and then claimed the result tells you about real carriers. It would be fucking stupid.