So, you've got nothing. That's unfortunate, I was hoping to learn something new. You don't have to like facts. They may be uncomfortable, they may be unfortunate, but they're immutable. You're dismissed.
I repeat, that's not you participating. Them using your real name is not some dire issue to get upset about. Just don't participate. It's not hard. I've never done it. I know loads of people who haven't done it. My girlfriend is quite young and she's never had an account. If you don't want to play by their rules, don't use their site. Use another, ignore it, make your own, or complain - but don't participate.
This is not complicated. You can do it. You're like crack addicts or abused spouses or something... Seriously, from an outsider looking in, you guys are addicts. I'm a drug-addict, in recovery I guess, and used drugs my whole life - for like forty years. Y'all look like me. You'll find any justification to keep using. "My friends do it." "I need to." "It's going to get done anyways." I dare say, in one form or another, I've used the same excuses.
If you hit yourself on the hand with a hammer and it hurts, stop doing it.
I do not have an account. I still have a fine social life. Hell, I'm up early so I can finish up a few things and head to Florida in the morning. I'm not much of a hermit. I even have one of those real life girlfriends. And children - they have Facebook accounts. They email me or call me or, sometimes, we visit.
That suits just fine, actually. In fact, you might even say that the spending of money on the American Revolution was a direct cause for the French Revolution, at least according to a few popular historians. I dare say, France has been repaid in spades.
But, more to the point, what exactly are you trying to get to? What's your point? That you think I'm ignorant of history? Oh, no. I'm not. I've a nearly scholarly interest in history but I am not a historian. What, exactly, are you arguing with that I said? If we can establish that then we might get somewhere. Then, perhaps, I'll see the validity of your reference points to the earlier historical events. I am quite certain that I said nothing that is all that difficult to understand. If you want to argue some of it then, well, do so. Sputtering inanities that I'm already familiar with and in agreement with makes me only think you're confused and agreeing with me. Or, perhaps, you just want to fight because you feel bad but can't actually think of anything to argue.
The Libertarian in me says they're not violating any law and you are not actually required by law to make use of their services. Thus, it is their property. They can require you only type with your left thumb, type without capital letters, use a real name, provide proof, or pay any sum they insist they want you to pay. You are, of course, free to not make use of their services. Until such time as they're forced, by law, to be used then they're free to make any and all stupid choices they want that are still within the law.
People might not like it. They don't have to. You have choices. That's the great thing about this internet thing. There are plenty of options for those who want to take or make them. You don't have to conform. You don't have to fit in. You don't have to follow. You can be different. You can be odd. You can lead. You can opt-out of participation. Equally important is that you don't have a right to participate. That's okay. There are plenty of people with whom you can associate. The path of least resistance is often the path of least interest.
The whole series is pretty good. It's biased but they all are. This is less biased than some. It's a good enough series to warrant watching the entirety of it. I... err... I don't really watch television so much, or movies really, but I do generally watch more documentaries than is healthy. This is one of my favorite subjects. There's still loads more for me to learn.
I am only a little smarter than that. I did, for a spell, end up being the computer guy for an entire small NW Maine town - including helping an elementary school's IT guy out. It's easier to just buy 'em stuff that works.:/ Considering what my time is worth, at least to me, it's quite possibly cheaper.
I think that might be the point. They don't. Yet they're being placed on that soil while they might be better suited elsewhere. The town's already approved a few big ones. At some point, they do actually take up space that's, perhaps, better suited for more profitable enterprises such as the growth of food crops. Or, in NC, tobacco. (At least that makes some money and employs some locals.)
I know that logic's not a strong suit around here but this doesn't require a whole lot of thought beyond accepting that there just might be a reason they don't want any more solar farms. They're obviously not against them, as a general rule. They're already surrounded by them or will be soon as the approved projects are finalized.
I mean, come on now! Too many of these things and we'll bleed the Sun dry!/s
I, of course, think zealots in either camp are morons but you probably know that. To add to your post, I also think it's because it's the absurd, the crazy, and the outlandish that get the most attention. Nobody notices the Republican who smokes a little weed, might be gay, and thinks that maybe we can have a talk about reining in corporate power. They're not zealots. They're not screaming for attention. They're not perpetually outraged.
I'm not suggesting we limit speech. I'm suggesting moderate people make themselves heard and start getting involved before the lunatics have completely taken over the asylum. It's obvious that the crazies on either end of the political spectrum don't balance each other out - maybe some moderates in there telling them that they're borderline retarded will help.
I'm glad I don't have national-level political aspirations. I'd never get elected. Life's a little bit more complicated than what one can comfortably fit on a bumper sticker.
It was the V-2 and was. for some limited definition, self-guided. The V-1 was just good until the power went away and then it went silent and fell where physics told it to. The controller in the V-2 was a little more complicated but not *vastly* so IIRC. It still couldn't go much more than where you pointed it at but it was able to stabilize itself a bit better. It basically followed a predetermined path using accelerometers and gyroscopes and wasn't all that controllable but it was autonomous, to some extent.
They couldn't just say, "Go hit Antwerp!" And it might not even land on Antwerp but out in the ocean or not even make it that far. By the way, Antwerp got more V-2 visits than anywhere else if I am remembering correctly. It wasn't all that accurate, I think it had something like a 2 (maybe it was 6) km accuracy rating. I'm drawing from memory (i'm a wee bit of a fan of history) so I've not made a scholarly study or anything and this might be mistaken but I think you'll find it's factually correct or pretty close.
I suppose that's some *sort* of logic. Would you have applied it to AIDS victims or to Muslims if you had been given the chance? How about white people? They've probably killed more people in the past few hundred years. If we kill all the white people then that'll surely pan out as a life-saver eventually - with enough time.
We can save infinite lives if we just kill all the humans at once. We should do that. Think of the children!
"Wouldn't it be great if someone went out and killed $this_group_or_person?" "I'd appreciate it if someone went out and killed $this_group_or_person?" "I'd consider the murder of $this_group_or_person to be an asset to the world at large?" "If you kill/harm/maim $this_group_or_person you'll be lauded as a hero?"
Note: Those are all, to my mind, containing subtle but important differences. They're all at the edge of where I'd consider MOST people, those who support such regulations, to be either on the edge about or just beyond the edge about.
This might be hard to articulate but I'm a fan of allowing all of those examples. To me, liberty comes with risks. The second anyone attempts to act on such is where the line is crossed - to my mind. I'd try to explain it further but I think that would actually make it more confusing. Suffice to say, I'm a huge fan of accepting risks in the name of liberty.
Why the use of the word liberty? I'm free to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so.
At any rate, does audience and intent fit into this regulation? Remember, laws are basically restrictions on liberties (some better, some worse). I can't think of any law that doesn't take away someone's liberties, for better or worse. Even a law against slavery takes away someone's liberties to own slaves and that's probably a good law to have and a good right to be taken away. (An argument could be made for willful servitude but we'll save that for another day and a more on-topic thread.)
Also, if I say, "I'm going to kill $this_group_or_person." Then, by all means, arrest my ass or at least investigate me. I do think free speech has limits, reasonable limits, that can be put into place. Where the line is drawn and how it is enforced is, to me, rather essential. I'm certainly not a zealot (I don't think) and I'm absolutely willing to listen to reasoned views in either direction and, scary enough, I've been known to *change my mind* before.
I hardly think a "bong threat" is going to create any *serious* national emergencies. It's probably not even an emergency on a very small scale - even if it breaks, there are a million and three different ways to smoke marijuana. (I've managed to hit at least 17,438 of these ways.) In fact, it doesn't even take much to make a good gravity bong.
I guess, if you want, you can threaten someone with a bong. You can hit them with it or you can say you'll force them to smoke out of it. I had a great big bong, I probably still do, that might be a threat at a very small level as I don't recall anyone ever clearing it without hacking out a lung. (If you put some peppermint extract in it, it kind of helps - not too much.)
So, I think I have a solution. If you ever, ever have a major bong threat you can simply go down to the 7-11 and find the guy who's confused about so many brands of chips. They'll help you with your threat and be more than happy to save the day. I'd give you my number to help aid in your threat defense but I have to finish up all of my weed today or tomorrow. I'm off to Florida. They don't take kindly to weed smoking hippies in Florida. Fortunately, they have lots of coke.;-) (I probably won't be imbibing in that. I'm getting kind of old for that sort of stuff.)
I hate to defend Germany 'cause, you know, I'm a prick. But, in all fairness, I watched a documentary not too many years ago on this - it actually had to do with computers in some fashion. While I don't remember the title, I do remember them getting into the case-law, the history of speech laws since WWII and the infractions, and the government has a pretty good record for this.
For instance, the government has, at times, refused to prosecute when the people wanted prosecution for hate speech violations. The threshold hadn't been met. You've got to be pretty damned specific to violate those laws. Consider, they were heavily influenced by the US.
The documentary in question had to do with Neo-Nazis and was way back during the BBC days. I do not remember the title. I saw it again a few years ago, probably on YouTube. The key point being, that like any tool - it must be wielded with care and they are entitled to their sovereignty unless they're harming their populace. So far, they've done well....
Now back to my antiquated Germany during WWII bashing.
I guess, you do have a history of breaking treaties in new and interesting ways so you might as well violate those contracts. Though, it's probably a bit less harsh than the Treaty of Versailles. Then, maybe, you can get some minor person made popular by venting against poor economic situations and minorities and we can have a whole run-around anew and we'll see how well you cope with angry Russians again. Then again, the Brits and French were kind of pissed too.
There's a whole bunch of interesting ways to look at WWII. Many of them are just mental bubblegum. My latest flight of fancy is that, contrary to the average idiot American, we (the US) did not single-handedly defeat the Axis Powers. No, we saved the Germans from rampaging, drunken, raping Russians. Well, the Brits and the French were kind of thinking that reform wasn't an option (though the Brits did an interesting experiment on returning POWs, they taught them to think and make art) they were kind of partial to just tearing town the whole thing and dividing the spoils amongst themselves for real this time. (Russia was a bit keen on that idea as well. Stalin had a bit of a hard-on for "the Krauts" after that.)
So. No, the United States (contrary to the various slanted documentaries) did not win WWII itself but they did stop the Russians from raping your women and killing your men. (Also, the US soldiers did marginally less looting, so there's that.)
At any rate... I think the thing you, and your country, should be weary of is *who* is making these decisions and what are their motivations. You're not alone in that - my own country should be doing the same thing as we, too, have stifled some speech over the years. As for the treaties and contracts, yeah, I'm kind of sorry about that. I didn't do it and neither did you. I might joke about it but I don't really believe you have an inherent warring streak within you. I also like your cars and highways.
Ah well, be careful with things like this. Tools can be dangerous if poorly applied. Like a firearm... Get involved, speak out, and see if you can help watch the watchers. It's your job to watch your government to ensure they're doing the right things. (My own country is kind of failing in these regards. We're fat and lazy and watch too much television.) Also, if you could just stop bombing yourselves into rubble every few generations...;-)
Back home, in Maine, there's still no booze sold until noon on Sundays and no later than 1:00 AM at nights (until 6:00 in the morning). It was dreadfully confusing for me when I retired. I was, shall we say, quite a drinker then. There's morality in every law and it's hard to find some sort of aspect of any law that can't be based on one religion or another. It might take some stretching but I could probably figure out a way to bullshit my way to that conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you've got nothing. That's unfortunate, I was hoping to learn something new. You don't have to like facts. They may be uncomfortable, they may be unfortunate, but they're immutable. You're dismissed.
I repeat, that's not you participating. Them using your real name is not some dire issue to get upset about. Just don't participate. It's not hard. I've never done it. I know loads of people who haven't done it. My girlfriend is quite young and she's never had an account. If you don't want to play by their rules, don't use their site. Use another, ignore it, make your own, or complain - but don't participate.
This is not complicated. You can do it. You're like crack addicts or abused spouses or something... Seriously, from an outsider looking in, you guys are addicts. I'm a drug-addict, in recovery I guess, and used drugs my whole life - for like forty years. Y'all look like me. You'll find any justification to keep using. "My friends do it." "I need to." "It's going to get done anyways." I dare say, in one form or another, I've used the same excuses.
If you hit yourself on the hand with a hammer and it hurts, stop doing it.
I do not have an account. I still have a fine social life. Hell, I'm up early so I can finish up a few things and head to Florida in the morning. I'm not much of a hermit. I even have one of those real life girlfriends. And children - they have Facebook accounts. They email me or call me or, sometimes, we visit.
That suits just fine, actually. In fact, you might even say that the spending of money on the American Revolution was a direct cause for the French Revolution, at least according to a few popular historians. I dare say, France has been repaid in spades.
But, more to the point, what exactly are you trying to get to? What's your point? That you think I'm ignorant of history? Oh, no. I'm not. I've a nearly scholarly interest in history but I am not a historian. What, exactly, are you arguing with that I said? If we can establish that then we might get somewhere. Then, perhaps, I'll see the validity of your reference points to the earlier historical events. I am quite certain that I said nothing that is all that difficult to understand. If you want to argue some of it then, well, do so. Sputtering inanities that I'm already familiar with and in agreement with makes me only think you're confused and agreeing with me. Or, perhaps, you just want to fight because you feel bad but can't actually think of anything to argue.
But of course. I don't believe I implied you didn't have a right to complain.
Sure, I'm quite fluent in every one of those topics. What would you like to discuss?
That's not you participating. You can opt out.
Requested, not really required. You have options. Stop letting people, including yourself, forget that.
The Libertarian in me says they're not violating any law and you are not actually required by law to make use of their services. Thus, it is their property. They can require you only type with your left thumb, type without capital letters, use a real name, provide proof, or pay any sum they insist they want you to pay. You are, of course, free to not make use of their services. Until such time as they're forced, by law, to be used then they're free to make any and all stupid choices they want that are still within the law.
People might not like it. They don't have to. You have choices. That's the great thing about this internet thing. There are plenty of options for those who want to take or make them. You don't have to conform. You don't have to fit in. You don't have to follow. You can be different. You can be odd. You can lead. You can opt-out of participation. Equally important is that you don't have a right to participate. That's okay. There are plenty of people with whom you can associate. The path of least resistance is often the path of least interest.
I went and found you one of my favorite documentaries on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The whole series is pretty good. It's biased but they all are. This is less biased than some. It's a good enough series to warrant watching the entirety of it. I... err... I don't really watch television so much, or movies really, but I do generally watch more documentaries than is healthy. This is one of my favorite subjects. There's still loads more for me to learn.
I am only a little smarter than that. I did, for a spell, end up being the computer guy for an entire small NW Maine town - including helping an elementary school's IT guy out. It's easier to just buy 'em stuff that works. :/ Considering what my time is worth, at least to me, it's quite possibly cheaper.
Come on now. You're just milking it for more bad puns.
I think that might be the point. They don't. Yet they're being placed on that soil while they might be better suited elsewhere. The town's already approved a few big ones. At some point, they do actually take up space that's, perhaps, better suited for more profitable enterprises such as the growth of food crops. Or, in NC, tobacco. (At least that makes some money and employs some locals.)
I know that logic's not a strong suit around here but this doesn't require a whole lot of thought beyond accepting that there just might be a reason they don't want any more solar farms. They're obviously not against them, as a general rule. They're already surrounded by them or will be soon as the approved projects are finalized.
I mean, come on now! Too many of these things and we'll bleed the Sun dry! /s
I, of course, think zealots in either camp are morons but you probably know that. To add to your post, I also think it's because it's the absurd, the crazy, and the outlandish that get the most attention. Nobody notices the Republican who smokes a little weed, might be gay, and thinks that maybe we can have a talk about reining in corporate power. They're not zealots. They're not screaming for attention. They're not perpetually outraged.
I'm not suggesting we limit speech. I'm suggesting moderate people make themselves heard and start getting involved before the lunatics have completely taken over the asylum. It's obvious that the crazies on either end of the political spectrum don't balance each other out - maybe some moderates in there telling them that they're borderline retarded will help.
I'm glad I don't have national-level political aspirations. I'd never get elected. Life's a little bit more complicated than what one can comfortably fit on a bumper sticker.
The solution is to not allow riders to any bills, but especially not to budgets.
That would be "snake meat, oil." And it is delicious.
It was the V-2 and was. for some limited definition, self-guided. The V-1 was just good until the power went away and then it went silent and fell where physics told it to. The controller in the V-2 was a little more complicated but not *vastly* so IIRC. It still couldn't go much more than where you pointed it at but it was able to stabilize itself a bit better. It basically followed a predetermined path using accelerometers and gyroscopes and wasn't all that controllable but it was autonomous, to some extent.
They couldn't just say, "Go hit Antwerp!" And it might not even land on Antwerp but out in the ocean or not even make it that far. By the way, Antwerp got more V-2 visits than anywhere else if I am remembering correctly. It wasn't all that accurate, I think it had something like a 2 (maybe it was 6) km accuracy rating. I'm drawing from memory (i'm a wee bit of a fan of history) so I've not made a scholarly study or anything and this might be mistaken but I think you'll find it's factually correct or pretty close.
It's just the OP replying to themselves.
I suppose that's some *sort* of logic. Would you have applied it to AIDS victims or to Muslims if you had been given the chance? How about white people? They've probably killed more people in the past few hundred years. If we kill all the white people then that'll surely pan out as a life-saver eventually - with enough time.
We can save infinite lives if we just kill all the humans at once. We should do that. Think of the children!
So, yes, it was *some sort* of logic.
How about:
"Wouldn't it be great if someone went out and killed $this_group_or_person?"
"I'd appreciate it if someone went out and killed $this_group_or_person?"
"I'd consider the murder of $this_group_or_person to be an asset to the world at large?"
"If you kill/harm/maim $this_group_or_person you'll be lauded as a hero?"
Note: Those are all, to my mind, containing subtle but important differences. They're all at the edge of where I'd consider MOST people, those who support such regulations, to be either on the edge about or just beyond the edge about.
This might be hard to articulate but I'm a fan of allowing all of those examples. To me, liberty comes with risks. The second anyone attempts to act on such is where the line is crossed - to my mind. I'd try to explain it further but I think that would actually make it more confusing. Suffice to say, I'm a huge fan of accepting risks in the name of liberty.
Why the use of the word liberty? I'm free to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so.
At any rate, does audience and intent fit into this regulation? Remember, laws are basically restrictions on liberties (some better, some worse). I can't think of any law that doesn't take away someone's liberties, for better or worse. Even a law against slavery takes away someone's liberties to own slaves and that's probably a good law to have and a good right to be taken away. (An argument could be made for willful servitude but we'll save that for another day and a more on-topic thread.)
Also, if I say, "I'm going to kill $this_group_or_person." Then, by all means, arrest my ass or at least investigate me. I do think free speech has limits, reasonable limits, that can be put into place. Where the line is drawn and how it is enforced is, to me, rather essential. I'm certainly not a zealot (I don't think) and I'm absolutely willing to listen to reasoned views in either direction and, scary enough, I've been known to *change my mind* before.
I hardly think a "bong threat" is going to create any *serious* national emergencies. It's probably not even an emergency on a very small scale - even if it breaks, there are a million and three different ways to smoke marijuana. (I've managed to hit at least 17,438 of these ways.) In fact, it doesn't even take much to make a good gravity bong.
I guess, if you want, you can threaten someone with a bong. You can hit them with it or you can say you'll force them to smoke out of it. I had a great big bong, I probably still do, that might be a threat at a very small level as I don't recall anyone ever clearing it without hacking out a lung. (If you put some peppermint extract in it, it kind of helps - not too much.)
So, I think I have a solution. If you ever, ever have a major bong threat you can simply go down to the 7-11 and find the guy who's confused about so many brands of chips. They'll help you with your threat and be more than happy to save the day. I'd give you my number to help aid in your threat defense but I have to finish up all of my weed today or tomorrow. I'm off to Florida. They don't take kindly to weed smoking hippies in Florida. Fortunately, they have lots of coke. ;-) (I probably won't be imbibing in that. I'm getting kind of old for that sort of stuff.)
I hate to defend Germany 'cause, you know, I'm a prick. But, in all fairness, I watched a documentary not too many years ago on this - it actually had to do with computers in some fashion. While I don't remember the title, I do remember them getting into the case-law, the history of speech laws since WWII and the infractions, and the government has a pretty good record for this.
For instance, the government has, at times, refused to prosecute when the people wanted prosecution for hate speech violations. The threshold hadn't been met. You've got to be pretty damned specific to violate those laws. Consider, they were heavily influenced by the US.
The documentary in question had to do with Neo-Nazis and was way back during the BBC days. I do not remember the title. I saw it again a few years ago, probably on YouTube. The key point being, that like any tool - it must be wielded with care and they are entitled to their sovereignty unless they're harming their populace. So far, they've done well....
Now back to my antiquated Germany during WWII bashing.
I guess, you do have a history of breaking treaties in new and interesting ways so you might as well violate those contracts. Though, it's probably a bit less harsh than the Treaty of Versailles. Then, maybe, you can get some minor person made popular by venting against poor economic situations and minorities and we can have a whole run-around anew and we'll see how well you cope with angry Russians again. Then again, the Brits and French were kind of pissed too.
There's a whole bunch of interesting ways to look at WWII. Many of them are just mental bubblegum. My latest flight of fancy is that, contrary to the average idiot American, we (the US) did not single-handedly defeat the Axis Powers. No, we saved the Germans from rampaging, drunken, raping Russians. Well, the Brits and the French were kind of thinking that reform wasn't an option (though the Brits did an interesting experiment on returning POWs, they taught them to think and make art) they were kind of partial to just tearing town the whole thing and dividing the spoils amongst themselves for real this time. (Russia was a bit keen on that idea as well. Stalin had a bit of a hard-on for "the Krauts" after that.)
So. No, the United States (contrary to the various slanted documentaries) did not win WWII itself but they did stop the Russians from raping your women and killing your men. (Also, the US soldiers did marginally less looting, so there's that.)
At any rate... I think the thing you, and your country, should be weary of is *who* is making these decisions and what are their motivations. You're not alone in that - my own country should be doing the same thing as we, too, have stifled some speech over the years. As for the treaties and contracts, yeah, I'm kind of sorry about that. I didn't do it and neither did you. I might joke about it but I don't really believe you have an inherent warring streak within you. I also like your cars and highways.
Ah well, be careful with things like this. Tools can be dangerous if poorly applied. Like a firearm... Get involved, speak out, and see if you can help watch the watchers. It's your job to watch your government to ensure they're doing the right things. (My own country is kind of failing in these regards. We're fat and lazy and watch too much television.) Also, if you could just stop bombing yourselves into rubble every few generations... ;-)
I don't like her that much. She has that Apple Care, extended stuff, now. ;-) I like her *that* much.
Back home, in Maine, there's still no booze sold until noon on Sundays and no later than 1:00 AM at nights (until 6:00 in the morning). It was dreadfully confusing for me when I retired. I was, shall we say, quite a drinker then. There's morality in every law and it's hard to find some sort of aspect of any law that can't be based on one religion or another. It might take some stretching but I could probably figure out a way to bullshit my way to that conclusion.