You thought wrong. They did not give any indicator that they'd be doing so. In fact, the only official words given about Timothy were, specifically, that he is a "real person" and that he was still there.
Why would you think that? Nobody official told you that. Nobody with any insider knowledge told you that. Nobody gave any good reasons (that I can think of) to think that. You concocted it in your head or listened to someone else who did. Then, rather than relying on the source of that, decided that it was true. I've no idea why you'd do that but it does say a few things about your reasoning abilities and may say a few things about your intelligence level.
There have been, literally, zero statements that could even be remotely misinterpreted as indicating an intent to get rid of Timothy. If it seems like I'm biased then, perhaps I am. I am kind of partial to him and I am rather biased against people who are not willing to take the time to verify rumors or to make up stuff in their head and thus think it's true and applicable for everyone else.
I had not heard or read anything about this. That is not even remotely surprising. I know the Russians use it and I know that there are some paid posters with various companies. I'm not terribly surprised that the US government would be involved though I guess it's a bit surprising that it is in the hands of the Army as opposed to something a bit more clandestine or tasked with a different charter. I could envision the US Army wanting to do so for defensive and offensive purposes when dealing with externalities but, internally? That's a little odd for the Army to be tasked with.
Surprising? No, not really. Just in who it is. That's the only odd thing that I got from your post. I'd expect something, perhaps the NSA, different to be involved. Maybe the CIA but probably not the FBI. The Army is surprising but they've got a pretty decent "cyber warfare" program. I'd expect it to be external but, then again, the web is (by its nature) international.
I've no idea if that's applicable here, with this particular person. If it is, then they're doing a very poor job of it and need to fire this guy. If it is automated then they need to tune them up again. They're illogical, inconsistent, instigating, interrupting, and inferior. (That's just a few of the words beginning with the letter "I".) They should ask for a refund, unless being unbelievable and obtuse is their goal? If "instantly recognized as a meatstick" is a desired operational parameter then they've achieved that.
Oddly, this is not the first time I've made such observations and a few of them have quietly disappeared when others noticed. I do wonder if you're are indeed onto something? It does seem a strange program for the Army to be involved in. I'd really expect a group tasked with such would be under a different heading - though perhaps it's buried under the Pentagon itself and is just manifest through the Army as they're already set up with a "cyber defense" program? I'd love more information, if you have it.
I'm inclined to disbelieve you. Given the sheer volume associated with the task, I've absolutely no reason to believe that you've read every line of code that you use. There's simply not enough time in the day to do so and remain even remotely close to secure - you'd be reading code from years and years ago. There are simply too many component pieces for me to believe you.
Yes, yes I am calling you a liar. I'm not sorry, if I was sorry I'd not be doing it. You have not read all the code in your OS and in the applications that you use. I won't even count the applications that you use outside of your control - those that are on the web.
However, I'll give you the chance to try to change my mind - if you feel inclined to undertake that effort. I wouldn't. What the hell does it matter if I don't believe you? But, if you want to change my mind you're free to do so but you're gonna have to make it believable. What OS do you use? How do you get online? What hardware are you using? You have *zero* binary blobs? You've somehow managed to read and then re-read the code for every single piece of software you have - and keep up with updates for security problems?
Yeah, I'm thinking that, at best, you might skim through some or speed-read without comprehension at best and, even then, you certainly don't do so with any modern OS and keep up with the myriad updates that come down the pipe daily. Which OS is this? Chances are, unless it's proprietary, I've used it. Hell, even if it is proprietary, I've probably used it.
Just recently they began posting in abundance. I'd speculate sockpuppet but who knows? I'll let you draw any conclusions you might wish about their reasoning and logic skills. They have some.. Some, shall we say, unusual opinions and seem inclined to stick with those opinions regardless of evidence presented. I don't really have much/any interaction. Such is simply an observation.
I've an odd habit of reading the "by" field prior to reading the post. Given that I'm retired, it affords me plenty of time to read and sometimes even check comment histories. A sock for whom, I have no idea and it's purely speculation. They may not be but a quick skim through their post history is insightful. As always, draw your own damned conclusions.;-)
Hmm... Find a spot where you can see. Find two objects on the map that you can see. Shoot azimuth. Triangulate. Tada! There you are. I'm not articulate enough to describe it in text. It's really not hard. Maps are meant to be written on. You want a compass that has a funny looking cover in it. This cover has a wire that runs down through a "sighting hole" which has a name but I forget it. That will show you, very accurately, the azimuth. Plot and draw the line and where the lines intersect, there you are. Now you know where you are, go somewhere. Make sure you mark where you go. When you get to the next spot, make sure you check - again - to see if you're on your route.
It's not hard. It really isn't. Give me an afternoon and I'll show you and then I'll have us dropped off in the woods, with the appropriate maps, and you can navigate us back to my house.
Lubuntu, LXDE, and Openbox is the WM. Lubuntu is defaulting to LXQt in 16.04 so I'll look into making the switch but I believe LXDE is going to continue even without it being default in one of the more popular distros. It's my favorite DE.
I dunno but I'd probably do that for free. There's something about that woman. She's actually kind of cute for her age. I'm old too. But you're right - I should only be on television for things I'm good at. Sex is probably not one of those things.:/
What is up with reading comprehension? *sighs* Is that what I said? Is it? I really don't think it is. I'm not the most articulate but I'll be damned if I can figure out how the hell it is that you decided I stated anything even remotely like what you're arguing with.
How the hell did you conclude that based on what I said *and* what I was responding to? Seriously, how did you do that? I'd like to know so that I am able to make it more clear next time. I already write novellas just because people willfully misinterpret everything or are unable to understand nuance and need all the details handed to them. What more do I have to do?
Fair really is a matter of perspective. It also has many variables and extenuating circumstances. What you might see as fair might not be what they see as fair.
My suggestion is to just pirate it. Really. If they're not giving you fair access, in your view, pirate it. It's not like we're going to be able to force them - we have no solidarity, power, nor political ears.
I'm thinking the quickest way might to be punished. They do send people there as punishment, right? I guess you could sit in Oklahoma and wait for a tornado.
I could have sworn someone announced a device that had e-ink display (outside - I think?) and a color display inside - like a clamshell laptop. I seem to recall that there was a second flap that opened and revealed an e-ink display when the device was closed. I just did a search and I'll be buggered if I can find it.:/ It might have only been a concept but I thought it was announced at the CES show back in the late 2000s.
I'm thinking you must have missed my other comments in this thread? I'm the guy, partially black even, who doesn't think that they had any right to publish this and that doing so was harmful and that they deserve to be hit hard enough, financially, to be required to close their doors.
I don't give a shit if he was the most horrible person on the planet. It's the most horrible people who need the protections and full force of law to ensure they are given their rights and liberties.
That sounds nice and looks good on paper but it's entirely unrealistic in the real world. Starting at the top, nothing will ever be secure. There are just degrees of security. There are goals and risks, what risks will you take to meet your goals? I've used several OSes with microkernel designs. I've used Qubes-OS, MINIX, and QNX. They're fine OSes if you want serious limitations. Until that's no longer a problem, they're entirely unrealistic options.
Security is a process, not an application. If you can still accomplish your goals in a manner that you can accept and with a risk set that you're willing to accept then you should use whatever OS it is you prefer. I recommend making an informed choice about the benefits and negatives applicable with each. When Qubes-OS gets more hardware support, ability to compile more software easier, and a virtualization application such as VMWare, then I may consider it again. It is, currently, not a realistic option but I have hope for it in the future. I also like MINIX. Then again, I kind of like every OS I've ever come across. I've never found one I didn't like, just some that I didn't prefer. Well, at least not for a long time I haven't.
And yet there are all sorts of things that simply don't communicate with anything other than Windows. Point being, it's not universally so. I'm not sure why you'd argue against that. Well, except you didn't. You skipped that and tried to pretend it was something other than what it was. You're not doing yourself any favors. Strawmen are easy to beat but they don't impress me. Come back when you can program my sister's insulin pump and her TPN equipment or her morphine pump. Come back when you can program many of the hand-held devices with crazy ports.
You can not. Why you'd pretend otherwise is beyond me. The point is, it's not universally true. Anything you say, unless it counters that, is pointless. You've said a lot of pointless things Mac, but this one's kind of stretching it.
And, before you pat yourself on the back with a response of "No other OS can do it either!" I'd like to point out that that's exactly my point.
In which case, I'd disagree. OS X is no better than any other modern OS. It is different but it's certainly not better. It might be better for your needs but it is not better for everyone's needs. So, if robust is some subjective word meant to inflate ego by affirmation it has no value here.
However, you'll note that they did answer what it meant to them. And that was not what they said. I'm not sure why you'd suggest they meant different than they said they meant.
That really depends on the "you." I happened to spend a great amount of time studying history - especially WWII history as it is one of my favorite subjects. I'd listen for several hours so long as you were willing to accept interjections. Unless it was a formal lecture. If it were a discussion, it could go on for days. If it were a lecture and you knew what you spoke of then I'd probably listen for a few hours. However, no... Not conversationally, I'd not.
I suspect I'm just making clear (to me, at least) what you probably intended but it's hard to tell. I already *do* listen to people discuss the subject for several hours. I've watched every single documentary on the subject I can find. I watch almost nothing but documentaries. I read a lot of history books. I really do already listen to people discuss that very subject for longer periods of time than just three hours. I've seen documentary series that were nearing 60 hours in length and some even longer.
So, yeah. This particular "you" might listen - if you knew what you were talking about. Presumably you do. So, I'd probably listen.
It's also possible to be an introvert and have loads of friends. You don't need to rely on others to have friends. You can be outgoing and bubbly and still be an introvert. Chances are, those people are a source of comfort and help for extroverts.
I'm not sure why people think introverts are isolationists who do not associate with others. That's not what introvert means. It does, to some extent, help you identify those who are but it's certainly not exclusionary. I don't really need a lot from other people, I'm probably considered an introvert. Yet, I've bunches of people that I know, a very active social life*, and even able to discuss emotions and accept/ask for feedback.
Not everyone (as you alluded to in your earlier post - this is sort of me expanding on that here as well) has a mental illness. Not everyone is some sort of extremist. Some of us are fairly normal. At least outwardly appearing to be so.
[*] It varies. I do go through periods where it's mental crunch time (for wont of a better word) and I'll isolate. I go through periods of time where my only interaction with people is via remote. I'm usually recharging, thinking, or creating during those spells. It should be interesting to see how the fairly recently acquired missus will deal with it when it happens again. Then again, she's rather compelling. Maybe she'll help keep me from going full isolationist.
It also does not speculate on the happiness of the person they might go hang out with nor does it speculate on the happiness of others who might have occasion to witness the spectacle.
I like and interact with lots of people. I do not really consider them friends - not necessarily. I'd call them friends because there's no better word for it. They're not mere acquaintances. A friend doesn't need to knock before coming in - but, due to my lifestyle, there's lots of people in that position.
Ah - a friend comes upstairs and uses your bathroom off of your bedroom while you're still sleeping - and then jumps up and down on the bed until you get up and wrestle with them. A friend does that even if your girlfriend is still in the bed with you. I've very few of those but I've plenty of people whom I know, know fairly well, am emotionally intimate with, and can rely on. I still wouldn't really call them friends.
There's something that needs to go between the word friend and acquaintance.
Shit, if it's worth 115 million, I'm going to go stay down at the Merriot on 98A, I'll be back with a room number. You want me to get a hooker? There's a strip bar along the way. Hell, there's a gay bar along the way too. I am not scared.;-)
That's humor, bad humor but humor. The big difference here is that I would/know/ about it (now that I've said it). Mr. Hogan was offered no such luxury.
Has anyone watched this video? I confess, I have not seen it - nor looked for it. It's probably out there. Anyhow, I'm a bit curious about what the chick looked like and how the Hulk guy was - specifically his antics. I know, I know... I can't help being curious. I know one of you will have watched it. Spill the beans, we won't make fun of you. I just can't bring myself to go watch it.
> Isn't there such a thing as voting and non-voting stock?
There are many types of corporations, including private and public. EFF and the Linux Foundation are both corporations. There are a lot of variations and I can not say, in any particular direction, which one it is that this is - I've never looked nor will I bother today. In short, most people don't have voting stock. Even those who do have voting stock, may not have much say - votes may also count for various amounts.
I'm not sure that I support imprisonment for voters who are entirely uninvolved but I have no problem with them (and this includes me - I am a *them*) losing their share's value, entirely, first - in order to pay creditors or fines - if the problem is egregious enough. You might want to ensure the voting is not anonymous so that you can say who did and did not vote for what.
You do realize that you, and a whole lot of other readers, are being trolled - right? As in, trolled by multiple parties - each taking a poke in step, and you're falling for it... Yes, those sites are just giving you a reason to be pissed. They know it pisses you off. They know it brings them eyeballs. They know it's lucrative and you fall for it every single time.
I swear, Pavlov had a point. Do you not fucking notice the bell any longer?
Slashdot Mirror
You thought wrong. They did not give any indicator that they'd be doing so. In fact, the only official words given about Timothy were, specifically, that he is a "real person" and that he was still there.
Why would you think that? Nobody official told you that. Nobody with any insider knowledge told you that. Nobody gave any good reasons (that I can think of) to think that. You concocted it in your head or listened to someone else who did. Then, rather than relying on the source of that, decided that it was true. I've no idea why you'd do that but it does say a few things about your reasoning abilities and may say a few things about your intelligence level.
There have been, literally, zero statements that could even be remotely misinterpreted as indicating an intent to get rid of Timothy. If it seems like I'm biased then, perhaps I am. I am kind of partial to him and I am rather biased against people who are not willing to take the time to verify rumors or to make up stuff in their head and thus think it's true and applicable for everyone else.
I had not heard or read anything about this. That is not even remotely surprising. I know the Russians use it and I know that there are some paid posters with various companies. I'm not terribly surprised that the US government would be involved though I guess it's a bit surprising that it is in the hands of the Army as opposed to something a bit more clandestine or tasked with a different charter. I could envision the US Army wanting to do so for defensive and offensive purposes when dealing with externalities but, internally? That's a little odd for the Army to be tasked with.
Surprising? No, not really. Just in who it is. That's the only odd thing that I got from your post. I'd expect something, perhaps the NSA, different to be involved. Maybe the CIA but probably not the FBI. The Army is surprising but they've got a pretty decent "cyber warfare" program. I'd expect it to be external but, then again, the web is (by its nature) international.
I've no idea if that's applicable here, with this particular person. If it is, then they're doing a very poor job of it and need to fire this guy. If it is automated then they need to tune them up again. They're illogical, inconsistent, instigating, interrupting, and inferior. (That's just a few of the words beginning with the letter "I".) They should ask for a refund, unless being unbelievable and obtuse is their goal? If "instantly recognized as a meatstick" is a desired operational parameter then they've achieved that.
Oddly, this is not the first time I've made such observations and a few of them have quietly disappeared when others noticed. I do wonder if you're are indeed onto something? It does seem a strange program for the Army to be involved in. I'd really expect a group tasked with such would be under a different heading - though perhaps it's buried under the Pentagon itself and is just manifest through the Army as they're already set up with a "cyber defense" program? I'd love more information, if you have it.
I'm inclined to disbelieve you. Given the sheer volume associated with the task, I've absolutely no reason to believe that you've read every line of code that you use. There's simply not enough time in the day to do so and remain even remotely close to secure - you'd be reading code from years and years ago. There are simply too many component pieces for me to believe you.
Yes, yes I am calling you a liar. I'm not sorry, if I was sorry I'd not be doing it. You have not read all the code in your OS and in the applications that you use. I won't even count the applications that you use outside of your control - those that are on the web.
However, I'll give you the chance to try to change my mind - if you feel inclined to undertake that effort. I wouldn't. What the hell does it matter if I don't believe you? But, if you want to change my mind you're free to do so but you're gonna have to make it believable. What OS do you use? How do you get online? What hardware are you using? You have *zero* binary blobs? You've somehow managed to read and then re-read the code for every single piece of software you have - and keep up with updates for security problems?
Yeah, I'm thinking that, at best, you might skim through some or speed-read without comprehension at best and, even then, you certainly don't do so with any modern OS and keep up with the myriad updates that come down the pipe daily. Which OS is this? Chances are, unless it's proprietary, I've used it. Hell, even if it is proprietary, I've probably used it.
> Did you have a point?
Just recently they began posting in abundance. I'd speculate sockpuppet but who knows? I'll let you draw any conclusions you might wish about their reasoning and logic skills. They have some.. Some, shall we say, unusual opinions and seem inclined to stick with those opinions regardless of evidence presented. I don't really have much/any interaction. Such is simply an observation.
I've an odd habit of reading the "by" field prior to reading the post. Given that I'm retired, it affords me plenty of time to read and sometimes even check comment histories. A sock for whom, I have no idea and it's purely speculation. They may not be but a quick skim through their post history is insightful. As always, draw your own damned conclusions. ;-)
;-)
Hmm... Find a spot where you can see. Find two objects on the map that you can see. Shoot azimuth. Triangulate. Tada! There you are. I'm not articulate enough to describe it in text. It's really not hard. Maps are meant to be written on. You want a compass that has a funny looking cover in it. This cover has a wire that runs down through a "sighting hole" which has a name but I forget it. That will show you, very accurately, the azimuth. Plot and draw the line and where the lines intersect, there you are. Now you know where you are, go somewhere. Make sure you mark where you go. When you get to the next spot, make sure you check - again - to see if you're on your route.
It's not hard. It really isn't. Give me an afternoon and I'll show you and then I'll have us dropped off in the woods, with the appropriate maps, and you can navigate us back to my house.
Lubuntu, LXDE, and Openbox is the WM. Lubuntu is defaulting to LXQt in 16.04 so I'll look into making the switch but I believe LXDE is going to continue even without it being default in one of the more popular distros. It's my favorite DE.
I dunno but I'd probably do that for free. There's something about that woman. She's actually kind of cute for her age. I'm old too. But you're right - I should only be on television for things I'm good at. Sex is probably not one of those things. :/
What is up with reading comprehension? *sighs* Is that what I said? Is it? I really don't think it is. I'm not the most articulate but I'll be damned if I can figure out how the hell it is that you decided I stated anything even remotely like what you're arguing with.
How the hell did you conclude that based on what I said *and* what I was responding to? Seriously, how did you do that? I'd like to know so that I am able to make it more clear next time. I already write novellas just because people willfully misinterpret everything or are unable to understand nuance and need all the details handed to them. What more do I have to do?
Fair really is a matter of perspective. It also has many variables and extenuating circumstances. What you might see as fair might not be what they see as fair.
My suggestion is to just pirate it. Really. If they're not giving you fair access, in your view, pirate it. It's not like we're going to be able to force them - we have no solidarity, power, nor political ears.
I'm thinking the quickest way might to be punished. They do send people there as punishment, right? I guess you could sit in Oklahoma and wait for a tornado.
I could have sworn someone announced a device that had e-ink display (outside - I think?) and a color display inside - like a clamshell laptop. I seem to recall that there was a second flap that opened and revealed an e-ink display when the device was closed. I just did a search and I'll be buggered if I can find it. :/ It might have only been a concept but I thought it was announced at the CES show back in the late 2000s.
I'm thinking you must have missed my other comments in this thread? I'm the guy, partially black even, who doesn't think that they had any right to publish this and that doing so was harmful and that they deserve to be hit hard enough, financially, to be required to close their doors.
I don't give a shit if he was the most horrible person on the planet. It's the most horrible people who need the protections and full force of law to ensure they are given their rights and liberties.
That sounds nice and looks good on paper but it's entirely unrealistic in the real world. Starting at the top, nothing will ever be secure. There are just degrees of security. There are goals and risks, what risks will you take to meet your goals? I've used several OSes with microkernel designs. I've used Qubes-OS, MINIX, and QNX. They're fine OSes if you want serious limitations. Until that's no longer a problem, they're entirely unrealistic options.
Security is a process, not an application. If you can still accomplish your goals in a manner that you can accept and with a risk set that you're willing to accept then you should use whatever OS it is you prefer. I recommend making an informed choice about the benefits and negatives applicable with each. When Qubes-OS gets more hardware support, ability to compile more software easier, and a virtualization application such as VMWare, then I may consider it again. It is, currently, not a realistic option but I have hope for it in the future. I also like MINIX. Then again, I kind of like every OS I've ever come across. I've never found one I didn't like, just some that I didn't prefer. Well, at least not for a long time I haven't.
And yet there are all sorts of things that simply don't communicate with anything other than Windows. Point being, it's not universally so. I'm not sure why you'd argue against that. Well, except you didn't. You skipped that and tried to pretend it was something other than what it was. You're not doing yourself any favors. Strawmen are easy to beat but they don't impress me. Come back when you can program my sister's insulin pump and her TPN equipment or her morphine pump. Come back when you can program many of the hand-held devices with crazy ports.
You can not. Why you'd pretend otherwise is beyond me. The point is, it's not universally true. Anything you say, unless it counters that, is pointless. You've said a lot of pointless things Mac, but this one's kind of stretching it.
And, before you pat yourself on the back with a response of "No other OS can do it either!" I'd like to point out that that's exactly my point.
In which case, I'd disagree. OS X is no better than any other modern OS. It is different but it's certainly not better. It might be better for your needs but it is not better for everyone's needs. So, if robust is some subjective word meant to inflate ego by affirmation it has no value here.
However, you'll note that they did answer what it meant to them. And that was not what they said. I'm not sure why you'd suggest they meant different than they said they meant.
That really depends on the "you." I happened to spend a great amount of time studying history - especially WWII history as it is one of my favorite subjects. I'd listen for several hours so long as you were willing to accept interjections. Unless it was a formal lecture. If it were a discussion, it could go on for days. If it were a lecture and you knew what you spoke of then I'd probably listen for a few hours. However, no... Not conversationally, I'd not.
I suspect I'm just making clear (to me, at least) what you probably intended but it's hard to tell. I already *do* listen to people discuss the subject for several hours. I've watched every single documentary on the subject I can find. I watch almost nothing but documentaries. I read a lot of history books. I really do already listen to people discuss that very subject for longer periods of time than just three hours. I've seen documentary series that were nearing 60 hours in length and some even longer.
So, yeah. This particular "you" might listen - if you knew what you were talking about. Presumably you do. So, I'd probably listen.
It's also possible to be an introvert and have loads of friends. You don't need to rely on others to have friends. You can be outgoing and bubbly and still be an introvert. Chances are, those people are a source of comfort and help for extroverts.
I'm not sure why people think introverts are isolationists who do not associate with others. That's not what introvert means. It does, to some extent, help you identify those who are but it's certainly not exclusionary. I don't really need a lot from other people, I'm probably considered an introvert. Yet, I've bunches of people that I know, a very active social life*, and even able to discuss emotions and accept/ask for feedback.
Not everyone (as you alluded to in your earlier post - this is sort of me expanding on that here as well) has a mental illness. Not everyone is some sort of extremist. Some of us are fairly normal. At least outwardly appearing to be so.
[*] It varies. I do go through periods where it's mental crunch time (for wont of a better word) and I'll isolate. I go through periods of time where my only interaction with people is via remote. I'm usually recharging, thinking, or creating during those spells. It should be interesting to see how the fairly recently acquired missus will deal with it when it happens again. Then again, she's rather compelling. Maybe she'll help keep me from going full isolationist.
It also does not speculate on the happiness of the person they might go hang out with nor does it speculate on the happiness of others who might have occasion to witness the spectacle.
I like and interact with lots of people. I do not really consider them friends - not necessarily. I'd call them friends because there's no better word for it. They're not mere acquaintances. A friend doesn't need to knock before coming in - but, due to my lifestyle, there's lots of people in that position.
Ah - a friend comes upstairs and uses your bathroom off of your bedroom while you're still sleeping - and then jumps up and down on the bed until you get up and wrestle with them. A friend does that even if your girlfriend is still in the bed with you. I've very few of those but I've plenty of people whom I know, know fairly well, am emotionally intimate with, and can rely on. I still wouldn't really call them friends.
There's something that needs to go between the word friend and acquaintance.
Pfft... Who's gonna go against Hulk Hogan? What, are ya gonna have someone sneak up on him and hit him with a chair?
Shit, if it's worth 115 million, I'm going to go stay down at the Merriot on 98A, I'll be back with a room number. You want me to get a hooker? There's a strip bar along the way. Hell, there's a gay bar along the way too. I am not scared. ;-)
That's humor, bad humor but humor. The big difference here is that I would /know/ about it (now that I've said it). Mr. Hogan was offered no such luxury.
Has anyone watched this video? I confess, I have not seen it - nor looked for it. It's probably out there. Anyhow, I'm a bit curious about what the chick looked like and how the Hulk guy was - specifically his antics. I know, I know... I can't help being curious. I know one of you will have watched it. Spill the beans, we won't make fun of you. I just can't bring myself to go watch it.
55 million? I'll fuck Martha Stewart on national television, during prime time.
Just because he's a horrible human being doesn't mean he doesn't have rights.
> Isn't there such a thing as voting and non-voting stock?
There are many types of corporations, including private and public. EFF and the Linux Foundation are both corporations. There are a lot of variations and I can not say, in any particular direction, which one it is that this is - I've never looked nor will I bother today. In short, most people don't have voting stock. Even those who do have voting stock, may not have much say - votes may also count for various amounts.
I'm not sure that I support imprisonment for voters who are entirely uninvolved but I have no problem with them (and this includes me - I am a *them*) losing their share's value, entirely, first - in order to pay creditors or fines - if the problem is egregious enough. You might want to ensure the voting is not anonymous so that you can say who did and did not vote for what.
You do realize that you, and a whole lot of other readers, are being trolled - right? As in, trolled by multiple parties - each taking a poke in step, and you're falling for it... Yes, those sites are just giving you a reason to be pissed. They know it pisses you off. They know it brings them eyeballs. They know it's lucrative and you fall for it every single time.
I swear, Pavlov had a point. Do you not fucking notice the bell any longer?