Actually it kind of does. Theories tend to remain accepted until a better one is posed, often just with a sort of buyer-beware status of everyone understanding it might not work, at least not in all cases. The only way to truly get rid of a theory is to come up with a better one. So let's see this guy's excuse.
How about:
CO2 does not contribute to global temperature (false, but you could potentially prove it).
Humans do not contribute enough CO2 to cause global warming.
Human contributed CO2 is negated by other human factors.
Observations of higher global climate can be explained in a different way (probably true to an extent, but doesn't rule out future climate change).
Take any of those and prove them, prove them to such a level as to disprove global warming. I bet you'll be able to get some good grant money from Exxon. I'll be waiting.
Right-wing Christian fanatics aren't terrorists, silly. They're either freedom fighters or mentally ill, depending on public perception. Meanwhile, a Muslim man so much as complaining about the state of affairs is obviously a terrorist. It's just like the communists, jews, witches, pagans... you're "other" so you must be oppressed, we're "us" so we can do no wrong.
"The 800 pound gorilla is that we're going to live in a Star Trek future with strong AI and a pure robot economy before parents leave child-rearing to AI simulations."
You can't be serious. Do you have any idea how many parents use video games as their babysitter? There is no "before" here, it is already here. I'm not so sure it is a bad thing on the whole, either.
I'd like to agree, but in the US, it is usually the progressives that get killed by the hicks who want to live in the 15th century.
Still, I think "free speech" means FREE SPEECH. Any limits on speech means it is no longer free speech; any "consequences" are limits. The US has no right to claim it is free, in any way, if it is legally limiting what anyone can say.
"It's" is a contraction of "it" and some other word, "its" is possessive tense of "it" (unlike practically every other English word, where both take the form of "X's").
Given the sentence, it could be "Oracle today announced its completed the acquisition of K-Splice" or "Oracle today announced it has [it's] completed the acquisition of K-Splice." So yes, "it's" is correct. However, had the "the" been removed, "its" would have been correct: "Oracle today announced its completed acquisition of K-Splice."
There is a name for the system of government where semi-secret agencies work with private business to achieve nationalist-themed "security." It's called fascism.
And Apple ripped off Xerox. You can't design anything in a vacuum, which is why patents and copyright are flawed. Everyone at one time knew this, but then some people came around and decided that the current system wasn't making them rich enough, and decided to upturn the entire system of artistic creation. And it worked. Almost everyone on some level believes their lie today. Can we please let these people die and return the natural state of culture - freedom?
Patents are small compared to copyright, which is quite literally locking up and destroying our collective culture at an unprecedented rate. All imaginary property needs abolished. I hope the coming patent wars make this clear - but don't expect the United States to ever realize it.
Apple is the same or worse than Microsoft, just smaller.
People, it's not trendy, it doesn't "just work" - it is just the same bullshit with a better marketing campaign. Gods help us if Apple ever attains a real market share in PCs.
And how often does that happen? How many people keep their work secret because someone MIGHT copy it? I'd be willing to bet, next to none. The historical cases of people keeping their works secret are either because they failed to have them published or because they were a bit mental. Copyright can never fix either of these issues, and the internet rather fixed the first now. Now copyright threatens the internet. It is time to abolish it, before our culture is irreparably damaged.
The only time the pro-copyright argument makes any sense is with large but homogenous works, like movies. However, as we have been seeing lately, you need not have a multi-billion dollar budget to make a movie, even ones quite comparable to those with multi-billion dollar budgets. So really - what's copyright doing for us, again?
Holding companies to their claims and dispelling their corporate propaganda is being a "freetard"? Oh wait, you must be one of those people pissed off that GPL doesn't let your company repackage software closed-source.
Shouldn't you be working on writing a Google+ or something, Mr. Anonymous Google Employee?
Yeah, put it out there in the public domain, free to be included in whatever non-free, DRMed POS Microsoft or Apple is putting out.
Software licenses exist largely to abuse the insane and immoral copyright laws to actually help society at large. Public domain, these days, helps only Disney.
I find it absolutely amazing when morons like you blame activists for the government cracking down on activism. You're no better than the people who called sit-ins trespassing.
How about instead of posting about how "*cry* they're taking away my freedoms because of lulzsec," you actually get off your lazy, apathetic ass and do something about the people trying to pass the unconstitutional laws you're complaining about? I've got a clue for you, since you've got none: they would pass whatever laws they do now eventually no matter what had happened, because of precisely people like you.
Either standup or shut-up. Don't whine about those who do.
If the answer to warrantless wiretapping is "hand warrants out like candy," which knowing the government I think is a safe assumption in this case, then yes. Everyone should oppose it. That's not even getting into if the government should be wiretapping people in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it kind of does. Theories tend to remain accepted until a better one is posed, often just with a sort of buyer-beware status of everyone understanding it might not work, at least not in all cases. The only way to truly get rid of a theory is to come up with a better one. So let's see this guy's excuse.
How about:
CO2 does not contribute to global temperature (false, but you could potentially prove it).
Humans do not contribute enough CO2 to cause global warming.
Human contributed CO2 is negated by other human factors.
Observations of higher global climate can be explained in a different way (probably true to an extent, but doesn't rule out future climate change).
Take any of those and prove them, prove them to such a level as to disprove global warming. I bet you'll be able to get some good grant money from Exxon. I'll be waiting.
And a teabagger, determined to screw over the common man with theatrics and appeals to nationalism.
Apparently, if someone disagrees, they are uninformed. And all those historians are wrong, too.
Yeah, right.
Artificial morality based on outdated works of fiction which claim to be the one and only truth are, in fact, responsible for almost all terrorism.
Right-wing Christian fanatics aren't terrorists, silly. They're either freedom fighters or mentally ill, depending on public perception. Meanwhile, a Muslim man so much as complaining about the state of affairs is obviously a terrorist. It's just like the communists, jews, witches, pagans... you're "other" so you must be oppressed, we're "us" so we can do no wrong.
"The 800 pound gorilla is that we're going to live in a Star Trek future with strong AI and a pure robot economy before parents leave child-rearing to AI simulations."
You can't be serious. Do you have any idea how many parents use video games as their babysitter? There is no "before" here, it is already here. I'm not so sure it is a bad thing on the whole, either.
You do realize those aren't documentaries, right? Sometimes I wonder if slashdot forgets that.
I'd like to agree, but in the US, it is usually the progressives that get killed by the hicks who want to live in the 15th century.
Still, I think "free speech" means FREE SPEECH. Any limits on speech means it is no longer free speech; any "consequences" are limits. The US has no right to claim it is free, in any way, if it is legally limiting what anyone can say.
"It's" is a contraction of "it" and some other word, "its" is possessive tense of "it" (unlike practically every other English word, where both take the form of "X's").
Given the sentence, it could be "Oracle today announced its completed the acquisition of K-Splice" or "Oracle today announced it has [it's] completed the acquisition of K-Splice." So yes, "it's" is correct. However, had the "the" been removed, "its" would have been correct: "Oracle today announced its completed acquisition of K-Splice."
Languages are strange. Especially English.
Electing them is easy, yeah. Finding them... that's pretty damn hard.
There is a name for the system of government where semi-secret agencies work with private business to achieve nationalist-themed "security." It's called fascism.
If only the government were competent enough to pull that sort of thing off.
They are spying for the NSA for certain, then. Why else would they not be allowed to say? The US government needs to take a course in being opaque.
And Apple ripped off Xerox. You can't design anything in a vacuum, which is why patents and copyright are flawed. Everyone at one time knew this, but then some people came around and decided that the current system wasn't making them rich enough, and decided to upturn the entire system of artistic creation. And it worked. Almost everyone on some level believes their lie today. Can we please let these people die and return the natural state of culture - freedom?
Patents are small compared to copyright, which is quite literally locking up and destroying our collective culture at an unprecedented rate. All imaginary property needs abolished. I hope the coming patent wars make this clear - but don't expect the United States to ever realize it.
Apple is the same or worse than Microsoft, just smaller.
People, it's not trendy, it doesn't "just work" - it is just the same bullshit with a better marketing campaign. Gods help us if Apple ever attains a real market share in PCs.
Step 4: Close government-mandated security holes in software the CIA and FBI asked for.
And how often does that happen? How many people keep their work secret because someone MIGHT copy it? I'd be willing to bet, next to none. The historical cases of people keeping their works secret are either because they failed to have them published or because they were a bit mental. Copyright can never fix either of these issues, and the internet rather fixed the first now. Now copyright threatens the internet. It is time to abolish it, before our culture is irreparably damaged.
The only time the pro-copyright argument makes any sense is with large but homogenous works, like movies. However, as we have been seeing lately, you need not have a multi-billion dollar budget to make a movie, even ones quite comparable to those with multi-billion dollar budgets. So really - what's copyright doing for us, again?
Holding companies to their claims and dispelling their corporate propaganda is being a "freetard"? Oh wait, you must be one of those people pissed off that GPL doesn't let your company repackage software closed-source.
Shouldn't you be working on writing a Google+ or something, Mr. Anonymous Google Employee?
Everyone agrees Santa doesn't exist. Some people still believe god exists.
Of course, only one side has the backing of science, logical reasoning, and in general, fact. Claiming all three arguments are equal is disingenuous.
Yeah, put it out there in the public domain, free to be included in whatever non-free, DRMed POS Microsoft or Apple is putting out.
Software licenses exist largely to abuse the insane and immoral copyright laws to actually help society at large. Public domain, these days, helps only Disney.
I find it absolutely amazing when morons like you blame activists for the government cracking down on activism. You're no better than the people who called sit-ins trespassing.
How about instead of posting about how "*cry* they're taking away my freedoms because of lulzsec," you actually get off your lazy, apathetic ass and do something about the people trying to pass the unconstitutional laws you're complaining about? I've got a clue for you, since you've got none: they would pass whatever laws they do now eventually no matter what had happened, because of precisely people like you.
Either standup or shut-up. Don't whine about those who do.
If the answer to warrantless wiretapping is "hand warrants out like candy," which knowing the government I think is a safe assumption in this case, then yes. Everyone should oppose it. That's not even getting into if the government should be wiretapping people in the first place...