Saying the MS is "The source of the problem" is like coming to a murder scene where someone was stabbed with a kitchen knife, and then blaming the cutlery retailer for it. Both are patently rediculous.
MS does not have any 'responsibility' to make sure nobody using their OS is up to no good. Nor should they. If the precident is set that you are responsible for what people ultimately do with your product, nobody will every make anything ever again, fearing litigation. The fact that they are a monopoly is irrelivent. And as for the post you made after this one... That taxation and/or bond scheme might be the most backwards thing I have ever heard. OS's are prohibitively expensive to the home user as it is, without artifically inflating the price by forcing me to buy insurance (for what, I have no idea).
Yet another attempt to sidestep personal accountability, and of course it's modded up.
Or you have Parkinson's. Obviously, you hate everyone with Parkinson's, including MJ Fox, based on your statements here. You should be ashamed of yourself.
That's his way of saying "Republican", and I'm sure he thinks he's very clever.
I'm really really glad his argument backing that statement up was so valid, or I might have made the blanket assumption that "D-Tards" were just as corrupt, money-mongering, and idiotic as Repubs.
This seems way more creepy to me than anything else. It seems like someone got a dare to see how many people they could get to upload nude pics of themselves, and came up with this. It's like a stalker's wet dream.
Seeing as both political parties do and have done it in the past (as well as a host of other illegal and unethical election-swinging methos), I don't see what your point is, exactly.
So yeah, that's my response. Turn your goddamn phone off. If it bothers you so much, sue them over it. Don't vote for them. Write your senator (chances are, he or she is doing it too, or something just as bad). Why you think sitting around a web forum and bitching about it will help in the slightest is beyond me. But the way I see it, people like you aren't likely to do much else, so I gave you the advice I thought would be most useful to you.
For me, voter education is more about seeing through the outright lies and misconstructions (is that even a word?) in political ads and rhetoric. FactCheck.org is a site that I find especially helpful in this regard (I am not affiliated with them in any way, yadda yadda yadda). They are nonpartisan and very credible, citing their sources so you can go validiate their assertions that assert that politicians' assertions are wrong.
As for the rest, while I agree that a better-educated voting populace is always good, I still cannot be behind any sort of voting qualification other than being 'of age' and a citizen. On that note, I am in favor of some sort of validation that you are who you claim you are before you are allowed to cast your vote. Whether it be photo ID presentation at the voting location, or something like a one-time-use-only card or voucher that is mailed to you a week or two before elections that you must present and have validated before you can vote. But there are problems with those too, of course.
In fact, in a heated election like this one many voters are more aware of a position of the person they are voting against than those of the person they are implicitly or explicitly voting for.
This is true, and people don't generally realize the underlying rationale behind this. Why don't people think more of the fact that they know more about their oposition than they do about their own candidate? Personally, I think it's because of the polarization mentality of most of America these days, which is perpetuated by things like mudslinging campaign ads. I was talking to a good friend of mine the other day, who is about as educated as most, politically speaking. Sometime during our conversation, the upcoming election came up and I remarked that it was probably safe to assume he was voting a stright party line. He said that yes, he was; so I asked him "Why, do you even know what they stand for?" I thought his response was particularly telling: "Well they stand for the oposite of those other guys. I've seen those ads, and I definately don't want to be voting for anyone like that."
Anecdotes aside, and about your last paragraph: If (as it is seeming) the only choices are for a candidate to sling mud everywhere or just shut up, I would rather them just shut up.
Normally this would be just dirty politics as usual. But what makes it especially atrocious is the fact that the Democrats are constantly trying to spin the War in Iraq in a negative light, and they say things like "the war is hopeless", and "GWB lied about everything". And they go and do these things that would have made Saddam Hussein proud.
Seriously, I know there are many people here on Slashdot that vote Democrat. Do you SERIOUSLY believe this tripe your party is spewing out, or are you just voting for other reasons? I mean, I can at least see someone wanting to vote Democrat for one of those reasons, but dammit, I can't imagine anyone actually believing this nonsense.
I mean really, do you honestly not comprehend how much of a shill you sound?
When people in YOUR country steal credit card information from people in MINE, I sure as hell hope someone over here is doing something about it.
Idiotic finger-pointing aside, this is perfectly standard international policing pracitce. If you live in a country where your government won't protect its citizenry from international criminals, then I frankly feel sorry for you.
*Waits for the anti-americanites to come out of the woodwork to jump all over that set-up*
And who gets to decide what level of "candidate education" is acceptable? The government (ie. the currently empowered political party)? For that matter, what criteria are we testing? It's not such a big jump from testing 'knowledge' to what basically amounts to a litmus exam: "I see you filled in agreement with the War on Terror/NSA Wiretaps/Social Secuirty/[Immigration stance]... I'm afraid we can't let you vote today. Please re-educate yourself and report back next year." If you really believe that Diebold equates to the death of Democracy in this country, then this isn't such a big leap.
I find it funny, and more than a little sad, that the new voting machines have taken so much flak, but a suggestion like this gets aired openly. The saddest part is that I know a lot of people who would seriously consider asking people if they agree with GWB and the War (etc) before they are permitted to vote. (And to be fair, I know at least as many people who would say the same thing if you agreed with pulling out of Iraq, stopping NSA wiretaps, etc...) Funny how the more you point fingers at someone, the more you start to become what you claim they are.
I'm not sure which is worse: a half-educated voter who may be mislead by their media outlet of choice, or a non-educated voter who only votes because some halfwit musician on MTV told them to.
That this is at least the 8th time I've read this story wouldn't even be so bad if it didn't attract the tinfoils like flies who post the same comments in every one.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying the MS is "The source of the problem" is like coming to a murder scene where someone was stabbed with a kitchen knife, and then blaming the cutlery retailer for it. Both are patently rediculous.
MS does not have any 'responsibility' to make sure nobody using their OS is up to no good. Nor should they. If the precident is set that you are responsible for what people ultimately do with your product, nobody will every make anything ever again, fearing litigation. The fact that they are a monopoly is irrelivent. And as for the post you made after this one... That taxation and/or bond scheme might be the most backwards thing I have ever heard. OS's are prohibitively expensive to the home user as it is, without artifically inflating the price by forcing me to buy insurance (for what, I have no idea).
Yet another attempt to sidestep personal accountability, and of course it's modded up.
Or you have Parkinson's. Obviously, you hate everyone with Parkinson's, including MJ Fox, based on your statements here. You should be ashamed of yourself.
That's his way of saying "Republican", and I'm sure he thinks he's very clever.
I'm really really glad his argument backing that statement up was so valid, or I might have made the blanket assumption that "D-Tards" were just as corrupt, money-mongering, and idiotic as Repubs.
Oh wait.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase: "I would kill for some food!"
That seems like an inherently bad idea.
Well I just got finished masturbating per the Internet's decree, let's take a poll and see what I should do next...
Hrm... The results are in and it looks like I'll be masturbating again. This sure is a great study.
This seems way more creepy to me than anything else. It seems like someone got a dare to see how many people they could get to upload nude pics of themselves, and came up with this. It's like a stalker's wet dream.
Seeing as both political parties do and have done it in the past (as well as a host of other illegal and unethical election-swinging methos), I don't see what your point is, exactly.
So yeah, that's my response. Turn your goddamn phone off. If it bothers you so much, sue them over it. Don't vote for them. Write your senator (chances are, he or she is doing it too, or something just as bad). Why you think sitting around a web forum and bitching about it will help in the slightest is beyond me. But the way I see it, people like you aren't likely to do much else, so I gave you the advice I thought would be most useful to you.
As for the rest, while I agree that a better-educated voting populace is always good, I still cannot be behind any sort of voting qualification other than being 'of age' and a citizen. On that note, I am in favor of some sort of validation that you are who you claim you are before you are allowed to cast your vote. Whether it be photo ID presentation at the voting location, or something like a one-time-use-only card or voucher that is mailed to you a week or two before elections that you must present and have validated before you can vote. But there are problems with those too, of course.
This is true, and people don't generally realize the underlying rationale behind this. Why don't people think more of the fact that they know more about their oposition than they do about their own candidate? Personally, I think it's because of the polarization mentality of most of America these days, which is perpetuated by things like mudslinging campaign ads. I was talking to a good friend of mine the other day, who is about as educated as most, politically speaking. Sometime during our conversation, the upcoming election came up and I remarked that it was probably safe to assume he was voting a stright party line. He said that yes, he was; so I asked him "Why, do you even know what they stand for?" I thought his response was particularly telling: "Well they stand for the oposite of those other guys. I've seen those ads, and I definately don't want to be voting for anyone like that."
Anecdotes aside, and about your last paragraph: If (as it is seeming) the only choices are for a candidate to sling mud everywhere or just shut up, I would rather them just shut up.
As someone who apparently has no opinions of substance, I'm not sure where you get off calling other people ignorant.
It takes all sorts, unfortunately.
Seeing as everybody does do it, I don't see how that's 'turning the story into' anything.
I could be wrong though, because you know everything you read on Slashdot is the truth.... (and not spun in the least)
Normally this would be just dirty politics as usual. But what makes it especially atrocious is the fact that the Democrats are constantly trying to spin the War in Iraq in a negative light, and they say things like "the war is hopeless", and "GWB lied about everything". And they go and do these things that would have made Saddam Hussein proud.
Seriously, I know there are many people here on Slashdot that vote Democrat. Do you SERIOUSLY believe this tripe your party is spewing out, or are you just voting for other reasons? I mean, I can at least see someone wanting to vote Democrat for one of those reasons, but dammit, I can't imagine anyone actually believing this nonsense.
I mean really, do you honestly not comprehend how much of a shill you sound?
So turn off your phone. That costs you what, 3 seconds?
I wish you could say the same to those people who have to go buy new tires.
I'm sure you could. I also have a very active imagination.
Wait, then why is Colorado a state? ;)
Maybe if your own law enforcement could handle the problem, they wouldn't need to ask ours for help.
And stuck-up? Talk about pots and kettles...
When people in YOUR country steal credit card information from people in MINE, I sure as hell hope someone over here is doing something about it.
Idiotic finger-pointing aside, this is perfectly standard international policing pracitce. If you live in a country where your government won't protect its citizenry from international criminals, then I frankly feel sorry for you.
*Waits for the anti-americanites to come out of the woodwork to jump all over that set-up*
And who gets to decide what level of "candidate education" is acceptable? The government (ie. the currently empowered political party)? For that matter, what criteria are we testing? It's not such a big jump from testing 'knowledge' to what basically amounts to a litmus exam: "I see you filled in agreement with the War on Terror/NSA Wiretaps/Social Secuirty/[Immigration stance]... I'm afraid we can't let you vote today. Please re-educate yourself and report back next year." If you really believe that Diebold equates to the death of Democracy in this country, then this isn't such a big leap.
I find it funny, and more than a little sad, that the new voting machines have taken so much flak, but a suggestion like this gets aired openly. The saddest part is that I know a lot of people who would seriously consider asking people if they agree with GWB and the War (etc) before they are permitted to vote. (And to be fair, I know at least as many people who would say the same thing if you agreed with pulling out of Iraq, stopping NSA wiretaps, etc...) Funny how the more you point fingers at someone, the more you start to become what you claim they are.
And 10 more who only watch MTV.
I'm not sure which is worse: a half-educated voter who may be mislead by their media outlet of choice, or a non-educated voter who only votes because some halfwit musician on MTV told them to.
Thanks, I'd completely forgotten about jackass pedants, too.
That this is at least the 8th time I've read this story wouldn't even be so bad if it didn't attract the tinfoils like flies who post the same comments in every one.
The hypocrite detector just went through the roof!
That would depend on whether the company in question is Apple or Microsoft.
No they aren't. You're paying good money to write those term papers.
You can't forget lobyists and special interests groups too!