Perhaps, some day, stuff like this will be presented in a Museum of Internet Atrocities, collecting the history of spam, banner ads, pop-unders, Flash ads, DDoS attacks, tubgirl and goatse?
What?!?!? Jack Thompson doesn't care about gamers dying?! But... but... I thought he was a cuddly fuzzy bunny, full of love and peace and joy! That's why he fights those evil gaming companies, who... ahh, I can't keep up this bullshit.:)
So where's the .torrent?
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Before you ask me how, it's simple. Here's one possible scenario.
Company A de-prioritizes (or outright refuses to carry) Company B's packets unless they pay an extortionate fee. Eventually, Companies A and B merge. People like you will say "So what? They have the right to charge whatever prices they want, and they have the right to merge too. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM)."
Then the newly merged Companies A and B set their sights on Company C. Same thing happens; A/B and C merge, and people like you say "So what? They have the right to merge. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM).".
Meanwhile, A/B/C have been charging extortionate rates to the major ISPs (who continue snapping up local and regional ISPs as they've been doing for years). Eventually, A/B/C acquire or merge with most of the major ISPs. And people like you will say "So what? They have the right to charge whatever prices they want, they have the right to acquire other companies, and they have the right to merge too. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM)."
Then what you have is a country with one quasi-monopolistic company holding 90+% of the dialup and broadband connections and 90+% of the Internet infrastructure. And people like you will continue to call it a "Free Market(TM)".
Just like how people like you call the world of software a "Free Market(TM)", when if you don't buy Microsoft operating systems and office suites and Adobe graphics software, you are basically forced out of the market due to numerous factors (incompatibilities both subtle and gross, MS's sleazy business practices a la "you will bundle our softawre with ALL of your computers, or we'll jack up the rates", and so on).
I'm beginning to think that "free market" is just another euphemism. Today's "free market" doesn't stand for "freedom". Tomorrow's will be worse...
Think I'm nuts? Look at what's happening to telcos. They're all merging back into a new Ma Bell.
Your sort of capitalism-religionist thinking will (n.b.: I did not say "would") lead to 90+% of the Internet connections and hosts in the US being controlled by one company.
Capitalism is about competing, yes. But even in a society of competitors, there has to be some degree of cooperation. Imagine if Ford owned some highways, Chevy others, and GM still others; still other highways were owned by the Japanese automakers, and others by the Germans.
You could drive a Ford car on a Ford highway for a reasonable rate (say, $2). However, if the highway you wanted to take was owned by Chevy or GM, you'd be price-gouged (say, $25).
That is what they're trying to do to the Internet. Is this "capitalism", or is this simply "unfair to everyone but the corporate executives and wealthy investors who will profit from it"?
The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates. Yes, that means that sometimes Company A will have to carry Company B's packets. Tough titty for Company A. Company B has to do the same. And we all win.
Not everything in life is about competing. Christ, I swear that there are some capitalists who'd love to license and market the very air we breathe. (Druuge, anyone?)
"How is anything an industry standard when only one company sells it?"
Ask ANY "IT Manager" or CxO. They will tell you that Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office are the "industry standard" operating system and word processor, respectively. (Note to moderators: I am NOT a MS fan or astroturfer; in fact, I hate them. Nevertheless, what I said is true.)
You and I both believe that the reality of "industry standards" should be based on a foundation of openness, or at least pluralism; however, this is not so. In the real world, the "industry standard" often has little to nothing to do with any sort of standards body, POSIX compliance, RFC numbers, or anything else of that nature. Think of it as a completely different use of the word "standard", much like how "bass" can mean a fish, a guitar, a man with a deep voice, or an overgrown viol. The "industry standard" is what is overwhelmingly adopted by a given industry for a given purpose; it has nothing to do with "open standards" or "standards bodies".
This is similar to the old "hacker vs. cracker" debate. I describe myself as a "hacker", even though I know that 99.9% of people will misinterpret this to mean "computer criminal", and even though I have to explain that by "hacker", I do not in fact mean this. Nevertheless, even though I doggedly cling to my ideals in this regard, I am fully aware that reality at large disagrees with, or simply disregards, these ideals.
And thus it is with "industry standards". You or I may insist that to be an "industry standard", a technology must be produced by multiple entities, but the Fortune 500 companies who run the world will go on accepting plenty of "industry standards" which are, in fact, produced by monopolies.
In fact, sometimes a brand itself-- and not a particular technology-- is the "industry standard". For a very long time, for instance, Cisco was the industry standard provider of routers.
Tesco receives one out of every eight pounds spent on "shopping" (how is "shopping" defined? Is it all commerce, all commerce minus Internet commerce, all commerce by individuals as opposd to corporate entities and associations...?) 12.5% of the entire British shopping budget? One quid for every eight spent in the ENTIRE FLIPPING COUNTRY?
Where is the outrage about this? Can you imagine the American equivalent? I can't imagine that even Wal*Mart, powerful as it is, gets one out of every eight bucks spent in the US... If they did, there would (I presume) be a lot more public outcry.
Then again, I strongly suspect that Microsoft makes at least 12.5% of the total profit earned by the entire computer industry (hardware + software + services), and they are still relatively un-protested (beyond grumbles about "the damned computer locked up again") in the US.
Wow, nice troll. I thought you were just kind of stupid at first, but I guess I was wrong.
And you say I am a troll?
I speak what I believe. I am not trolling.
As for "abusive", you obviously do not know what the word means. The word implies a lack of consent; one does not hear often of BSDM practitioners "abusing" each other in the context of mutually consensual BDSM sessions, even though the same sort of behavior in a nonconsensual situation would constitute "abuse". Nothing mutually consensual can possibly constitute "abuse"-- if not by definition, by connotation.
Your assertion that sex between a youth and an adult necessarily constitutes "abuse" is ridiculous (but typical). I would not be surprised if, 100 years ago, sex between a black and a white was similarly considered "abuse" (possibly to both parties involved).
If any entity (be it an adult, a child, an adolescent, or an animal) wants to have sex with any other entity (be it an adult, a child, an adolescent, or an animal), and if the feeling is mutual, and there is no coersion involved, and appropriate precaution(s) are taken, far be it from me to condemn them. Regardless of how "disgusting" or "bizarre" any given sexual union can be, it cannot be seen as "immoral" if both parties know what they are doing (even if that knowledge is limited to "I want to have sex, because it feels good") and consent to the act of their free wills.
If a man wants to sleep with his daughter, or a woman wants to seduce her stepson, or a girl lets the family dog have sex with her, or two kids have sex with an adult, or a boy sleeps with his aunt, or an 80-year-old man wants to sleep with a 12-year-old boy-- all very taboo and, to most, "disgusting"-- but if no party is raped, there is no wrongdoing. Rape is very easy to define; it's when one party doesn't want it. (So-called "statutory rape" is bullshit; it is no more "rape" than plastic "woodgrain" appliances are wood.)
We all have the right to eat when we are hungry. We all have the right to drink when we are thirsty. We all have the right to sleep when we are tired. We all have the right to breathe to fulfill our need for oxygen. And we all have the right to have sex with whomever or whatever we choose, so long as the act is mutually consensual. Applying any rules beyond that is, in and of itself, immoral. I'd argue that those who prohibit children from having sex with adults (note that I did not say "adults from having sex with children"; I'm more concerned with kids' rights than adults' rights, since the former have painfully few defenders and everyone is already convinced of the latter) are just a few notches below those who actually do rape children on the long continuum of evil.
To put it another way: Raping a child is like brutally force-feeding them; denying a child the right to have sex until they reach 18 is like starving them for a while.
NEITHER is right (although the former is arguably more traumatic).
Put simply: LET PEOPLE FUCK WHO THEY WANT. Is it that hard to understand?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, some day, stuff like this will be presented in a Museum of Internet Atrocities, collecting the history of spam, banner ads, pop-unders, Flash ads, DDoS attacks, tubgirl and goatse?
...so when's Windows XP coming out of beta? ;)
What's so interesting about a set of numbers having a least element? O_o
No, that wasn't the joke. I'm not a Christian.
Who IS this Noone guy? I keep hearing his name all over the place. He must be bigger than Jesus.
...let's see it predict STOCK WINNERS.
...you insensitive clod!
...because I STILL can't read "Siemens" without smirking.
Nice try, but unlike drugs, spam directly affects even people who never have any intention of either [A] spamming or [B] buying from spammers.
Holy shit, there actually -IS- a .torrent.
God bless the Internets!
What?!?!? Jack Thompson doesn't care about gamers dying?! But... but... I thought he was a cuddly fuzzy bunny, full of love and peace and joy! That's why he fights those evil gaming companies, who ... ahh, I can't keep up this bullshit. :)
torrent pls kthx
Uh, most people are neither spammers nor the customers of spammers.
It's the dumbest 1% of Internet users who ruin it for the rest of us.
Before you ask me how, it's simple. Here's one possible scenario.
Company A de-prioritizes (or outright refuses to carry) Company B's packets unless they pay an extortionate fee. Eventually, Companies A and B merge. People like you will say "So what? They have the right to charge whatever prices they want, and they have the right to merge too. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM)."
Then the newly merged Companies A and B set their sights on Company C. Same thing happens; A/B and C merge, and people like you say "So what? They have the right to merge. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM).".
Meanwhile, A/B/C have been charging extortionate rates to the major ISPs (who continue snapping up local and regional ISPs as they've been doing for years). Eventually, A/B/C acquire or merge with most of the major ISPs. And people like you will say "So what? They have the right to charge whatever prices they want, they have the right to acquire other companies, and they have the right to merge too. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM)."
Then what you have is a country with one quasi-monopolistic company holding 90+% of the dialup and broadband connections and 90+% of the Internet infrastructure. And people like you will continue to call it a "Free Market(TM)".
Just like how people like you call the world of software a "Free Market(TM)", when if you don't buy Microsoft operating systems and office suites and Adobe graphics software, you are basically forced out of the market due to numerous factors (incompatibilities both subtle and gross, MS's sleazy business practices a la "you will bundle our softawre with ALL of your computers, or we'll jack up the rates", and so on).
I'm beginning to think that "free market" is just another euphemism. Today's "free market" doesn't stand for "freedom". Tomorrow's will be worse...
Think I'm nuts? Look at what's happening to telcos. They're all merging back into a new Ma Bell.
Your sort of capitalism-religionist thinking will (n.b.: I did not say "would") lead to 90+% of the Internet connections and hosts in the US being controlled by one company.
Ditto "iFoo" (Apple and Apple alone excepted), "MyFoo", and the like.
Capitalism is about competing, yes. But even in a society of competitors, there has to be some degree of cooperation. Imagine if Ford owned some highways, Chevy others, and GM still others; still other highways were owned by the Japanese automakers, and others by the Germans.
You could drive a Ford car on a Ford highway for a reasonable rate (say, $2). However, if the highway you wanted to take was owned by Chevy or GM, you'd be price-gouged (say, $25).
That is what they're trying to do to the Internet. Is this "capitalism", or is this simply "unfair to everyone but the corporate executives and wealthy investors who will profit from it"?
The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates. Yes, that means that sometimes Company A will have to carry Company B's packets. Tough titty for Company A. Company B has to do the same. And we all win.
Not everything in life is about competing. Christ, I swear that there are some capitalists who'd love to license and market the very air we breathe. (Druuge, anyone?)
Well, two. Same basic idea, but attacking it from two different sides:
1) Execute all spammers.
2) Execute all the imbeciles who buy from them.
Spam is a human problem, not a technology problem. Think of it as the black market, only even sleazier.
Ask ANY "IT Manager" or CxO. They will tell you that Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office are the "industry standard" operating system and word processor, respectively. (Note to moderators: I am NOT a MS fan or astroturfer; in fact, I hate them. Nevertheless, what I said is true.)
You and I both believe that the reality of "industry standards" should be based on a foundation of openness, or at least pluralism; however, this is not so. In the real world, the "industry standard" often has little to nothing to do with any sort of standards body, POSIX compliance, RFC numbers, or anything else of that nature. Think of it as a completely different use of the word "standard", much like how "bass" can mean a fish, a guitar, a man with a deep voice, or an overgrown viol. The "industry standard" is what is overwhelmingly adopted by a given industry for a given purpose; it has nothing to do with "open standards" or "standards bodies".
This is similar to the old "hacker vs. cracker" debate. I describe myself as a "hacker", even though I know that 99.9% of people will misinterpret this to mean "computer criminal", and even though I have to explain that by "hacker", I do not in fact mean this. Nevertheless, even though I doggedly cling to my ideals in this regard, I am fully aware that reality at large disagrees with, or simply disregards, these ideals.
And thus it is with "industry standards". You or I may insist that to be an "industry standard", a technology must be produced by multiple entities, but the Fortune 500 companies who run the world will go on accepting plenty of "industry standards" which are, in fact, produced by monopolies.
In fact, sometimes a brand itself-- and not a particular technology-- is the "industry standard". For a very long time, for instance, Cisco was the industry standard provider of routers.
RTFD (Read The Fine "Department").
With all that hardware, I'd guess that it is, in fact, one of the hottest PVRs ever built! ;)
Why the corporate-style circle-R? Is this a subtle bit of sarcasm or trollery targeting RMS's followers?
I'd argue that the influence of hormones dwarfs ALL other factors combined.
Tesco receives one out of every eight pounds spent on "shopping" (how is "shopping" defined? Is it all commerce, all commerce minus Internet commerce, all commerce by individuals as opposd to corporate entities and associations...?) 12.5% of the entire British shopping budget? One quid for every eight spent in the ENTIRE FLIPPING COUNTRY?
Where is the outrage about this? Can you imagine the American equivalent? I can't imagine that even Wal*Mart, powerful as it is, gets one out of every eight bucks spent in the US... If they did, there would (I presume) be a lot more public outcry.
Then again, I strongly suspect that Microsoft makes at least 12.5% of the total profit earned by the entire computer industry (hardware + software + services), and they are still relatively un-protested (beyond grumbles about "the damned computer locked up again") in the US.
And you say I am a troll?
I speak what I believe. I am not trolling.
As for "abusive", you obviously do not know what the word means. The word implies a lack of consent; one does not hear often of BSDM practitioners "abusing" each other in the context of mutually consensual BDSM sessions, even though the same sort of behavior in a nonconsensual situation would constitute "abuse". Nothing mutually consensual can possibly constitute "abuse"-- if not by definition, by connotation.
Your assertion that sex between a youth and an adult necessarily constitutes "abuse" is ridiculous (but typical). I would not be surprised if, 100 years ago, sex between a black and a white was similarly considered "abuse" (possibly to both parties involved).
If any entity (be it an adult, a child, an adolescent, or an animal) wants to have sex with any other entity (be it an adult, a child, an adolescent, or an animal), and if the feeling is mutual, and there is no coersion involved, and appropriate precaution(s) are taken, far be it from me to condemn them. Regardless of how "disgusting" or "bizarre" any given sexual union can be, it cannot be seen as "immoral" if both parties know what they are doing (even if that knowledge is limited to "I want to have sex, because it feels good") and consent to the act of their free wills.
If a man wants to sleep with his daughter, or a woman wants to seduce her stepson, or a girl lets the family dog have sex with her, or two kids have sex with an adult, or a boy sleeps with his aunt, or an 80-year-old man wants to sleep with a 12-year-old boy-- all very taboo and, to most, "disgusting"-- but if no party is raped, there is no wrongdoing. Rape is very easy to define; it's when one party doesn't want it. (So-called "statutory rape" is bullshit; it is no more "rape" than plastic "woodgrain" appliances are wood.)
We all have the right to eat when we are hungry. We all have the right to drink when we are thirsty. We all have the right to sleep when we are tired. We all have the right to breathe to fulfill our need for oxygen. And we all have the right to have sex with whomever or whatever we choose, so long as the act is mutually consensual. Applying any rules beyond that is, in and of itself, immoral. I'd argue that those who prohibit children from having sex with adults (note that I did not say "adults from having sex with children"; I'm more concerned with kids' rights than adults' rights, since the former have painfully few defenders and everyone is already convinced of the latter) are just a few notches below those who actually do rape children on the long continuum of evil.
To put it another way: Raping a child is like brutally force-feeding them; denying a child the right to have sex until they reach 18 is like starving them for a while.
NEITHER is right (although the former is arguably more traumatic).
Put simply: LET PEOPLE FUCK WHO THEY WANT. Is it that hard to understand?