Your comment exposes you for the whiner you are. I don't see the huge issue here; choice is never a bad thing for the consumer. It stimulates competition. Which is one of the principles of capitalism. You know Adam Smith was strongly against monopolies, he just wrote in a time when they were never "naturally" formed and always supported by the crown. Hence his die-hard support of the free market system. So I really don't see what this has to do with communism, at all. The sky is not falling, chicken little, the free world still firmly endorses a mixed economy of capitalist markets and Keynesian economics.
Yeah, I made one in high school and never bothered to delete it since I put so much time into doing the HTML and occasionally still want to check up on old friends or write them messages on the website.
But I totally understand what would give you that impression. There are sooo many bots and spammers on that shitty site.
You're neglecting those who have both a myspace and a facebook. Your failure to consider this basic confounding variable suggests that YOU are mentally impaired. This would further suggest that your hypothesis is incorrect; it's entirely possible that people who use neither website are impaired, and those who do are not necessarily impaired.
This scathing criticism is brought to you by a user a both websites.
I think, now that I've just re-read the post, that he wanted people to post suggestions for names as replies, and the first suggested name to be moderated "+5 Troll" would then be the name of the annual event.
However what's interesting is that I recall a study (don't remember credibility or source) showing that a hands-free cellphone was just as dangerous as a regular cell phone. This implies that the distraction is not from the cell phone itself, but processing a conversation while you are driving (which divides your attention). If this hypothesis is true, then talking to a passenger in the car is just as dangerous as using a cell phone. Imagine if you were driving one day and a passenger, your wife, said "I want a divorce," or your boss said "you're fired." So perhaps because of this great risk to other drivers and pedestrians everywhere we should ban all talking in cars. Of course, that will be hard to enforce, so we should ban passengers in cars instead.
Where does it end? Doesn't this become kind of draconian at some point?
While we're playing the "prescribe a cure for society's ills" game, I'll throw out a suggestion: federal legislation reducing speed limits across the board by 20-30mph and mandating that all cars sold in the U.S. are electric and meet certain crash safety parameters. That would save more lives and money than any of this "no talking in cars" business.
I find it hilarious that the submitter is worried about security, but keeps their "most" of their "important" stuff on google docs. If more people were biting on that obvious contradiction I'd say the submitter had successfully trolled the/. front page.
Generally speaking, causing unhappiness in others (say by randomly killing neighborhood cats or stealing) tends to eventually result in unhappiness for oneself, through subconscious psychologically conditioned feelings of guilt, punishment by law enforcement, or exile from the community. People are much happier when they cultivate honest and respectful relationships with others.
However, yes, I am aware that personal happiness is sometimes at odds with community happiness, and that it is sociopathic calculus. Those are elementary concepts. Thanks for telling me what I basically just told you.
If you take an issue with my beliefs but you eat meat and eggs then you're guilty of the same sort of selfish behavior and "social contract" morality that I am, which makes you a hypocrite. I suspect that you do because by saying "unless you count humanity... as your friends" you have excluded the consideration of the happiness of animals. If that is the case then you're willing to cause "a whole awful lot of unhappiness" for animals for your own happiness by killing, skinning and eating them.
Most people in the world engage in some selfish and "evil" behavior, no matter how "good" they are. So please, get of the high horse, it's unbecoming of your humanity.
I don't think it's a misunderstanding at all. You might personally feel that way, and believe in notions of an objective right/wrong morality, but there are plenty of nihilists out there who also happen to be atheist/agnostic/secular. Personally I evaluate the desirability of an action based on whether or not it is efficient or inefficient in creating happiness for myself and my friends, and that's the closest thing to a moral compass you'll find with me.
The point is that there is no secular "church," and the only misunderstanding here is thinking that all atheists have the same system of morality. They don't. They're all a little different.
What a stupid way to define "rave." You're saying that if I get a hundred people together for an all-night warehouse party, but we decide to listen to smooth jazz instead of electronica, we can't be prosecuted? Sounds like a bunch of old english bastards screaming "get off my lawn" at the new generation.
Company of Heroes has restrictions similar to the ones planned for Starcraft II. You have to login through Relic's online authentication to play the game at all, even with friends on a LAN (this will keep your friends from using a pirated copy, much to our chagrin at the time). However the LAN gaming works perfectly assuming everybody logs in to Relic with a legitimate copy of the game. So I don't really feel like that sort of login method "killed" the RTS genre (and if you liked CoH I don't see how you could think so either), it just makes it harder to get a free lunch.
Or did you mean to say that Company of Heroes was responsible for Starcraft II's DRM? That might be true.
You share in the fault. It's your fault for eating trans fat when it is clearly labeled. It's their fault for not labeling trans fat until the 90's. It's partly their fault when they mislead you with advertisements like "0g trans fat! (per serving)." If you can't see how taking a harsh stance against misleading advertisements is a good idea, I don't think we can help you.
Shows what kinda middle-class white-collar upbringing you come from. Here on the west coast "the bay" means a gang-ridden area in California near San Francisco.
But why would they compete with the original URL when what they already do is very risky and free-of-charge? If I were them, I would take the money and run-run, run-run, run...
I was going to say the same thing. Thank you. That man is an embarrassment to my country.
But my country is also an embarrassment so what else is new. SEND HELP. I'm sorry we bombed everything and assassinated a bunch of foreign politicians. Really. It was our congress and our military. The whole country has been seized by idiotic bi-partisanism and a capitalist mentality so strong that it doesn't matter who you vote for because the corporate lobbyists will buy out whoever wins and pull on their puppet strings anyway. Unfortunately the only people who get elected are those who have billions of dollars to run for office (usually through corporate donations) because the people at large are stupid enough to base their vote on a 30-second video clip of propaganda (sorry "political advertisement"), and not everyone even votes in the first place!
If we had runoff elections where people ranked their candidates in order of preference, instead of just picking one, bi-partisanism would crumble, people would vote for who they really wanted, and maybe we'd actually elect an honest politician or two. Unfortunately the bi-partisanism means that no one currently in office will honestly support the kind of election reform that would erode the base of their power!
So SEND HELP. Country has been hi-jacked. Plus we have all these idiots who can't tell the difference between Austria and Australia.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment exposes you for the whiner you are. I don't see the huge issue here; choice is never a bad thing for the consumer. It stimulates competition. Which is one of the principles of capitalism. You know Adam Smith was strongly against monopolies, he just wrote in a time when they were never "naturally" formed and always supported by the crown. Hence his die-hard support of the free market system. So I really don't see what this has to do with communism, at all. The sky is not falling, chicken little, the free world still firmly endorses a mixed economy of capitalist markets and Keynesian economics.
People use bittorrent for small files all of the time.
Yeah, I made one in high school and never bothered to delete it since I put so much time into doing the HTML and occasionally still want to check up on old friends or write them messages on the website.
But I totally understand what would give you that impression. There are sooo many bots and spammers on that shitty site.
You're neglecting those who have both a myspace and a facebook. Your failure to consider this basic confounding variable suggests that YOU are mentally impaired. This would further suggest that your hypothesis is incorrect; it's entirely possible that people who use neither website are impaired, and those who do are not necessarily impaired.
This scathing criticism is brought to you by a user a both websites.
Reminds me of that "sheeple" episode of South Park.
I'm not so sure that this is insightful. It sounds like the parent is really getting his tinfoil hat on.
I think, now that I've just re-read the post, that he wanted people to post suggestions for names as replies, and the first suggested name to be moderated "+5 Troll" would then be the name of the annual event.
However what's interesting is that I recall a study (don't remember credibility or source) showing that a hands-free cellphone was just as dangerous as a regular cell phone. This implies that the distraction is not from the cell phone itself, but processing a conversation while you are driving (which divides your attention). If this hypothesis is true, then talking to a passenger in the car is just as dangerous as using a cell phone. Imagine if you were driving one day and a passenger, your wife, said "I want a divorce," or your boss said "you're fired." So perhaps because of this great risk to other drivers and pedestrians everywhere we should ban all talking in cars. Of course, that will be hard to enforce, so we should ban passengers in cars instead.
Where does it end? Doesn't this become kind of draconian at some point?
While we're playing the "prescribe a cure for society's ills" game, I'll throw out a suggestion: federal legislation reducing speed limits across the board by 20-30mph and mandating that all cars sold in the U.S. are electric and meet certain crash safety parameters. That would save more lives and money than any of this "no talking in cars" business.
I find it hilarious that the submitter is worried about security, but keeps their "most" of their "important" stuff on google docs. If more people were biting on that obvious contradiction I'd say the submitter had successfully trolled the /. front page.
Generally speaking, causing unhappiness in others (say by randomly killing neighborhood cats or stealing) tends to eventually result in unhappiness for oneself, through subconscious psychologically conditioned feelings of guilt, punishment by law enforcement, or exile from the community. People are much happier when they cultivate honest and respectful relationships with others.
However, yes, I am aware that personal happiness is sometimes at odds with community happiness, and that it is sociopathic calculus. Those are elementary concepts. Thanks for telling me what I basically just told you.
If you take an issue with my beliefs but you eat meat and eggs then you're guilty of the same sort of selfish behavior and "social contract" morality that I am, which makes you a hypocrite. I suspect that you do because by saying "unless you count humanity ... as your friends" you have excluded the consideration of the happiness of animals. If that is the case then you're willing to cause "a whole awful lot of unhappiness" for animals for your own happiness by killing, skinning and eating them.
Most people in the world engage in some selfish and "evil" behavior, no matter how "good" they are. So please, get of the high horse, it's unbecoming of your humanity.
I don't think it's a misunderstanding at all. You might personally feel that way, and believe in notions of an objective right/wrong morality, but there are plenty of nihilists out there who also happen to be atheist/agnostic/secular. Personally I evaluate the desirability of an action based on whether or not it is efficient or inefficient in creating happiness for myself and my friends, and that's the closest thing to a moral compass you'll find with me.
The point is that there is no secular "church," and the only misunderstanding here is thinking that all atheists have the same system of morality. They don't. They're all a little different.
It's racist when they form a mob to lynch brits.
Totally agreed. I love that site.
What a stupid way to define "rave." You're saying that if I get a hundred people together for an all-night warehouse party, but we decide to listen to smooth jazz instead of electronica, we can't be prosecuted? Sounds like a bunch of old english bastards screaming "get off my lawn" at the new generation.
Company of Heroes has restrictions similar to the ones planned for Starcraft II. You have to login through Relic's online authentication to play the game at all, even with friends on a LAN (this will keep your friends from using a pirated copy, much to our chagrin at the time). However the LAN gaming works perfectly assuming everybody logs in to Relic with a legitimate copy of the game. So I don't really feel like that sort of login method "killed" the RTS genre (and if you liked CoH I don't see how you could think so either), it just makes it harder to get a free lunch.
Or did you mean to say that Company of Heroes was responsible for Starcraft II's DRM? That might be true.
Human nature rewards the majority that follows the pack
For example, observe the history of Nazi Germany!
Oh wait. Maybe resistance to authority is a good thing. Oops!
been out of trouble since graduation
Or he stopped getting caught for a spell. Who knows?
I don't disagree but it's still a hilarious rationalization. I might use it in the future just to befuddle.
So, instead of caring more, everyone else should just care less. Brilliant. A thorough and convincing rationalization.
You share in the fault. It's your fault for eating trans fat when it is clearly labeled. It's their fault for not labeling trans fat until the 90's. It's partly their fault when they mislead you with advertisements like "0g trans fat! (per serving)." If you can't see how taking a harsh stance against misleading advertisements is a good idea, I don't think we can help you.
Shows what kinda middle-class white-collar upbringing you come from. Here on the west coast "the bay" means a gang-ridden area in California near San Francisco.
But why would they compete with the original URL when what they already do is very risky and free-of-charge? If I were them, I would take the money and run-run, run-run, run ...
Gun control? Apathy? Risk-aversion? Pick your favorite.
Expertly trolled. 10/10.
I was going to say the same thing. Thank you. That man is an embarrassment to my country.
But my country is also an embarrassment so what else is new. SEND HELP. I'm sorry we bombed everything and assassinated a bunch of foreign politicians. Really. It was our congress and our military. The whole country has been seized by idiotic bi-partisanism and a capitalist mentality so strong that it doesn't matter who you vote for because the corporate lobbyists will buy out whoever wins and pull on their puppet strings anyway. Unfortunately the only people who get elected are those who have billions of dollars to run for office (usually through corporate donations) because the people at large are stupid enough to base their vote on a 30-second video clip of propaganda (sorry "political advertisement"), and not everyone even votes in the first place!
If we had runoff elections where people ranked their candidates in order of preference, instead of just picking one, bi-partisanism would crumble, people would vote for who they really wanted, and maybe we'd actually elect an honest politician or two. Unfortunately the bi-partisanism means that no one currently in office will honestly support the kind of election reform that would erode the base of their power!
So SEND HELP. Country has been hi-jacked. Plus we have all these idiots who can't tell the difference between Austria and Australia.