Comment Re:Benefits, but still misses the point... (Score 1) 698
Sorry - I forgot to point out in big, rounded letters that I was being sarcastic.
Sorry - I forgot to point out in big, rounded letters that I was being sarcastic.
You are so right - it is LACK OF WEAPONS that is causing all these shootings. So, instead of installing security systems, let's install automatic rocket launchers in all schools, and while we're at it, why not put something like VX gas or anthrax in the little perfume dispensers in the toilets?
On the other hand, it is such a plausible lie, don't you agree?
Look, sometimes someone's religion does little more than incite hatred.
Does that mean that we should do the same? I'm not preaching 'Turn the other cheek' - but there are intelligent ways of responding to hate talk.
So, I'm really really sorry religious people can be whiny, self entitled assholes who believe it's their right to be whiny, self entitled assholes.
But if you think your religion gives you the right to spread hate about others, you should not expect your status as a whiny, self entitled asshole to mean that you don't get the same in reverse.
If your religion says "God hates fags", or "Burn the niggers"
Because you're just using it as a shield to be a bigoted asshole, and you deserve to be treated the exact same way.
People who think their religion gives them unlimited right to say anything about anybody else, but that they should be shielded from criticism are hypocrites and assholes, not some protected class of people.
I agree. The law applies to all; religious hate speech is just hate speech, full stop.
If I hadn't already posted the comment you reply to, I would have modded your funny +1
So, I'll have to do the next best and reply instead.
And I suppose everything you say goes inside that 1%, right?
Well, modesty forbids
(Some people would consider that the first step would be to get rid of those who apparently never learned to use semicolons, or those who can't spell, or those who talk about "the original purpose of the internet")
Not to mention those who put too much significance on minor errors, rather than trying to actually understand what is being communicated. I don't mind - I lose nothing just because some lack the ability to discuss content instead of form.
Any way, it shouldn't be a problem; they could just use a translation of the word 'Gnome' - for example, in Swedish: Nissan. Problem solved.
... evolution didn't go into high gear until the "Cambrian Explosion",
I'm not sure I believe that - one could reasonably argue that the growth in complexity from a soup of ribozymes to the first cell, was comparable to the leap from single-celled organisms to multicelled; or possibly far more involved than that. Another major leap was from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, a necessary precondition for (most) multicelled life, it would appear. What happened at the Cambrian explosion was probably just that now the organisms got big and touch enough to leave fossils.
What I'd really want to see happening is that somebody would finally manage to be successful by consecrating on actual game content worth spending time on.
You know, I played my first computer games some 35 years ago - it's actually scary to think about those numbers; games like 'Colossal Cave' on a Cyber computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure) or the first platform hoppers (character based on CP/M). What is really scare, though, is that content-wise nothing has ever moved since then. I don't give a toss about whether Linux has the very best driver for the latest ultra-, hyper-, super graphics card out there, because the games are still the same, old, tired re-run. It's like a $1000 gift card for MacDonalds - yeah, it's worth $1000, but on the other hand, it's for MacDonald's.
The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended.
True. But that is not the point here, nor is it the point of legislation against stirring up hatred against religious groups. Criticising or making jokes about others is orders of magnitude away from inciting hatred or bullying a vulnerable person. The difference is in the consequences and the intentions: if you joke about religion, it is well-intended, but if you incite hatred, you are actively trying to harm somebody. It's like sex vs rape; one is good, the other is bad, and most people accept that there is a fundamental difference.
"Freedom of speech" once meant simply that everybody had the right to express their political or religious opinions without fear of being persecuted by the authorities. Nowadays it appears to be used as an excuse for why you can't be held to account for anything you say at all, no matter what the consequences. Call me old-fashioned, but I disagree with that notion - to my mind, you always have to face up to the consequences of what you do, freedom or not. If you drive like an idiot and kill somebody, you're guilty of man-slaughter; if you bully a vulnerable person online and they commit suicide, you're guilty of the same; if you incite hatred and your followers lynch somebody, the same applies. The last example is no different from the concept of corporate man-slaughter, which most people find very reasonable.
If we do that, there will be very, very little left of the internet, or any other medium.
I don't think so. People who have something worthwhile to say are usually intelligent and experienced enough to know that being abusive is counterproductive; so, if we got rid of all the abusers and the sites that thrive on them, what is left is actually the 1% or so that is worht spending time and money on - the part that was the actual, original purpose of the internet.
It sounds to astonishingly outrageous that one has to expect that it is simply a variant of the old joke about the 'Man eating chicken': Sounds like 'Man-eating chicken', but is actually 'Man, eating chicken'.
Now that cannabis is legal in Washington, I think we can look forward to -
1. Much mellower politics
2. A massive increase in sales of snacks in the area around the Conress
Oh gods, another sales drone trying to raise the non-issue of how we can cram irrelevant technology into people's lives, so they can suck a larger part of our blood?
I think most of us realise that the home serves a number of intensely practical purposes: preparing food, eating food, sleeping etc. Just take the kitchen, where probably the most technical gear is concentrated, even if we don't quite think of it as such: cookers, ovens, mixers and what have you. A good kitchen is a workshop, first and foremost, and what do you need in a good workshop? Good tools: pots, pans, bowls, knives; how much better would it be to have a networked knife or a spoon with a host of remote sensors built in? Not a lot, I bet.
It's hard to control a thing without being able to analyze it.
It is also hard to produce biological weapons without first analyzing how disease spreads; but that knowledge is also necessary in order to control and cure diseases. All knowledge is a two-edged sword, but ignorance gives you no benefits; it just makes you easier to control by those in power. The problem is not that 'the government' studies it or even that they use it, the real problem is if it is kept secret. One would expect that the government of a democratic society would be less likely to keep secrets than a private company, for example; a company has an interest in keeping their competitors in the dark, whereas a government ideally works for the interest of ALL its citizens, right? So, less of a reason to keep secrets.
I was greatly amused when the HR department at my company was looking for "Pearl" developers.
That would be somebody with a lot of mussels, right?
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.
