And that's why there are no secret cellphone recordings of anything. Ever.

Being an apologist for people who hurt members of your tribe is so counter to you and your tribe's best interest that I now think you a fool.

Thank you very much for being the only person on slashdot to answer my question... I'll check it out... :)

You gave no reasons or evidence for your side of stating "X is Y", so why should I?

i call bs

I have a 3-D tv. I have no need for 3-D support at the computer level. The TV will automatically combine side-by-side or over-under images into a 3-D image.

I spent many hours looking for games that would support this. I ended up getting zero games that do this. I found middleware that would fake out directx drivers and add 3-D support where it's not natively enabled, but it was a challenge to find a game that used the right drives and, y'know, worked.

So are there any games that do this? Bonus if I can play with my wife - I'll get her a 3-D monitor if we find one.

Isn't your judging a scientific article by the typesetting of the site that presents it a bias?

Because you wouldn't have it without customers. You basically just made an argument to not tax anyone who produces anything of value. Fail.

You did not address what I said. Why is a 3rd party vote automatically equivalent as vote republican? Why is it not equivalent as voting democrat? And how did you decide this?

Furthermore, describe the mechanism whereby a vote is wasted. When you vote democrat or republican, does your vote somehow become more than 1 vote? How is its value increased? You are making exactly the same difference either way. A difference of one vote.

Although honestly, if you're just voting for the same 2 parties that have fucked us over our whole lives, it's really making a negligible difference.

Your 3rd party logic is fucked up. I could just as fallaciously claim a vote for a third party is as good as a vote for the democrats. Also, a world occupied by people like you would never have a rival 3rd party, because of your own catch-22 requirement for voting for one. Great job. You're part of the problem without realizing it. At least you're not evil. Peace.

You mean, except the banks mentioned in this article.

Me too, actually, but I didn't want to overstate my position.

Of course it can! Why the resistance? Human-level AI will exist by the time young people reading this are dead. Max Headroom: 20 Minutes Into The Future was, more or less, right.

Interesting logic. Why does the logic for "If you decide to be X, then you aren't really X" work [for you] for whistleblowers but not doctors?

"They're stalking this man and his family, tracking his movements and his financial workings. "

I have no problem with this if his movements and financial workings are public knowledge. If something is there for me to observe, I am allowed to observe it, and report my observations. That is what a free press is, and it doesn't just mean reporting on celebrities and politicians, it means reporting on anybody you want.

"They're calling him evil"

All human beings should be allowed to state their opinion on whoever they think is evil. All human beings should be allowed to state their opinion on who they wish were dead. (coughcheneycough)

"They're calling him evil - the kind of evil they "stake [their] lives against". "

I find your analysis quite dishonest. The paragraph was about capitalism. He was an example of a person connected to it. He was one small part of the kind of evil they stake their lives against. Being willing to lay down your life to fight evil is one of the most sacred duties any human being can have. That you have a different definition of evil than other people is what makes you the same as all people: We all think different things are evil.

"They targeted him specifically, tracked down his home address, printed up flyers with his name and a bunch of other information about him, showed up at his house,"

And why would any of that be illegal or even immoral? How is this different from me printing up flyers telling my neighbors about a sex offender living near us? (No, we don't get notification otherwise.) The only difference is your subjective opinion about which people are evil.

"This isn't why we have a first amendment."

This is exactly why we have it.

"This isn't stating an unpopular opinion or speaking truth to power. "

1) You're disagreeing with the opinion yourself! It's definitely not popular. You're part of it not being popular.

2) Speaking truth? Sorry, beyond slander and impeding an investigation, there is no legal burden to tell the truth. And those only apply to facts, not opinions. Furthermore, even with facts, lying is legal and cops do it all the time, legally. Your rights have nothing to do with whether or not you speak the "truth". And there is no such thing as an absolute truth for that which is subjective. Total red herring for you to even use that word unless we were talking about factual statements. Jesus man. Why don't we just appoint a bureau to define how reality is, then tell everyone who disagrees they aren't allowed to speak? Reminds me of prosecuting holocaust deniers for not stating the same truth. (For bias purposes, I'm only alive because my grandmother lived in a chimney that the gestapo literally looked down, but didn't see her, but would still defend a holocaust deniers right to state whatever he believes. I would, however, possibly throw a bottle at him when nobody's looking, and possibly rightfully go to jail if caught.)

3) Also, they are speaking to power. Not that that affects whether you should be able to speak. If I want to find out where you live, go up to your front door, and hold up a sign telling your neighbors I think you're an asshole -- too fucking bad for you. Public space is for the public, not for you to lord over.

I loved the part where you mentioned they blocked his driveway. Did you forget they have private buses pick them up? So he doesn't take a vehicle out of his driveway. So he was never blocked. Whoever bothered to denote that they blocked his driveway is a drama-queen playing martyr for them.

"This is about terrorizing a family."

Ahhh, so the fact that he has a family should afford him extra protections. Your must be a breeder to think like that.

"They're hoping to terrorize him and other tech workers into quitting their jobs and staying home, hiding from the mobs of angry people threatening them and their families."

You made that up and don't know that. That's what you think they are hoping, but neither of us actually know what they are hoping. However, they do state (in the parts that you chose not to quote, so as to support your position by removing evidence to the contrary) what they hope for.

" This is sick, and these people should be stopped."

They aren't hurting me, and google's surveillance engine is indeed a threat to privacy. Meanwhile, you're trying to redefine basic constitutional rights because you don't like how they are being used. You are a far bigger threat to me than some hippies holding up a sign in front of some glasshole's house. You are the embodiment of why people had to hold a constitutional convention in the first place.