Call me picky but I would differentiate between actions mid battle and child decisions made in a quasi-jurisdictional context.
Dropping a bomb on someone to progress a military objective is perhaps a different class of behaviour to sentencing someone to crucifixion.
Indeed, they explicitly turn the fuckups into suicide bombers. Go over there, be no use to them, cause trouble, change your mind... Here's a vest, there's a checkpoint and remember, we know where your mother lives..
I'm not aware of the UK burning people alive or beheading them in the last 75 years in a non-military-conflict situation, although you're welcome to link to incidents of which I'm unaware.
If you start talking about the military use of incendiary devices then I'll ignore you.
Oh, so slaughtering innocent men is fine is it?
Anyway the women should fucking defend themselves, at which point it is a fight, thus negating your point.
and the
Why outside the US? Why not redirect to the
Should the french redirect be to
Reddit are censoring the speech that they permit on their site, by removing that speech.
Why are you so opposed to using the term in that context?
You can speak your mind, as long as your mind doesn't want to troll or post racist/sexist/homophobic abuse.
Now that's just bullshit.
In a "Safe Space" men get harassed for stating simple facts. Women get applauded for being sexist towards men.
I tell you what a safe space really is: One where you can speak your mind and not be abused, silenced or forced out because you had the temerity to challenge the groupthink.
Reddit is not a safe space.
Yeah, I tend to ignore the factually incorrect and mod up the responses.
If I have 15 mod points I'll usually only use 2-3 of them to mod down, and that's normally people spamming, being genuinely hateful or unnecessarily trolling.
As an example, genuinely hateful would be using racial slurs in an aggressive and demeaning manner to insult or attack someone. On the flipside, discussing racial characteristics - even if unpopular or wrong - to try and make a point or discuss through an issue is something I'll avoid modding down, although I may mod up a response.
In action? I wont mod down, "black people are less intelligent than white people." I will mod up the reply, "All academic studies suggesting that's the case have identifiable flaws, particularly around how they measure intelligence." I will mod down "Fucking niggers are thick."
What are my personal views on relative racial intelligence? Doesn't fucking matter.
But it did get discussed, and it did reach a broad audience.
Shit, I remember when there weren't 3-4 websites you could hold a discussion on about anything.
Slashdot's moderation system has been excellent since first introduced. Hiding karma and metamoderation helped rather than damaged it and other changes (karma for +1 funny) have tweaked it but it's been a massive factor in making the comments readable and worth reading.
I'm constantly amazed that other sites don't offer anything as straightforward and effective, or even just copy the Slashdot approach outright.
It's the reason I've found it so hard to replace Slashdot now that the posted articles are as much political and placed as they are interesting. Nobody else does comments this good.
CmdrTaco'll be getting an Internet Hall of Fame recognition in 20 years or so just for the moderation system.
Because they're acting like a big baby?
Bittorrent doesn't execute machine instructions without your permission, whereas a virus carries implicit transfer of ownership by dint of installing itself on your computer.
But that sidesteps your point.
As I said, it's a fair question.
Providing the JavaScript to an anti malware company so they could block it in the browser would be the more reasonable comparison.
Suing the ISP for computer misuse is possibly an option too.
Of course the Israeli firm may hold copyright on the original source but there's a derived work involved too, and if they do exert ownership then I'd be asking them why their code has been added to my website - again, that's against the law in the uk, not sure on the equivalent laws in India.
we've reached the equilibrium where graphics pumped out by some indie dev ain't far below what a AAA title claims to have
Hmm. It's a rare indie that delivers graphics on a par with the long running so called AAA franchises deliver.
However, indie graphics are certainly usually at least 'good enough' and gameplay is king. Always.
The virus victim hasn't signed any EULA that would prevent them distributing the binaries.
The AV company doesn't have the source.
The AV company doesn't distribute the binaries.
Anybody suing would be facing computer misuse charges before their case got laughed out of court.
Apart from that, it's a fair question
Given I'm likely to die before getting a state pension, given I'm making private pension arrangements so that I don't need a state pension, given I'm going to continue to be taxed way above my usage of the NHS and given I'm also paying to educate other peoples offspring I'm curious that you seem to think I should also subsidise a lifestyle that I can't afford for myself by giving money to people with a joint income, shared costs and two sets of tax thresholds.
I accept that children aren't cheap but that doesn't mean the rest of us should pay for them. Trust me, this country isn't short of people right now, if the birthrate dropped to zero we'd have trouble maintaining population.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
