Comment Re:car (Score 1) 247
Oh my god. If I could up-vote this answer a thousand times, I would! You made my day
Oh my god. If I could up-vote this answer a thousand times, I would! You made my day
When did Goebbels create a slashdot account?
Life is full of moments where you piss people off. The difference between you and me is I that don't give a shit about hurting the feelings of people who openly call for the death of Westerns like myself.
Freedom of Speech is not unlimited. It does not cover shouting fire in a crowded theater. It does not give you the right to incite violence against an identifiable group of people. ISIS is doing plenty of that and as such their videos should be censored.
Wrong.
Censoring ISIS recruiting videos is very clearly not in favor of ISIS and the only freedom it removes is one's freedom to get brainwashed by Muslim extremists.
There is no slippery slope here. Ban all videos put out by an organization called ISIS that feature executions. Who (that was care about) would be harmed by this action?
Nonsense.
If these videos did not have an impact, ISIS (and other extremist groups) would not put them up. Do you honestly think that tens of thousands of Westerners would be flocking to ISIS if they had never heard of them?
There are plenty of young people looking for meaning in life, and they believe that ISIS will enable them to do so. Granted, if ISIS's propaganda wasn't around, they'd find something else. But I am willing to bet that whatever else they end up doing will be less destructive than beheading, raping and burning civilians alive.
An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos
Freedom of speech.
There done. Issue solved. Next?
Nonsense.
Freedom of Speech for own own citizens is one thing. Freedom of Speech for people who are unquestionably trying to wipe out our citizens is another matter. One of the very first thing you do during a war is take out the enemy's communication capabilities. This is no different.
What is gained by enabling them to spread their propaganda? Why fight a battle with our hands tied behind our backs?
Blocking child pornography will mean that the general audience will not be aware of its existence, hence they will not put pressure on politicians to end child abuse. Blocking child porn is counter productive, that's a fact. This I say as one of the founders of www.meldpunt.org and www.inhope.org.
Such nonsense. There are plenty of TV shows and news that discuss child porn (e.g. Law and Order: Special Victims Unit). You don't need to see it online in order to understand how harmful it can be for victims. There is absolutely no good reason to allow people to spread these videos. Imagine if your brother or sister was unfortunate enough to end up in these videos.
You might be right on a per-bus or per-train basis but from an individual point of view, I have yet to witness public transport being more time-effective than taking a car.
+1000
And consider alternatives to high-rises. Higher density structures invariably lead to traffic jams as you have more and more people leaving and returning to the same location at the same time of day.
In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.
Governments abused countless innocents throughout history. Trusting the government is foolish; one should always be cautious of what they do or say, but not mindlessly so.
In this case, it's not an issue of a lack of trust; this man's position is fundamentally ridiculous and privacy would be important even in an "ideal world" where the government was full of perfect beings.
That's fine so long as you understand the tradeoff you are advocating.
It will likely involve an increased amount of crime, terrorism and money spent on resources to tackle the aforementioned problems. I don't know how much of an increase we're talking about.
On the flip side, it will be harder for the government to snoop on its citizens. Again, I'm not sure how much harder it'll actually be.
Personally, I'd rather risk some unwanted government snooping (there will always be some bad apples) compared to the risk of crime and terrorism groups gained a foothold. The former is a potential attacker. The latter is a guaranteed attacker. The former provides some form of transparency. The latter provides none.
I don't believe that you can have it both ways. I see this as choosing the lesser evil.
In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.
The public backlash to such a model is the result of people not trusting their government (and by extension the police).
Tackle the lack of trust and these problems go away. This is a social problem, not a technical one.
Why stop there? How about click-to-play for Javascript?
My point is that Javascript, Java and Flash are meant to run in a sandbox. They are all equally vulnerable to such bugs.
This just in: Human beings contribute to global warming by breathing. UN officials have set out strict breathing quotas. Anyone surpassing these limits will be persecuted by the International Criminal Court.
I've got another one for those of you trying to lose weight: if it tastes good, it must be bad for you. Just put it down. If it tastes bad, it's probably good for you. Eat more!
The main reason I avoid IE is the user interface. It's behind the times with respect to end-user usability and developer tools.
I think the community would make more headway if Global Warming didn't imply warming. On a personal level, I've experience plenty of "screwed up weather" in the past couple of years (more often too cold than too hot). If the the term was used to justify extreme weather in general would people would jump on board.
Granted, this argument has little to do with science.
So the Kyoto agreement never happened and was never signed by president Clinton? You were either a kid not watching news in 90s, or you are still lying.
I stand corrected. So we've moved the timeline back to 1997 then. Thanks for pointing this out (I honestly didn't remember).
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.
