Mod parent funny and file it in the set of sets that do not contain themselves.

Not a bad FP branch, but no explicit mention of "moral education", which I think is a that crux of it. It's not just that they want them (= the masses?) to obey orders. It's not even that they want them to obey illegal orders. It's more that they want them too naive to know the difference between good and bad.

Poorly trained monkeys with nuclear weapons and rockets. What could possibly go wrong?

...consider listening to One Person Found This Helpful", a BBC radio comedy show about absurd reviews for often even more absurd products. Surprisingly good show.

For anyone not from the UK...not sure if you can access it, but even if you can you're going to need to make your way through a full-on Birmingham accent. Godspeed, you brave intrepid souls.

My (otherwise excellent) network provider to this day does not support IPv6

Quoted against censor trolls, but also lack of moderators with funny bones. You were going for Funny, right? Just another case of Poe's Law.

You don't go far enough. Fighting and control to what end? Much of the fighting is sheer competition to grab more. More land and resources, to support more children. As for fighting, no, most people have the sense not to willingly risk their lives in deadly combat. Most would rather move into empty lands, or failing that, clear out the current occupants through genocide. If easy genocide is not possible either because the occupants can and will fight back, some will choose war, but only if it looks easy.

Religion is rather orthogonal to this. Been used as much or more to justify fighting as to discourage fighting.

Tell them, "I got an invention that'll eliminate half of all the jobs in the world, then my investors get to keep all the money we used to pay them!"

NAK

Imagine you're responsible for the switch, and it goes tits up... if you switched to Google, it's on them. If you switched to LibreOffice, it's on you.

Reselling is definitely shady. But there would be no scope for such schemes if the price was fair. It's not.

The legendary Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Was he wrong? Was his cause not worthy? He was fighting greed-- excessive, damaging taxation and hoarding of wealth. Today, greed has again arisen to become one of our biggest problems, with these super rich using their immense wealth to corrupt our systems to unfairly direct even more wealth to them.

Your use of the term "thief" prejudices your argument. Copying is not theft. Copying is copying. Pirating a TV signal, maybe that should be a crime, but it shouldn't be lumped in with theft. For years, the entertainment industry has been trying to convince the world that sharing is theft. Don't do their dirty work for them.

Yes, I am aware TorrentFreak ran the story. They are one of the few exceptions to the near universal censoring and propagandizing the media does on this issue.

Bad idea, over longer distances, flying is cleaner than driving. In some cases flying is cleaner than taking the train (e.g. high speed trains powered by coal-fired plants). Take-off and landing burns a crapload of fuel, but airplanes are surprisingly economical when cruising.

Too dark? Too soon? Or too personal?

Again I disagree. Not that the moderation system isn't broken--I suspect we agree about that--but rather that I fantasize that a "constructive" moderation system could "encourage" more positive social interactions. In particular I'd mostly like to see more humor, but I don't do funny--and I also didn't get such a mod. But such anti-social behavior problems are certainly not merely local or confined to Slashdot.

Society must acknowledge that sharing of info should be encouraged, and be thankful that technology has made sharing incredibly easy. Need to work harder on systems that can fairly compensate producers while encouraging sharing, not continue to base compensation on the restriction of sharing. Especially not to the point of outlawing sharing and wasting resources enforcing that and causing still more waste of lives that have to spend ruinously to fight to defend themselves from the legal mess.

One thing that makes this issue most intractable is that the organs who report on it are thoroughly convinced that sharing is contrary to their own interests. How is the public to hear unbiased reporting on this matter when no one with a metaphorical megaphone will give one?

Based on that logic, I'd love to see ChatGPT try to explain to Uncle Sam why they're not responsible if an assassin got instructions for how to successfully kill the president on ChatGPT.