At what point did I say it should be banned? Please quote the statement. I'm absolutely fine with it as I said, I just said I understand why a public organization decided to end the anonymous commentary. What I didn't agree with was going back and unmasking the past anonymous comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just saying it's more effective if articulated appropriately. My examples you're so delightfully taking out of context because you're even more anonymous than I am were the real examples as to why the paper is ending anonymous commentary.
A small town newspaper, those comments are being made by your immediate neighbors. They apparently don't want you to know that *THEY* really think of you, but they *REALLY* want you to know it.
Outing the past anonymous commenters is just tabloid tactics. It's like having private information and sharing it with the world because they can. If they want their neighbors behaving with civility, fine, set the old comments on fire and go forth with your decisions. Like I said, nothing is forcing people from commenting - go else where if you want them to be anonymous. Requiring an identity is their attempt at maintaining civility.
I'm pretty sure I can post open and honest comments while not being anonymous. Unless you define open and honest as the requirement of being allowed to devolve into a stream of profanity and hate at even the smallest amount of disagreement.
Penny Arcade put it best.
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
I think this is pretty interesting. Out in society where someone has a face and a name where people behave as if their actions will affect them, but they feel as if online anonymity is a right for them to leverage for their otherwise hidden secret feelings that would normally ruin their reputation. Oh no somebody says something in public that's hateful or otherwise resentful and chastise them for their opinion, but it's totally ok for them and those who crucify them to do it anonymously online.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for anonymous communication but we should be using it as a tool and not a weapon. Unfortunately it's far far far too commonly used as a weapon and that's what drove the newspaper and others to eliminate it. Though retroactively removing the anonymity I don't agree with, it's basically exposing to the world into the deep dark sides people don't want to share. Now you know your neighbor is a homophobe and your kids teacher is a racist, and your wife is actually a generally terrible person. The internet has lots of places you can go be a total pile of crap anonymously, there's no need to do it as publicly as possible via comments to your local news paper.
I think perhaps the real issue here is that he's grossly under educated on a subject and he opened his ignorance hole on the subject. Because (so far) murdering 10,000 non-combatant Men, Women and children for not following Islam is totally just trying to protect their community, right?
Disclaimer: There is an application of sarcasm here. Please read carefully.
Seems Ars' recent reviews suggest they don't really care anymore about the quality of the review, but click bait and views.
Why do I have to see this giant Apple ad on my page? Whatever happened to read more?
Warren Buffett for tax reform because he doesn't think he or any other billionaire pays enough is also a mind f*k
Arimaa is computer childs play, however no computer could ever beat Sirna Kolrami at Strategema. At best all one could expect is a draw.
I'm more responding to a lot of the comments on the Oculus's resolution not the article it self. It's a VR Headset... Think out side of the rectangle in front of you. Why does the "Screen" have to have anything to do with the resolution of the headset? Why cant I have a virtual 4K "display" or multiple virtual displays that I only see the VR headsets native resolution against? I don't need to see the whole monitor at one time when I can just look around? Remember, Windows is kinda crap at scaling so this is a good solution to giving more real estate from Windows perspective while maintaining scale.
My chair doesn't squeak and my monitor is always kept clean. Or perhaps I can just read what's on everybody's screen, don't let the NSA know.
At scale, a world wide army of CPU's will easily crush an ASICs. Mining is about number of hashes per second, one system is slow, an army of misappropriated systems will be very fast.
What about United Nuclear?
Wouldn't intentionally misleading letters demanding money amount to fraud or racketeering? Perhaps if Bell and them were really concerned they could turn it around on the copyright holders.
From the sounds of it, that's pretty much what they're going to do.
I'm totally fine with TFDI disallowing counterfeit devices, even tho the consumer will get boned in the end they will have to go back to the manufacturer that tried to save a few bucks by buying what is unquestionably a counterfeit chip at counterfeit price. There's no pleading ignorance when the official suppliers charge a certain amount and these back ally dealers are a fraction of the price. Any authorized fab is going to have a fixed license fee that's going to keep the price relatively high compared to the unlicensed fabs. Crucifying FTDI because they're disallowing the devices is unfair with out putting most of the blame on the companies sourcing the questionable chips.
10 to the minus 6th power Movie = 1 Microfilm