Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:TSA = the USA's Gestapo (Score 1) 682

by Travelsonic (#47402991) Attached to: TSA Prohibits Taking Discharged Electronic Devices Onto Planes

True ... because asking you to turn on a dead cellphone is equivalent to throwing you in a concentration camp due to your political views without due process.

True... because the Nazis were known for throwing you in a concentration camp due to your political views without due process, that's ALL they did/were known for. *rolls eyes*

People who discount Nazi analogies purely because they think Nazis were only about the concentration camp, genocide aspect, and miss the buildup to that point and the things being put upon citizens, really need a better understanding - as there was more to them than just THAT specific act of horror, little things, a creep in power, the attitudes, the power grabs, and more.

Comment: Re:DC's decision is the right one (Score 1) 245

Its a slippery slope that DC is right to avoid with a flat out denial.

I see the potential for a slope, but that would be with the type of request IMO - and on that level you still have the power to say yes or no. So they would need to come up with some criteria, if they did, that would end the potential slope right there.

Editorial

Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds 1198

Posted by Soulskill
from the coming-to-terms-with-reality dept.
PvtVoid writes: "Jeopardy champion Arthur Chu pens a heartfelt takedown of misogyny in nerd culture: 'I’ve heard and seen the stories that those of you who followed the #YesAllWomen hashtag on Twitter have seen—women getting groped at cons, women getting vicious insults flung at them online, women getting stalked by creeps in college and told they should be "flattered." I’ve heard Elliot Rodger’s voice before. I was expecting his manifesto to be incomprehensible madness—hoping for it to be—but it wasn’t. It’s a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto, except for the part about mass murder. I've heard it from acquaintances, I've heard it from friends. I've heard it come out of my own mouth, in moments of anger and weakness.

What the f*$# is wrong with us? How much longer are we going to be in denial that there's a thing called "rape culture" and we ought to do something about it? ... To paraphrase the great John Oliver, listen up, fellow self-pitying nerd boys — we are not the victims here. We are not the underdogs. We are not the ones who have our ownership over our bodies and our emotions stepped on constantly by other people's entitlement. We're not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.'"

Comment: Hmmm... (Score 1) 138

by Travelsonic (#46978431) Attached to: Electric Stimulation Could Help You Control Your Dreams
I already dream in full color, and I shit you not, feel like I am able to use my senses - sound, sight, touch, smell, taste, etc, as if I were awake.

A while back, I had a dream where I found a shitload of cash - I recall in the dream saying "Let me put it in this draw,I'll get it later - and the person I was with saying "Yeah, but this is a dream, you'll look there and nothing will be there," to which I replied "Damn, you're right." I woke up after a few more things occurred in said dream, not as soon as I was aware I was dreaming. I was in control of my dream, aware I was dreaming, and this is just one example of things I go through almost every night.

Sometimes this is awesome, sometimes this is terrifying, sometimes it's neither extreme, just fun. To actually have more control

Comment: Re:...and this is our cue... (Score 1) 190

by Travelsonic (#46824779) Attached to: Eyes Over Compton: How Police Spied On a Whole City

Privacy in public is a contradiction
Yeah, if you believe privacy only equals physical privacy, which is ignorant - protip: Privacy != just physical, you have privacy of mind and thought - somebody asks you for your opinion on something for example, you need not say it, so IMO "privacy in public places doesn't exist" is only true if talking PHYSICAL privacy - without that quantifier, this is a bullshit notion, IMO

Comment: Care? (Score 1) 126

by Travelsonic (#46735017) Attached to: Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves
What measures are being taken to ensure they shame the right people? Get the wrong people, and defamation suits would prob. succeed. Look at, for a relevant-but-in-a-different-field example, the Griffin Black Book - listed poker players who counted cards as outright cheaters - which is untrue since the rules don't prohibit it, that's a casino policy [hint: not the same]. They sued, won, and the company - citing the lawsuit/outcome filed for bankruptcy.

Comment: Re:That's it (Score 1) 243

by Travelsonic (#46620903) Attached to: Dropbox's New Policy of Scanning Files For DMCA Issues

Yet again its forced outrage against basically something which is common sense

*sighs*... I hate these phrases - faux outrage, forced outrage, since they are used in the least applicable places. Misleading outrage isn't forced - it's still misleading, but it's still real. I's like when you mishear that somebody was banging your GF, and you momentarily get pissed before the person repeats themselves... the outrage in that split second was no less real.

Comment: Re:Sour grapes (Score 1) 381

by Travelsonic (#46506083) Attached to: <em>Sons of Anarchy</em> Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy

It's loss of opportunity to economically exploit one's work in both cases

Personally, just a side note, I've seen people use that alone to justify the position of it being theft - it annoys the hell outta me since the criterion those people use is idiotic - legitimate, legal competition does the same, but their reasoning would label it such. Heh, sidetracks from the discussion at hand, pay no mind. :P

Google

Sons of Anarchy Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy 381

Posted by samzenpus
from the samcro-hates-piracy dept.
theodp writes "Over at Slate, Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter argues that Google's anti-copyright stance is just a way to devalue content, which is bad for artists and bad for consumers. The screed is Sutter's response to an earlier anti-copyright rant in Slate penned by a lawyer who represents Google and is a Fellow at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute chaired by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that receives funding from Schmidt and Google. 'Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience,' writes Sutter. 'And I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Google are very nice people. But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing. Yet Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit. Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work. People access Kim through Google. And then, when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it's presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It's so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who's the friend of the young everyman. Don't kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource Google can access to create more traffic and more data streams. Unfortunately, those streams are now pristine, digital ones of our work, which all flow into a huge watershed of semi-dirty cash. If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word "parasite."'"
Facebook

The Era of Facebook Is an Anomaly 260

Posted by Soulskill
from the let's-get-back-to-business-as-usual dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Speaking to The Verge, author and Microsoft Researcher Danah Boyd put words to a feeling I've had about Facebook and other social networking sites for a while, now: 'The era of Facebook is an anomaly.' She continues, 'The idea of everybody going to one site is just weird. Give me one other part of history where everybody shows up to the same social space. Fragmentation is a more natural state of being. Is your social dynamic interest-driven or is it friendship-driven? Are you going there because there's this place where other folks are really into anime, or is this the place you're going because it's where your pals from school are hanging out? That first [question] is a driving function.' Personally, I hope this idea continues to propagate — it's always seemed odd that our social network identities are locked into certain websites. Imagine being a Comcast customer and being unable to email somebody using Time Warner, or a T-Mobile subscriber who can't call somebody who's on Verizon. Why do we allow this with our social networks?"

Comment: So? (Score 1) 373

by Travelsonic (#46267495) Attached to: Report: Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC) Scans Your DNS History

...but all Steam users have agreed to abide by specific online conduct and not to use cheats.

So?
Doesn't necessarily mean "any means necessarily" is necessarily what they agreed to, or legal - especially something to goes that far without being explicitly confined. *sighs* I wish people who cite the EULA, etc not as an argument, but as a shutout to opposing arguments would just shut up and learn that it doesn't cancel out all arguments, particularly since it being written doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, nor does it negate that people will/can have an opinion about it.

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis

Working...