Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score 1) 898

by ffreeloader (#37410502) Attached to: UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet

Where I live, if there is a person who is constantly going around and harassing people in public places, the cops haul them off. They don't allow public harrassment, and that's exactly what we're talking about in relation to these cases.

It's true they don't haul off everyone, but if it is a recurring offense they most certainly do. They don't allow one person to get up in the face of someone else and start screaming at them in public places, and this is the equivalent of the outrageous trolling. Harassment is harassment, wherever it takes place. There are harrassment laws everywhere, and just because the harassment takes place on the internet doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Comment: Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score 1) 898

by ffreeloader (#37399796) Attached to: UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet

Most instances I've seen of geeks defending trolling have had their base the idea that people should expect it and that most of the victims of the trolling deserve it. I find that a very slippery, dangerous, and sociopathic, slope.

That's like saying I should expect someone to get in my face and go out of their way to offend me just because I'm walking down a public street, and that because I'm out there walking on a public street I deserve it. Behavior like that is illegal and will land you in jail. There's no reason the same type of behavior on the internet should'nt result in the same penalties. They are moral equivalents and should be considered legal equivalents too.

Comment: Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score 1) 898

by ffreeloader (#37399608) Attached to: UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet

This is pure nonesense. There are two ways of offending people. One is inadvertently offending someone and the other is being intentionally offensive like the idiots from Westboro Baptist church and the idiot in question here.

I never set out to offend people, but I've offended a lot of people. I offended one guy simply because I have three Ks in my last name and I was laughing about how that made me the KKK. I was poking fun at myself, and the subject offended his sensitivities. He got pretty angry over the entire incident. I still don't understand how making fun of myself could possibly offend someone else, but I guess there are poeple out there who are looking for something to get offended over.

It's something else altogether to go out and deliberately offend people like the incident in question here, or the woman who so tormented a young girl that the kid committed suicide. There's no way this type of deliberate malicious behavior can be considered protected speech. My rights stop where your nose begins, and vice versa. It's one thing to accidently hit someone in the nose with your elbow when turning around when your hands are held high and you don't know they are standing there, and another thing altogether to deliberately punch them in the nose. Both actions hurt the other person, but only one is considered to be assault.

As to the argument that you can't make it illegal to be an asshole, well, being an asshole is already illegal in many ways. If someone goes out and steals someone else's property they are being a major asshole, and breaking the law. If an asshole goes out and deliberately picks a fight in a bar, he's liable to spend some time in jail. When an asshole goes out and defrauds someone, he's breaking the law. That's just three instances of how being an asshole is illegal. There are many more.

Only assholes steal from others. Only assholes go out and pick fights. Only assholes defraud people. Being an asshole is already illegal.

Comment: Re:subject (Score 2, Funny) 395

by ffreeloader (#37225458) Attached to: Hurricane Irene Prompts Unprecedented Evacuation of NYC

LOL. You beat me to it. Our educational system is producing politically correct idiots.

I went back to school about a decade ago and the level of knowledge of the students shocked me. In the English classes I took 90 percent of the students couldn't write an intelligible sentence. They didn't know how to spell, how to use punctuation, or understand subject/verb agreement. They also couldn't deal with homophones such as: they're/their/there, are/our, your/you're, heel/heal, cite/site, right/write, cell/sell, allot/a_lot, allowed/aloud, etc....

About half the people couldn't read their own papers and tell you what they were trying to say when asked what they meant to communicate. It was so bad you couldn't even help them edit their papers because they had forgotten/never_knew what they meant themselves. Their writing was complete gibberish.

The foreign exchange students from China and Japan knew English better than the students who had gone through 12 years of classes related to the English language and spoken it all their lives.

It's no wonder there are so many socialists today. The English comprehension level of so many people is so low they don't understand the implications of what they're told or read.

Comment: Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... (Score 1) 403

by ffreeloader (#37063136) Attached to: UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

I see the thought police are still out to enforce socialist thinking here on /.. When you can't defeat the reasoning the only thing left is to make sure the opposing viewpoint isn't available to the public.... Just goes to show that the left and far left cannot handle the existence of opposing thought and ideas. If they could they would discuss the ideas, not try to shut them down.

Comment: Re:China? (Score 1) 403

by ffreeloader (#37058446) Attached to: UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

[sarcasm]Yeah, we all know the only thing the government, police, and army of any country does is abuse its own people. We all know that's the only reason for their existence. They couldn't have any legitimate reason for existing.[/sarcasm]

There are more instances of civilian-to-civilian abuse every day, by far, than there are army, police, or governmental abuses. Why aren't you worried about them? Why aren't they at the top of your list? Because you could actually care less about people, but have a large political agenda.

Comment: Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... (Score 0) 403

by ffreeloader (#37058210) Attached to: UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

I have no idea what David Cameron had to say about anything. My comments are based upon the truth about human nature, not any political agenda.

If you have kids, well, just teach them to be dependent on you for everything. Don't encourage them early in life to be independent and aware that there are consequences, both good and bad, for everything they do. Teach them they aren't responsible for their own success or failure in life. Don't allow them to fail. Make believe you can protect them from all the vissicitudes of life by not allowing them to suffer the consequences for their own actions. Teach them they should given everything they get in life, not pay as they go.

Then, by the time they are in their early teens see what your kids are like. They will believe they are owed everything and will not think anyone should require them to earn what they need and desire. You know, exactly like all the rioting idiots over there in the UK right now they will think it's OK to destroy the property of others just because someone isn't giving them what they want. .

Comment: Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... (Score 1) 403

by ffreeloader (#37055998) Attached to: UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

If your politicians had any brains they wouldn't be teaching your citizenry to depend on government for everything.

They would be teaching them that government can't possibly afford do that job, and because teaching people to be self-supporting and self-sustaining raises their self-esteem and confidence. Creating a welfare state kills individual initiative and ambition. It does nothing but teach people they can't succeed without the government babying them along and creates the expectation in society that everyone is entitled to do nothing for themselves and still have everything they want.

There is no surer way to kill a civilization.

Comment: Re:great excuse (Score 1) 246

by ffreeloader (#36064538) Attached to: Easily Distracted People May Have 'Too Much Brain'

So, what you're really saying is that being a two-faced, backstabbing jerk is being friendly. Methinks you have a problem with understanding the meaning of friend, as the root word of friendly is friend.

Here is Merriam-Websters definition of friendly in the context you used the word:

Definition of FRIENDLY
: of, relating to, or befitting a friend: as
a : showing kindly interest and goodwill

Someone who stabs you in the back is not your friend, and therefore cannot considered to be friendly by definition. You seem to equate someone playing con games with friendship, friendliness, and being friendly.

Comment: Re:Good wording. (Score 1) 225

by ffreeloader (#35951204) Attached to: My present employer I think will survive ...

Way to word the question. I only had to read it ten times to realize what I was supposed to comprehend.

You must be new here. I understood exactly what it meant the first time. You see, I've been reading here on /. for a few years, and that means I have lots of experience reading terrible grammar.

Their are a lot /.ers who loose they're way around a keyboard. You can accept to read allot of bad grammar hear.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...