Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment You got the point! (Score 2) 132

It is not about protecting "their" ideas, it's about brain washing people that it's okay to own an idea. This already happens today, but we sure don't hear any debate about the Government fixing patent trolls and the laws that allow abuse. In reality, that is small potatoes. Big players own all the big ideas. No need to troll is involved.

The brain washing will stop us peons from challenging the status quo.

Comment FUD on top of FUD (Score 4, Informative) 698

Linux is anything but fragile. Stop blaming the OS for a shitty design in UEFI! Linux is so stable and solid that it lets you run "rm -rf /" and it will actually do what you asked it to until it can no longer figure out the machine it's on and commands needed to talk to a disk. This is a more than 45 year old design. Yes, that's right. In AT&T's original Unix you could also kill a system with "rm -rf /".

'but', 'but', 'but', oh shut up and stop spreading FUD! "rm" is the remove command, "-r" is recursive, and "-f" is force. You need to be root to run this with any success, so it's not like any old user can remove everything.

The problem is that UEFI allows an OS to write to areas which it should not be able to write to. If you open all the PROM in a system it's not just the OS that can brick a system. A malicious person can do so just as easy, and without being so obvious as running "rm -rf /"

Comment Re:You seem to have missed their "logic" (Score 1) 539

this is not about freedom to express. It is about a freedom not to listen to someone else when they do.

Are you talking about the freedom of expression? The one that allows people to freely participate in groups of their choosing - and as you put, not of their choosing? It also lets people form groups to promote the interests of that group. This "SJW" crisis that you've manufactured is just groups of people who don't want to associate and private businesses saying "wow, it's in our best interests to promote this group of consumer!" What it sounds like you're talking about is the government mandating private business - which is what I consider the opposite of freedom.

I'll give you a quick test to see if your freedom of speech has been taken away online: step 1: go to stormfront.org, if it is still up, you still have freedom of speech.

Your test is simply asinine and unrealistic. Losing freedom of speech is does not require that you go to jail for saying something. It requires that a person becomes intimidated and afraid to speak. TFA is about ads having priority over your choice of what to see, read, and hear. On sites like Slashdot you will hear argument against this type of thing, but you won't be hearing it on the evening news. There are people who wish to control everything you read, see, and hear. It's about power, plain and simple.

I gave a hint at the connection between the controlled narrative and what we are seeing in media and politics. There is no "manufactured" SJW crisis, there is a fixed narrative which is being spread. You don't have to connect the dots or like the connections, but they are surely there. Anyone who wishes can listen to politicians, watch the evening news, and listen to the "extremists" which we are told don't matter and see the connections.

Comment You seem to have missed their "logic" (Score 0, Offtopic) 539

Just like many of the other SJW rants, this is not about freedom to express. It is about a freedom not to listen to someone else when they do. If you agree with them and have the same opinion that is a start, but in order to dominate you must squash all opposing opinions.

While the concept of squashing dissent is not new (check just about every Government in history) is not new, the form we see now is akin to McCarthyism. Slam any opposing opinion by claiming that _their_ opinion is hate speech which needs to be silenced while yours is altruistic holy fumes.

I think another difference is that as we have continually dumb-ed down society (sorry, you educators hate the truth) it has become more and more "normal" to silence opinions that don't fit a narrative. The people owning the narrative also own the media, and also own education. Until we have some form of revolt, it will get progressively worse.

Comment No, the theory is broken (Score 3, Insightful) 243

The visa system for workers is completely "save cash for companies", nothing more. If you believe it's a good system in any way, you have either been duped by propaganda or not stopped to consider life without a work visa. So ask yourself, what happened _before_ we had worker Visas? Simple, people immigrated to the US. If someone had a special set of skills and knowledge, companies could pay the costs and do the work to get the immigration complete quickly. The US Government has embassies and a Military for exactly the purpose of accomplishing safety.

Congress needs to do it's job, but so you we. Repeating bullshit does not fix things, understanding problems is the start. Many of our problems were caused by people trying to game the system under the guise of altruism.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

I have therefore harmed you by use of words. I took no action except to say and/or write things.

Wrong. You should have paid more attention to what I said, regarding the yelling fire in a theater, because you should have been able to see how you are wrong. In your example the harm was with action, and in particular it is a form of thievery. Slander and Libel have specific legal definitions very intentionally. The "words" used in Slander and Libel are not the problem, and not what makes them illegal. Slander and Libel both require that we have a measurable loss.

If words were the problem we could never speak for fear of harming someone somewhere. You can not possibly defend a claim that "speech" is the problem. Speak all you want. A call to action, such as "run for your life" or "inciting harm to that person'" is more than simply speech.

Here is a hint: The Founders of the US put speech in as a fundamental right very intentionally. There is a whole lot of history where people with the wrong opinion were killed for expressing that opinion, quicker if it might cause someone to lose undeserved wealth. The concept and purpose of the First Amendment is very well thought out and the wording in the first amendment is very intentional.

You might be a smart person, but I don't believe that you are smarter than dozens of brilliant philosophical minds about fundamental philosophical concepts.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

Haha, the argument failed because you said so? Is that really how logic and reason work in your mind? I don't have to prove you are wrong, I can just claim "fallacy" and you lose., so "you are a fallacy" and I win again! (But I refer you back to the arguments you chose to simply dismiss and not answer if you really want logic.)

Comment Idea owners unite? (Score 4, Interesting) 139

The summary pretty much says it all. The person want's to claim that the "Fireball" used in every game from 1970 to present including all of the big MMOs was from some guy who GG stole from. WTF? In reality, the Fireball goes back many many thousands of years. The "gods" threw fire and lightning. Shot was thrown as well as spears, so guess which one was the spear and which was the shot?

People want to push this idea that if you change a label you somehow "invented" something. Society must owe something to somebody at all times. "You didn't make that!" right? Sheesh. The cynic in me just ignores this concept after lashing out at the idiocy.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

A slippery slope is perfectly logical and only a fallacy if given as the only proof. Since we have a whole US Government and a century of proof, your claim of slippery slope is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Extremely poor form and maturity in the attempt to cherry pick the free market example and argument I gave.

Do you have any rational arguments, or just more sophistry?

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

Then by your own words, go sit in a cave for the remainder of your life. Remove your tongue and fingers so you can not speak or write. Never ever attempt to communicate from here on out. Anything you ever say may result in you being harmed, and by your logic it was the fault of the communication. Words caused the murder, the murderer did not cause the murder.

I really don't believe someone could possibly be as mentally slow as you, so I'll treat you as a troll after this post. If you truly happen to believe your own idiocy, seek professional help after disconnecting yourself from the rest of society. Lord knows it may be contagious.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

Be careful with that, because you are attempting to invert the problem. Giving Google Government approval to modify and remove content from views is the complaint.

While the initial discussion is always something small, it never ever ends up that way. The US did not become corrupt and full of cronies in a flash, it was incrementally done. So this time they want to remove content from ISIS. What happens when they want to remove content from "Tea Party", or an organization you may agree with? You should probably take a look at who the Government claims are the biggest threats. Like people who believe in the Constitution and individual rights, people who believe in the freedom of speech, people who believe in the second amendment, and people who question Government authority are all on the list.

Should the Encyclopedia Britannica have been able to remove content they didn't agree with to rewrite history as they saw fit? Sure, but there were other encyclopedias people would buy if that happened. If the same company was allowed to monopolize the market, would you still believe that they should be able to edit history as they see fit?

With the regulated monopolies we have, we lack that same freedom of choice and power of economic influence. Either freedom trumps and we remove regulations and government support which give companies legal monopolization, or we maintain our current status quo and allow the Government to control markets. If we continue the latter, we can't claim that these companies are private so get all the benefits of being private.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

You lack the capacity to differentiate action from words. No matter how you slice up your statement, the problem is in the ACTION and not the WORDS. If I write "John is a spy" and hand the note to the KBG the action is intended to harm John. Since you gave a pathetically inept appeal to emotion I could take the statement the opposite direction. People talking results in a Totalitarian Government killing them. Which then makes your statement mean that talking is the problem, not that an entity is silencing people by murdering them

No matter which way I attempt to view your statement, it demonstrates an irrational and illogical thought. More simply put, you are not very bright. Certainly not bright enough to attempt to use the term "libertard" as an insult. You do however reinforce the normal that idiots regularly resort to ad hominem because they can not argue their opinions with logic and reason. Good on you, I guess.

Actually I thought you were trolling but you defended and reinforced your idiocy in the same thread. Request an increase in dosage, and if that fails, you should strongly consider a lobotomy.p.

Comment This! (Score 1) 208

As it was, we had US Government spooks trying to silence people pushing for equality. Look at Mockingbird and COINTELPRO if you don't know or don't believe. Yes, people would be silenced. In fact I'll argue that a tremendous amount of silencing happens today. Censorship already happens all the time, because it benefits people in power to control the narrative. People should try to count how many clips of audio they hear everyday in the "News" which are intentionally taken out of context so that you have a certain viewpoint. Then add in how many issues are simply ignored because it harms a narrative. Hint: It is closer to 100% than 0% in terms of how much the dialogue is devised for people to have and hold a specific opinion.

To the point you raise: Google is not the arbiter of what should and should not be said any more than I am or you are. Words do not harm, and have never caused harm(1). I read lots of stupid shit that I don't agree with because it makes my opinion stronger. I also happen to read things I didn't know about in the process, which does the same or causes me to update my opinion.

(1) A call to action like "yelling Fire in a crowded theater" which implies "run for your life" is not "speech", it's a call to action. People often confuse the two and often for sophistry.

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...