And here I was going to say that you have used more words than any other commentator out there to try to discredit Techdirt by using Swartz's death as a means.
We can play this game all day, or we could just discuss the content....
"It seems like you feel like your point is being misconstrued. I'm trying to be honest in giving my view of how the writeup comes across. I think the comments demonstrate that the writing might not be as clear as you think."
It is, perhaps deliberately so, but do not ask me to apologize for the inability of others to read properly stated words. I won't do it. I hold my fellow human beings to far too high a standard to even entertain the idea. So, no, the writing was clear as a bell unless one is of the mind to jump at shadows and pretend it said something different.
"The article begins by stating the NRA is being "hypocritical and stupid" .. by opposing Doctors asking their patients about guns. On this topic, we disagree."
That's fine. Nothing wrong with disagreement. Labeling that disagreement as being wholly anti-2nd Amendment is a wonderful example of how discourse in this country has deteriorated to a point of madness. Nuance is tossed out the window such that if you criticize one part of one issues's one player, you're completely on one side of the issue. That is how many of the pro-gun folks in this forum behaved in this post and they make themselves look the fools for doing so. That is entirely their problem, not mine.
"Then next few comments has a link and implies that the NRA is protecting the 2nd amendment (possibly) at the expense of the 1st and perhaps the 4th. On this topic, we also disagree. I didn't see calls for censorship anywhere in the article(s) linked."
First, I did not use the word "censor". Instead, I followed the logical conclusion that if the NRA wishes to deflect what they consider an attack on the 2nd amendment by pointing to things that would impact OTHER amendments, then they mean for that deflection to result in an attack elsewhere. This is logically consistent, though, again, nuanced. That said, I will not apologize for other people's inability to think.
"The 3rd point made in the article (I think?) is that you are asserting the NRA is being hypocritical decrying gun violence in some video games while themselves releasing video games that "glorify guns" and depicts shooting."
You say you've read my comments on this post, and I hate coming off as rude here, but if that is true then this conversation is lost because the above is WRONG. What I've said, for what must be at least the 3rd time now, is that from a PR standpoint what the NRA is doing is STUPID. They hurt their message when the act in a way that can be used by their opponents, simply due to a lack of thought and foresight. That's what this is about: the NRA appears tone deaf.
More importantly, the only real true argument for the 2nd amendment is to combat tyranny. Now, we can disagree on whether or not that has any practical value any more (and, if you care, I think it still does with regard to local law enforcement agencies), but that's what that amendment is there for. What it's NOT there for is for the FUN of owning a gun. So, when the NRA releases gun games for the purpose of fun rather than for their intended purpose, it's silly, but when they do so in the current atmosphere days after stating that violent games are to blame for mass hootings, it's a stupid fucking move. This really shouldn't be that hard.
"I completely agree that they look like jackasses decrying gun violence in video games, period. This site has talked extensively about the data (and lack thereof) trying to link shooting in video games and shooting in real life. So at least on that point, I think we can be in complete agreement!"
Allahu Akbar, comrade.
"It's very difficult to critique ones own work, because as the authors, we know exactly what we were trying to say."
Spoken like someone who has not written several 100k word plus novels. And I don't mean that in snark; it really isn't your fault, but trust me, the right mind can be OVERLY critical of one's own work.
"Instead of being defensive, I'd give you more kudos for recognizing how your points could have been misconstrued/unclear and rephrasing, although you have taken quite a beating from some of these guys! :)"
Again, this is simply not a matter of being defensive; I am right and they are wrong. Simple. Easy. I cannot be faulted for arrogance because it is true. Nor will I apologize if others choose to jump at shadows because of a touchy subject like guns. I will speak in the plain way I know how and will laugh at those that see an agenda where there is none....
"I don't go to him for advice on how to live, I go to him for diagnosis of medical issues / illness that my body is fighting."
Are you parent? If you were, you would know that half of childhood medicine is about PREVENTATIVE medicine, which is what that legislation was all about: preventing injury in parent's homes.
"I personally find nothing wrong with young children becoming familiar with and learning respect for firearms."
Me neither. Nor did I state there was anything wrong w/it in the article. This was about bad PR and timing by the NRA, not that their games were bad. I really don't understand why people have such a hard time with this.
"Also, killing an animal with a gun (for food or sport) is not the same thing as torturing animals (other commenter's made this point very well). For Tim to talk as if hunting == torturing is intellectually lazy, and yes, that is the implication in the article."
You know what's REALLY lazy? Not doing the intellectual work to understand that I DIDN'T say any of the above, only that I pointed out that NRA opponents COULD make that argument as an example of why the distinction the NRA is making is a weak one. The fact that you think I implied that's true simply means you're not reading hard enough, or that you're a shadow-jumper. The problem is with you, not the article, since what you allege above simply didn't HAPPEN. I both fish and have hunted in the past. I have a problem with neither.
Once again, stop letting the ideology blind you. I'm not anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-meat. I'm a fucking libertarian for Christ's sake and you people are driving me up the fucking wall....
"Tanks, planes, bazookas and the like probably do need to be legal to own"
Oh, dear lord, you really just can't stop yourself, can you? I'll give you credit though: if you can say the above w/a straight face, you have certain abilities that I simply don't possess....
"Here you're literally saying the distinction between target practice or hunting and shooting people is rather weak when it comes to violence in gaming."
None of that has ANYTHING to do with owning a gun in real life, so you failed in your attempt. You people do love to jump at shadows, don't you?
Shane, I took a look over your blog. It's visually well put together. Even more beneficial, some of the content on there tells me everything I need to know about you to completely ignore your extremism.
"But trotting out the constitution when it suits you and ignoring it when it doesn't makes you as bad as those in government you complain about who trample on your favorite amendments."
Okay, the comments were funny at first, but are you people fucking KIDDING ME!?!?!? Please cite me a single line in the piece that said anything about owning a gun one way or the other. Let me break it down for you guys, since you apparently can't read and couldn't find the word nuance if the dictionary were shoved up your asses:
The problem is the hypocrisy in decrying games and drawing a weak line in the sand by producing your own game that involves firearms. It's a critique of the NRA's PR, not of gun ownership, the NRA in general, or the 2nd amendment. For Christ's sake, there are actual enemies of gun ownership out there (and I'm not one of them) and they point to comment thread travesties like this as evidence that you people are INSANE.
I try to keep a level head in the comments of my own articles, but you people have some serious fucking inabilities when you let your ideologies get in the way of being able to read something objectively.
"Yes, the NRA has poor timing here, but come on, this blog has defended video games for a long time and this is a target shooting game aimed at teaching, not killing."
I guess you missed the part where I said I had no problem w/the games, only the tone-deafness of the timing?
That's what moderate folks like me love about you zealous gun folks: you're so blinded by your agenda that you can't read....you know....at all....
"But Watson couldn't distinguish between polite language and profanity -- which the Urban Dictionary is full of. Watson picked up some bad habits from reading Wikipedia as well. In tests it even used the word "bullshit" in an answer to a researcher's query."
Heh, if it makes you feel better, most of my posts here still contain either swear words or penis jokes.
That said, I try to tackle the subject matter as warranted. If humor can best expose the issue, I use it. If the subject warrants a more serious approach, I try to do so.
"laptops are irrelevant here - they always come with software included, be it Windows, Linux or OSX. BTW - Windows code is open for auditing (at least in US)."
First, as someone who bids on these kind of contracts in the US, you CAN in fact find HP/Dell/Lenovo client machines that come without an OS loaded, so that isn't correct. That said, even for a vast majority of the machines where the OS is preloaded, Linux machines cost less. That's the point.
"routers technically can't be sold without internal firmware (just like any other device with embedded cpu this days)."
Again, the question is what that firmware is that's preloaded.
"server side software can be open source, but that's really depends on what kind of "server" we're talking about. If we're talking about making Outlook work - Exchange is really a must; no open source alternative doesn't come even close."
Again, you're making my point for me. The smart thing for Greece to do wouldn't be to say, "Give me a server to make Outlook work". The smart thing would be to say, "Give me a server that gives me the best marriage between effective email and cost." and then see what people come up with. Pretending like Outlook is the only email client available is EXACTLY the problem....
Perhaps someone familiar with how military tribunals/trials work could be helpful with this question.
Is this the most brilliant defense of all time? It's generally accepted that the military over-classifies documents. If this offense the prosecution has offered requires the stated intent, then the classified material would need to be shown to refute the defense, but can the material if classified be shown? If not, then is that reasonable doubt and would that work similarly to civilian court? If they documents can indeed be shown, then is that evidence that they're over-classified, or could they be shown to be when shown to the jury?
On the post: Another Case Of Prosecutorial Bullying Against A 'Hacker'
Re:
We can play this game all day, or we could just discuss the content....
On the post: Cyber War: A One-Sided Battle Against A Trumped Up Enemy
Re:
On the post: Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
Re:
Translation = I don't need yer fancy book-learnin', Ivy-League boy. Now squeal like a pig! SQUEEEEEEEEE!
On the post: Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
Re:
You should see the golden toilets and cocaine-bag-carrying mega-hookers they send us. INSANE, brah....
On the post: Some People Still Can't Seem To Question Their Car's GPS
Re: Re: I'm confused
On the post: Some People Still Can't Seem To Question Their Car's GPS
Re: Low blow
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Slants and Observations
It is, perhaps deliberately so, but do not ask me to apologize for the inability of others to read properly stated words. I won't do it. I hold my fellow human beings to far too high a standard to even entertain the idea. So, no, the writing was clear as a bell unless one is of the mind to jump at shadows and pretend it said something different.
"The article begins by stating the NRA is being "hypocritical and stupid" .. by opposing Doctors asking their patients about guns. On this topic, we disagree."
That's fine. Nothing wrong with disagreement. Labeling that disagreement as being wholly anti-2nd Amendment is a wonderful example of how discourse in this country has deteriorated to a point of madness. Nuance is tossed out the window such that if you criticize one part of one issues's one player, you're completely on one side of the issue. That is how many of the pro-gun folks in this forum behaved in this post and they make themselves look the fools for doing so. That is entirely their problem, not mine.
"Then next few comments has a link and implies that the NRA is protecting the 2nd amendment (possibly) at the expense of the 1st and perhaps the 4th. On this topic, we also disagree. I didn't see calls for censorship anywhere in the article(s) linked."
First, I did not use the word "censor". Instead, I followed the logical conclusion that if the NRA wishes to deflect what they consider an attack on the 2nd amendment by pointing to things that would impact OTHER amendments, then they mean for that deflection to result in an attack elsewhere. This is logically consistent, though, again, nuanced. That said, I will not apologize for other people's inability to think.
"The 3rd point made in the article (I think?) is that you are asserting the NRA is being hypocritical decrying gun violence in some video games while themselves releasing video games that "glorify guns" and depicts shooting."
You say you've read my comments on this post, and I hate coming off as rude here, but if that is true then this conversation is lost because the above is WRONG. What I've said, for what must be at least the 3rd time now, is that from a PR standpoint what the NRA is doing is STUPID. They hurt their message when the act in a way that can be used by their opponents, simply due to a lack of thought and foresight. That's what this is about: the NRA appears tone deaf.
More importantly, the only real true argument for the 2nd amendment is to combat tyranny. Now, we can disagree on whether or not that has any practical value any more (and, if you care, I think it still does with regard to local law enforcement agencies), but that's what that amendment is there for. What it's NOT there for is for the FUN of owning a gun. So, when the NRA releases gun games for the purpose of fun rather than for their intended purpose, it's silly, but when they do so in the current atmosphere days after stating that violent games are to blame for mass hootings, it's a stupid fucking move. This really shouldn't be that hard.
"I completely agree that they look like jackasses decrying gun violence in video games, period. This site has talked extensively about the data (and lack thereof) trying to link shooting in video games and shooting in real life. So at least on that point, I think we can be in complete agreement!"
Allahu Akbar, comrade.
"It's very difficult to critique ones own work, because as the authors, we know exactly what we were trying to say."
Spoken like someone who has not written several 100k word plus novels. And I don't mean that in snark; it really isn't your fault, but trust me, the right mind can be OVERLY critical of one's own work.
"Instead of being defensive, I'd give you more kudos for recognizing how your points could have been misconstrued/unclear and rephrasing, although you have taken quite a beating from some of these guys! :)"
Again, this is simply not a matter of being defensive; I am right and they are wrong. Simple. Easy. I cannot be faulted for arrogance because it is true. Nor will I apologize if others choose to jump at shadows because of a touchy subject like guns. I will speak in the plain way I know how and will laugh at those that see an agenda where there is none....
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Slants and Observations
Absolutely true....but mass killings are waaaaay up. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in our nation's history, six have happened in the last six years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass- shootings-in-the-united-states/
"I don't go to him for advice on how to live, I go to him for diagnosis of medical issues / illness that my body is fighting."
Are you parent? If you were, you would know that half of childhood medicine is about PREVENTATIVE medicine, which is what that legislation was all about: preventing injury in parent's homes.
"I personally find nothing wrong with young children becoming familiar with and learning respect for firearms."
Me neither. Nor did I state there was anything wrong w/it in the article. This was about bad PR and timing by the NRA, not that their games were bad. I really don't understand why people have such a hard time with this.
"Also, killing an animal with a gun (for food or sport) is not the same thing as torturing animals (other commenter's made this point very well). For Tim to talk as if hunting == torturing is intellectually lazy, and yes, that is the implication in the article."
You know what's REALLY lazy? Not doing the intellectual work to understand that I DIDN'T say any of the above, only that I pointed out that NRA opponents COULD make that argument as an example of why the distinction the NRA is making is a weak one. The fact that you think I implied that's true simply means you're not reading hard enough, or that you're a shadow-jumper. The problem is with you, not the article, since what you allege above simply didn't HAPPEN. I both fish and have hunted in the past. I have a problem with neither.
Once again, stop letting the ideology blind you. I'm not anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-meat. I'm a fucking libertarian for Christ's sake and you people are driving me up the fucking wall....
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Asked and answered
Oh, dear lord, you really just can't stop yourself, can you? I'll give you credit though: if you can say the above w/a straight face, you have certain abilities that I simply don't possess....
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
None of that has ANYTHING to do with owning a gun in real life, so you failed in your attempt. You people do love to jump at shadows, don't you?
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Cheers and toodles!
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re:
Oh wait, I fucking did....
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Okay, the comments were funny at first, but are you people fucking KIDDING ME!?!?!? Please cite me a single line in the piece that said anything about owning a gun one way or the other. Let me break it down for you guys, since you apparently can't read and couldn't find the word nuance if the dictionary were shoved up your asses:
The problem is the hypocrisy in decrying games and drawing a weak line in the sand by producing your own game that involves firearms. It's a critique of the NRA's PR, not of gun ownership, the NRA in general, or the 2nd amendment. For Christ's sake, there are actual enemies of gun ownership out there (and I'm not one of them) and they point to comment thread travesties like this as evidence that you people are INSANE.
I try to keep a level head in the comments of my own articles, but you people have some serious fucking inabilities when you let your ideologies get in the way of being able to read something objectively.
For fuck's sake....
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: This blog amazes me
I guess you missed the part where I said I had no problem w/the games, only the tone-deafness of the timing?
That's what moderate folks like me love about you zealous gun folks: you're so blinded by your agenda that you can't read....you know....at all....
On the post: IBM Researcher Feeds Watson Supercomputer The 'Urban Dictionary'; Very Quickly Regrets It
God DAMN it....
Fine. You got me. I'm actually Watson, okay? Fucking news media....
On the post: The Flipside: Embracing Closed Gardens Like The Apple App Store Shows Just How Un-Free You Want To Be
Re: Tim
That said, I try to tackle the subject matter as warranted. If humor can best expose the issue, I use it. If the subject warrants a more serious approach, I try to do so.
On the post: Despite Financial Destruction, Greece Not Favoring Open Source Software
Re: What money has to do here?
First, as someone who bids on these kind of contracts in the US, you CAN in fact find HP/Dell/Lenovo client machines that come without an OS loaded, so that isn't correct. That said, even for a vast majority of the machines where the OS is preloaded, Linux machines cost less. That's the point.
"routers technically can't be sold without internal firmware (just like any other device with embedded cpu this days)."
Again, the question is what that firmware is that's preloaded.
"server side software can be open source, but that's really depends on what kind of "server" we're talking about. If we're talking about making Outlook work - Exchange is really a must; no open source alternative doesn't come even close."
Again, you're making my point for me. The smart thing for Greece to do wouldn't be to say, "Give me a server to make Outlook work". The smart thing would be to say, "Give me a server that gives me the best marriage between effective email and cost." and then see what people come up with. Pretending like Outlook is the only email client available is EXACTLY the problem....
On the post: Bradley Manning's Defense: Releasing Over-Classified Information To The Public Would Be Good For The US, Not Bad
Question:
Is this the most brilliant defense of all time? It's generally accepted that the military over-classifies documents. If this offense the prosecution has offered requires the stated intent, then the classified material would need to be shown to refute the defense, but can the material if classified be shown? If not, then is that reasonable doubt and would that work similarly to civilian court? If they documents can indeed be shown, then is that evidence that they're over-classified, or could they be shown to be when shown to the jury?
On the post: Racist Apps In Google's Play Store Test Just How Free You Want Speech To Be
Re: Re: Re: Poor quality writing on techdirt.
In any case, it looks like I screwed the word up, so I'll attempt to fix it shortly....
On the post: Techdirt 2012: The Numbers.
Congrats Cush
Next >>