...there are ignorant newbies who think driverless vehicles are a good idea...
I don't understand the need for an insult, here... I like the idea of a driverless car (I am biased though: I sometimes don't like driving) so as long as I am ultimately in control.
Your comment is worthless, as is, but I suspect that in the existing climate, driverless cars will be executed in an irresponsible manner and be hostile to consumers in some way(s).
conveniently ignoring the fact that they're just another thing in the IoT. They're not magically exempt from this dumpster fire.
If I may offer some advice, try not to internalize stuff like this too much. Experience makes me think these comments are a reaction to savoring despair about something. Step back to see thinks more clearly. You can be right(ish) and still be wrong.
I've never read or heard an argument in support of video games causing violence that I found credible. Most of the accusations were obvious scapegoating.
However, our (American) media is not so innocent, IMO. The main problem isn't how overt media violence is, but how media often smooths over social reaction to violence (not just physical violence). Media treats the roots of violence in an irresponsibly casual manner. In defense, media cannot cause violence on its own. Media does act as a filter and cultivator of violence, but only at the bidding of a dominate aspect of society itself.
A society cannot cultivate violence narrowly or in a controlled way. If violence is cultivated at all, it will ultimately be impossible to contain. Fetishizing the tools of violence provides an excellent negative contribution.
[S]ome Florida CBAs give law enforcement officers the right to challenge any discipline the local government seeks to impose through arbitration or other administrative review, thus depriving the government of the power to make independent disciplinary decisions.
This reads like the anti-sovereign rules in international trade agreements.
For the record, I agree with the good majority of Mr. Masnick's comments on this issue in various articles. I'm also suspicious of 'Rich Kulawiec' because of the apparent desire to rant. Mr. Kulawiec's quoting and objection to this article does not make sense. STILL, I do not wholly reject his commentary, especially older commentary in older articles. I do not find his technical commentary immediately incompatible or irrelevant to Facebook. Part of my reason involves adjacent issues involving Facebook. The loudest one being the way Facebook was used in this Russian manipulation mess.
For me, dismissing whole comments has a "high bar" (which the Internet routinely meets).
You seem to have a real problem with understanding that there's a fundamental difference between the things you're describing and the way Facebook operate.
If 'Rich Kulawiec' is correct then "the way Facebook operate(s)" is, in part, due to the poor and unprofessional build up of their service.
Facebook is big, powerful, famous, rich and therefore "successful". Unfortunately, the popular modern use of the successful tag often includes only the illusion of merit. Mr. Kulawiec seems to be suggesting that the building of Facebook was reckless and/or careless. Too many of us religiously exalt 'big things' with little concern with how or why. The ends justify the means, right?
...Anyway. Must we reject ideas 100% or embrace them 100%? Can't we wrestle with the pieces?
I find AC's commentary more compelling than your framing. I'm not convinced that not using Facebook is a simple choice. It reminds me, a little bit, of the old arguments concerning the use of MS Windows or the 'alternatives'.
The statement you quote is obviously wrong (though I believe I know what 'Sok Puppette' intended). However, I would not dismiss the whole comment out of hand, despite its presentation.
I'm saddened by the "The First Word", some of the comments and the mind set that has produced and is sustaining the situation discussed in the article.
I'm struck by how much of this seems frighteningly familiar. Instead of analysis, I'm struck by a thought:
Hopefully, one day people won't look back at this time and wonder how so many people permitted some tragic event(s) to occur.
I'm hoping you're just some 12 year old, but if not...
One thing that isn't being discussed here is the part the Democrats played in this. This Russian collusion came out just before the election. And was aimed at Donald Trump. This was paid for my the democratic party.
This is a serious matter, not some republican vs democrat game of thrones. If you are 'team republican' or 'team trump' say that and be done. I think what your barely coherent comment is referring to is 'opposition research' on Trump first paid for by republicans during the primary then by democrats in the general. Which is mostly irrelevant.
It surprises me how quickly and one sided the press is on this type of issues.
What two sides are there? This is not a debate or a discussion. This is an investigation. For the FBI, right now, there are no sides and when that investigation is done there will be one side.
"sheer facts that stopped the car and found drugs.
Drugs were found, basis of the case. Or do you dispute that?"
Lying Logic™. The point of the court ruling and part of the point of the article is that finding the drugs was irrelevant. The cop should not have stopped the vehicle or searched it. The power of police is provided by the law and is thus limited by the law (or, at least, it should be).
Your username is offensive and "flag for abuse" worthy.
...libtard morons...
Do you care to have your comment taken seriously, or is this just pure malice?
...Twitter/Facebook/Google etc censoring of conservatives...
I'm not familiar, but are you saying that these platforms used "conservative" users (not even comments, but users) as the sole criteria for removing comments? If not, what criteria was used?
...<seething>...
There are way too many people, it seems, who are actively AT WAR with something or other. Every objection results in 'war responses' like a sponge soaked in violent thinking in all its forms.
On the post: Wireless Carriers, Hardware Companies Use Flimsy IOT Security To Justify Attacks On Right To Repair Laws
Re: And yet...
I don't understand the need for an insult, here... I like the idea of a driverless car (I am biased though: I sometimes don't like driving) so as long as I am ultimately in control. Your comment is worthless, as is, but I suspect that in the existing climate, driverless cars will be executed in an irresponsible manner and be hostile to consumers in some way(s).
Please defend this statement.
On the post: Game Studio Found To Install Malware DRM On Customers' Machines, Defends Itself, Then Apologizes
Re: You would think that, but no
On the post: Game Studio Found To Install Malware DRM On Customers' Machines, Defends Itself, Then Apologizes
Re:
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
However, our (American) media is not so innocent, IMO. The main problem isn't how overt media violence is, but how media often smooths over social reaction to violence (not just physical violence). Media treats the roots of violence in an irresponsibly casual manner. In defense, media cannot cause violence on its own. Media does act as a filter and cultivator of violence, but only at the bidding of a dominate aspect of society itself.
A society cannot cultivate violence narrowly or in a controlled way. If violence is cultivated at all, it will ultimately be impossible to contain. Fetishizing the tools of violence provides an excellent negative contribution.
On the post: Research Paper Links Police Unions To Increased Officer Misconduct
This reads like the anti-sovereign rules in international trade agreements.
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No magic wand necessary
Sorry, that was me.
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No magic wand necessary
If 'Rich Kulawiec' is correct then "the way Facebook operate(s)" is, in part, due to the poor and unprofessional build up of their service.
Facebook is big, powerful, famous, rich and therefore "successful". Unfortunately, the popular modern use of the successful tag often includes only the illusion of merit. Mr. Kulawiec seems to be suggesting that the building of Facebook was reckless and/or careless. Too many of us religiously exalt 'big things' with little concern with how or why. The ends justify the means, right?
...Anyway. Must we reject ideas 100% or embrace them 100%? Can't we wrestle with the pieces?
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
Re: Re: too glib
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
Re: Re:
On the post: NSA Exploit Now Powering Cryptocurrency Mining Malware
Re: Re: Re: Re: conscious drilling
A specific government is a construct.
One should not "blame the <type of> construct not the person". As we all know, a construct can be systemically corrupt.
Clear(er)?
On the post: NSA Exploit Now Powering Cryptocurrency Mining Malware
Re: Re: conscious drilling
To misquote Shakespeare, "All the world's a rhetorical weapon".
On the post: The Museum Of Art And Digital Entertainment Calls For Anti-Circumvention Exemptions To Be Extended To Online Game Archives
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is easily fixable
Are there humans that can live without music?
I'm thinking that reading books (or some equivalent) should be something we pressure each other to do.
At the very least playing sports is useful for providing exercise without resorting to otherwise pointless physical activity.
.
Anyway, entities should not be allowed to say, "Do it my way or not at all".
On the post: Activist Sues ICE For Its Unconstitutional Targeting Of Immigrants' First Amendment-Protected Activities
Saddened
I'm struck by how much of this seems frighteningly familiar. Instead of analysis, I'm struck by a thought:
Hopefully, one day people won't look back at this time and wonder how so many people permitted some tragic event(s) to occur.
.
.
.
P.S. - Solution: ban religion /s
On the post: The Nunes Memo Has Effectively Destroyed Intelligence Oversight
Re: The Democrats part.
I'm hoping you're just some 12 year old, but if not...
This is a serious matter, not some republican vs democrat game of thrones. If you are 'team republican' or 'team trump' say that and be done. I think what your barely coherent comment is referring to is 'opposition research' on Trump first paid for by republicans during the primary then by democrats in the general. Which is mostly irrelevant.
What two sides are there? This is not a debate or a discussion. This is an investigation. For the FBI, right now, there are no sides and when that investigation is done there will be one side.
On the post: Court Shuts Down Trooper's Attempt To Portray New-ish Minivans With Imperfect Drivers As Justification For A Traffic Stop
Re: Re: Oi.
Wow is that wrong! A powerful and destructive myth.
On the post: Court Shuts Down Trooper's Attempt To Portray New-ish Minivans With Imperfect Drivers As Justification For A Traffic Stop
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
"Lawyerly", indeed.
Lying Logic™. The point of the court ruling and part of the point of the article is that finding the drugs was irrelevant. The cop should not have stopped the vehicle or searched it. The power of police is provided by the law and is thus limited by the law (or, at least, it should be).
On the post: Court Shuts Down Trooper's Attempt To Portray New-ish Minivans With Imperfect Drivers As Justification For A Traffic Stop
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
That kind of fishing and/or profiling is hostile to the concept and realities of freedom.
On the post: Court Shuts Down Trooper's Attempt To Portray New-ish Minivans With Imperfect Drivers As Justification For A Traffic Stop
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Is this "ignorance based 'reasoning'" or just trolling?
On the post: Blackburn Doubles Down On A Decade Of Lies As She Pushes Fake Net Neutrality Law
Re: Re: Re: Identifying the bad actors
On the post: Blackburn Doubles Down On A Decade Of Lies As She Pushes Fake Net Neutrality Law
Re:
Your username is offensive and "flag for abuse" worthy.
Do you care to have your comment taken seriously, or is this just pure malice?
I'm not familiar, but are you saying that these platforms used "conservative" users (not even comments, but users) as the sole criteria for removing comments? If not, what criteria was used?
There are way too many people, it seems, who are actively AT WAR with something or other. Every objection results in 'war responses' like a sponge soaked in violent thinking in all its forms.
Next >>