×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet

ffreeloader Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (898 comments)

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.

more than 3 years ago
top

UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet

ffreeloader Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (898 comments)

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.

more than 3 years ago
top

UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet

ffreeloader Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (898 comments)

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.

more than 3 years ago
top

Hurricane Irene Prompts Unprecedented Evacuation of NYC

ffreeloader Re:subject (395 comments)

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.

more than 3 years ago
top

UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

ffreeloader Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... (403 comments)

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.

more than 3 years ago
top

UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

ffreeloader Re:China? (403 comments)

What a distorted view of reality. Just how long did it take to brainwash you into this line of reasoning?

more than 3 years ago
top

UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

ffreeloader Re:China? (403 comments)

[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.

more than 3 years ago
top

UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

ffreeloader Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... (403 comments)

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. .

more than 3 years ago
top

UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

ffreeloader Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... (403 comments)

Oh, please! Not this socialist twaddle again....

If you have such a poor understanding of human nature that you can't understand that making people dependent makes them weak, well, there isn't much hope for you recognizing truth when you see, or hear, it..

more than 3 years ago
top

UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

ffreeloader Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... (403 comments)

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.

more than 3 years ago
top

NYC Mayor Demands $600M Refund On Software Project

ffreeloader Re:Yeah (215 comments)

A few of those heads should roll right into jail, and the mayor should be demanding that too. The attitude that corruption should be dealt with casually is very destructive.

more than 3 years ago
top

Who Owns Your Social Identity?

ffreeloader Re:Usernames should never change (190 comments)

Mod the man up. He gets it. He understands what makes a society stable and friendly to its citizens.

more than 3 years ago
top

Easily Distracted People May Have 'Too Much Brain'

ffreeloader Re:great excuse (246 comments)

So, you do consider con games and planning to do you harm as friendly behavior. I have to say, you have the most warped definitions of friend and friendly I have ever seen. I guess you've never really had a friend, or have someone treat you in a friendly manner, in the true sense of the words.

more than 3 years ago
top

Easily Distracted People May Have 'Too Much Brain'

ffreeloader Re:great excuse (246 comments)

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.

more than 3 years ago
top

My present employer I think will survive ...

ffreeloader Re:Good wording. (225 comments)

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.

more than 3 years ago
top

Is Sugar Toxic?

ffreeloader Re:Sugar is not only toxic but it's addictive. (1017 comments)

[sarcasm]Yeah, one study is absolute proof.[/sarcasm]

Remember all the studies that said tobacco wasn't harmful? Remember all the studies on both sides of the caffiene/coffee issue? How about drinking alcohol? You can get studies that say it's good for you and studies that say it's bad for you. With the billions of dollars at stake here many of the studies are meaningless. It's no harder for the sugar and hfcs industries to fund "impartial studies" saying their products aren't harmful than it is for MS to fund studies bashing Linux and praising Windows. If you don't know that, you aren't nearly as well-read or smart as you think you are.

Watching child after child, grandkid after grandkid, and all my nieces and nephews act exactly the same way after I, or their parents, have fed them lots of sugar is no reason to think that sugar makes them act that way. NOT! Feed them fruits and veggies and they're not hyper. Feed them a balanced meal and they aren't hyper. Feed them candy bars and a drink with a high sugar content, or a big bowl of icecream, and they are running around screaming, fighting, and picking at each other a short time after eating. Feeding them sugar is like turning on the bad behavior switch and I've seen this in every kid I've ever been around.

Diet makes a lot of difference in most animals. Take a mule, for instance. Feed him too rich of food and he'll act up. He won't obey. He'll be ornery with whoever is handling/training/riding him. He'll make himself hard to catch. He'll spook at shadows or rocks on the trail. Change his diet so it isn't so rich, and his bad behavior goes away in a matter of days as he becomes trainable again. Change it back and his bad behavior returns. Many mule trainers have found this to be true. Are you going to say mules are brainwashed into thinking their diet affects their behavior too?

Diet for any animal, including human beings, makes a big difference in behavior, thought patterns, aggression, ability to concentrate, etc... as it affects how you feel physically. You are what you eat....

more than 3 years ago
top

Is Sugar Toxic?

ffreeloader Re:Sugar is not only toxic but it's addictive. (1017 comments)

[sarcasm]Yeah, the reason preschoolers get hyper when you feed them soda and candy is because they're brainwashed from watching so many TV documentaries, and reading so much media hype in health magazines, on the evils of sugar intake. [/sarcasm]

more than 3 years ago
top

California Library's Plan: Get Rid of Books

ffreeloader Re:With PDF and EPubs, it makes sense (197 comments)

I have a GBC that still works, it's well over 10 years old, they're cheap and well-known for being able to take a beating. Why can't the ebook reader be built like one of those? Once circuit board with a strong, thick ABS plastic shell. I have other systems that have lasted over 20 years, but those were pampered compared to the GBC.

IP issues could be a real problem but are beside the point of an ebook reader's durability.

As for formats, that's no problem. Use something open, and unless all civilization is wiped out, you'll be able to read it in the future.

Ummm... We're talking local government entities when we talk libraries. There will be immense pressure, plus much other skullduggery behind the scenes, applied to keep the formats proprietary. Yes, I'd much rather see open formats too, but I don't think we would see that come to fruition. Since when has government done the logical, sensible things, rather than selling out? Seen all the negative publicity the tea parties get? And all they want to do is cut spending and put our country back on a sustainable economic path.

more than 3 years ago
top

California Library's Plan: Get Rid of Books

ffreeloader Re:With PDF and EPubs, it makes sense (197 comments)

Well, I will dispute this. I don't have single electronic item in my home that has lasted 10 years, and I don't abuse my possessions. You can bet the ereaders lent out to the general population will be badly abused. A 1 to 3 year life span, after being ruggedized, would be more like it, and that doesn't count take into account the failures that happen just because they are built by humans. I'd doubt a non-ruggedized ebook reader would last on average much more than 3 to 6 months.

You have also omitted the cost of the ebooks themselves and how the publishers will view the lending of their ebooks. I'll bet they would tack on a fairly steep per rental charge to the library, something which a book does not have. Plus, ebooks are fairly new and who knows where the file format will go, so depending on a decade lifespan for an ebook reader to figure costs is pretty iffy.

Outside of that you need to consider the reading habits of the general population. I know very few people in the general population who will choose an ebook over a paper book. I'm into technology, but I'll take a paper book over an ebook every time. Less eyestrain. Better tactile feel. Much easier to read in sunlight. Much longer lifespan.

I own books published back to the late 1800's. You're never going to get a digital file format to last that long.

more than 3 years ago
top

California Library's Plan: Get Rid of Books

ffreeloader Re:With PDF and EPubs, it makes sense (197 comments)

The average library throws out books fairly regularly, not because they are worn out, necessarily, but to create room for new books. And, they get rid of books by usage patterns, not by age. If newer books aren't read they get rid of them rather than popular older books.

As to the cost organizing books, well, once that's done the first time it's not the regular paid employees who do that work but high school and college students working at minimum wage, or thereabouts, or participating in work/study programs. That's how the libraries I've used have done that, and I've used the local libraries wherever I've lived quite a bit.

The local library where I live has a lot of books well above the 20 year old mark. Many of the authors of the books on the shelves have been dead for more than 30 years and they are read on a regular basis. Frederick Faust(Max Brand) died in 1944. Robert Hienlien died in 1988. Isaac Asimov died in 1992. Louis L'Amour died in 1988. All of these guys have books on public library shelves written decades before they died. They are just some of the more famous authors whose decades old books are still to be found in the public library.

more than 3 years ago

Submissions

top

How did JFK get it wrong?

ffreeloader ffreeloader writes  |  more than 5 years ago

ffreeloader (1105115) writes "JFK, in his inaugural address, made some very important assertions:

1. "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage — and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

2. "Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. "

3. "So let us begin anew — remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof."

4. "In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are — but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" — a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."

Our current President governs from what is almost a completely opposite point of view. His mantra is not to ask what you can do for your country, but how much you can ask for from your country. He pushes a sense of entitlement, as does the entire political left, which is exactly the opposite of JFK's theme. So, how and why was JFK wrong about so many things? To the Democratic party today his inaugural speech would have been heresy. The rights of man coming from God and not the government? Asking people to serve rather than to be served by their government? Understanding that we dare not tempt our enemies by showing weakness, political or military, and understanding that the cost of freedom requires both economic and personal sacrifice? How do these concepts fit into the liberal philosophy today? I can't see these concepts being put forward anywhere by the left."
Link to Original Source

Journals

top

John Adams not a Christian?

ffreeloader ffreeloader writes  |  more than 4 years ago

I recently watched a History Channel program called Ancient Aliens in which it was alleged, without any proof, that John Adams thought Christianity was "dangerous" to government and education. As a rebuttal to such an assertion I post the following proclamation made by John Adams in 1798 during his term as President. Anyone can verify the authenticity of this quotation taken from an Ebook titled "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents Section 2 (of 4) of Volume 1: John Adams" as published in the Gutenberg Project.

PROCLAMATIONS.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.

As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety without which social happiness can not exist nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed; and as this duty, at all times incumbent, is so especially in seasons of difficulty or of danger, when existing or threatening calamities, the just judgments of God against prevalent iniquity, are a loud call to repentance and reformation; and as the United States of America are at present placed in a hazardous and afflictive situation by the unfriendly disposition, conduct, and demands of a foreign power, evinced by repeated refusals to receive our messengers of reconciliation and peace, by depredations on our commerce, and the infliction of injuries on very many of our fellow-citizens while engaged in their lawful business on the seasâ"under these considerations it has appeared to me that the duty of imploring the mercy and benediction of Heaven on our country demands at this time a special attention from its inhabitants.

I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recommend, that Wednesday, the 9th day of May next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens of these States, abstaining on that day from their customary worldly occupations, offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies agreeably to those forms or methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming; that all religious congregations do, with the deepest humility, acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction; that it be made the subject of particular and earnest supplication that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it; that our civil and religious privileges may be preserved inviolate and perpetuated to the latest generations; that our public councils and magistrates may be especially enlightened and directed at this critical period; that the American people may be united in those bonds of amity and mutual confidence and inspired with that vigor and fortitude by which they have in times past been so highly distinguished and by which they have obtained such invaluable advantages; that the health of the inhabitants of our land may be preserved, and their agriculture, commerce, fisheries, arts, and manufactures be blessed and prospered; that the principles of genuine piety and sound morality may influence the minds and govern the lives of every description of our citizens, and that the blessings of peace, freedom, and pure religion may be speedily extended to all the nations of the earth.

And finally, I recommend that on the said day the duties of humiliation and prayer be accompanied by fervent thanksgiving to the Bestower of Every Good Gift, not only for His having hitherto protected and preserved the people of these United States in the independent enjoyment of their religious and civil freedom, but also for having prospered them in a wonderful progress of population, and for conferring on them many and great favors conducive to the happiness and prosperity of a nation.

[SEAL.]

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States of America, at Philadelphia, this 23d day of March, A.D. 1798, and of the Independence of the said States the twenty-second.

JOHN ADAMS.

top

What did our nation's founders believe?

ffreeloader ffreeloader writes  |  more than 4 years ago

I have become more and more interested lately in exactly what the founders of our Constitution would have thought of where our country has gone, and is going. In response to that interest I am currently reading the the Federalist Papers, and when finished with them will read the Anti-Federalist Papers.

While reading today I found the following quote from Alexander Hamilton in the 6th paper titled: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States.

The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.

This is a clear indication of how our founding fathers viewed heavy loads of debt and taxes. They saw both as destructive to the nations which burdened themselves with high debt loads and the resulting high levels of taxation. They clearly linked high debt loads and the resulting high taxes with eating away a nation's economic, military, and political power. This raises the following question: How would our founding fathers see our national debt and the continuing increasing rates of deficit spending today? I think it's clearly evident they would see it as destructive to the US.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?