"I think the point is that they were about to create a nationwide (global?) map of access points. This is different from seeing the unencrypted wireless traffic of my neighbors. And would we allow a government to collect and use that data?"
Can you give me some reasons please as to why that would be bad? I don't see it as any different as them creating Google Streetview, the only difference is there they used cameras to capture images, here they were recording where the access points were.
"There will be so exciting apps that turn the glasses into a direct video stream into some cloud with automatic face recognition attached."
Scared of face recognition? Then don't have any photos online that are tagged as such. I don't. I've been pretty careful to do just that. I have a Facebook account, but no photos that I am in, so it's not like Google could ask FB to share their recognition data.
When the Techdirt community reports a comment, it is hidden from view but still accessible to anyone. Techdirt staff and management do not get into legal trouble if someone views these comments.
These sites though in the UK...the ISPs have to go to some effort to block them, or face sanctions. While pointless (since you only need a proxy or VPN to view them anyway), if the judge sees that Blocked Site A can be viewed on ISP B, he'll go ballistic that they're violating his order.
What the judge is doing in the UK is censorship. The sites may still be there with all of their content, but the onus is placed on third parties to try and ensure no-one accesses them. Techdirt doesn't censor.
At which point, after explaing, (and linking back to comments) how you were being absurd (to say the least) you will dismiss all claims, only to return later, demand an answer to a question and spew forth the exact same bullshit.
Re: Well, Rapidshare, Depostfiles, and Mega are ORGANIZED,
Blue, answer this for me?
What does it take to convince you? You've been corrected here thousands of times, by many different people, and yet you still puke the same bullshit, like common law. At what point will you read someone's comment, go "Hmm...ya know what, you're actually right, you've presented convincing evidence, I guess I was wrong"?
"Wait, that's not the case. The sites aren't being censored. The sites still exist with all of their content."
Wait...so when you and your ilk scream at Techdirt for "censoring" your comments when they're reported...they're not in fact censored now? After all, the comments are still there, with all their content. They're not being deleted. Which is it?
Okay, so the legal writing says MP3. Quick solution...convert all audio tracks to OGG or some other format. If you want to have songs longer than 5 minutes, simply rerecord them at a faster speed, and then in your playback program, slow them down.
So you're complaining of how the Piratebay founders worked their way up the chain, going from court to court...just like any other person would have the right to? What is it about alleged copyright infringing sites and persons that means they don't get due process and should never see the inside of a court room?
I don't give a shit what the Bible says. It's contradictory to say the least, and yes, I have read it, cover to cover. I'm a real man, I'm able to make my own decisions, I don't blindly hate a group of people simply because a book near 2,000 years old says I'm supposed to.
Even if your book were right, read the fucking quote. "God gave them over to a reprobate mind" as in, it's God making gay men gay. If that's true, (and it must be according to you, it's in the BIBLE) then why should they be punished for merely doing God's will? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
No, you are a hateful person, one who has no real basis for his hatred, and merely points to a book because its convenient.
No, that would be if the topic of the applicant's homosexuality was discussed during the hiring interview. (Which quite frankly shouldn't be discussed at all).
It would be discrimination if you (unknowingly) had a homosexual employee, their partner were to hug them/kiss them chastely or otherwise make it known to you that said employee was gay, only for you to then fire the guy/girl. (Note, I'm not talking about making out, or having full blown sex in front of customers, I'm talking about a loving embrace that no-one would blink an eye at if it were a hetero couple).
"When I was very young, around 4-5, if I remember correctly."
So, at age 4/5, you were fully conscious of sexuality, of the act of sexual intercourse, and at that age, you decided, you said to yourself "I am going to have intercourse with women, and women only!".
You really knew at that age that your "peepee" was meant to go into the woman's "vajajay" and that was how you made babies?
"Last I checked, I'm not obligated to agree with, much less protect, homosexuality."
Actually, you kinda are. What if you're in a management position and one of your employees is homosexual? It would be illegal for you to discriminate against them, or refuse an applicant for the same reason.
"Given my interpretation of the editorial attitude 'round here, I'd hope not immediate legal threats).
I doubt you'd reply, but what do you mean by that? Techdirt doesn't fire off legal nastygrams just because someone in the comments links to something. Hell, I'm an insider and look at what I posted first thing here - I disagreed completely with the tone of the article. Where have you observed TD legally attacking someone just for holding, or in your case really, linking to a different opinion?
"There's nothing 'pro-human' about homosexuality."
Ah go on. Do fill us in. Write a yarn about how homosexual people are not in fact humans at all, but some sort of vile creature performing acts of perversion that (somehow) mean they cannot enjoy the same rights as hetero people. I dare you.
Sorry, poor choice of words. What I meant was that in the tone of this article, I'm siding with Nintendo. This article was making Nintendo out to be some huge anti-LGBT corporation. When quite frankly, I've not seen much evidence on the matter (about the only thing I can remember apart from this is they pulled an episode of Pokemon where James from Team Rocket was walking around with fake breasts, and that was back in the 90s).
Do I believe they should have kept in the option for gay marriage? Yes. However, I believe that this fix wasn't done out of maliciousness. As far as I can see, the game was originally programmed to allow only hetero marriage, a bug allowed males to get pregnant, and someone at Nintendo just patched that out without considering the implications.
"Parents shouldn't bubble-wrap their children, insulate them from the real world, giving them a naive, distorted outlook on life. Reality isn't always pretty."
But...that's precisely what you've been arguing FOR. You've been arguing against homosexual tolerance classes, i.e. you want to sweep the topic under the carpet, bubble-wrap the kids, insulate them from the real world and give them a naive, distorted outlook on life. By your logic, because a different race of humanity have practices different from yours, then kids shouldn't learn about them in school, nary a mention should be made.
So now you're saying that gay people cannot feel romantic love for those of the same sex? This right here is your problem. You're practically denying that they are human beings, by saying they're incapable of love.