"we are people whose corporate IT departments still love Internet Explorer because all the internal web-based corporate applications were designed 10 years ago to work on IE and nobody wants to devote the resources needed to confirm whether they work on any other platform, or to update them if they don't."
Ugh, I can certainly sympathize w/this. I use Chrome 90% of the time, but then I have to do some module task in Autotask or Quotewerks or some other LoB app and find that it's only stable in IE because the world doesn't make any sense and is a horrible place....
"Hey guys, can someone move over and let the Helmet get some air? I don't think he can breath under all these bodies."
Appreciated, but I don't mind in any way the community's response to this post. I actually LOVE it when the community shows their independence this way, rather than treating this site as an echo chamber. As others have mentioned, the community's ability to think on their own is something to laud, not to fight against.
That said, I've never found consensus particularly interesting either. I'd rather be correct than be agreed with....
Perhaps this is on me for not presenting the argument clearly, but please read this again:
"I mean, look, it sounds like Lars is doing everyone a favor here, but this is all equal parts insulting and business-dumb. I'd wager that most gamers that are diving into Steam's Early Access beta games probably have a firm understanding that these games are unfinished and quite possibly buggy. That was certainly the case when I got in early on Starbound, for instance. But that didn't stop me from gifting the game to my brother, because I'm a thinking human person who can determine for whom gifting the game would be appropriate. I certainly didn't need the game developer to tell me to simply not buy the game for anyone for Christmas."
The point isn't that this guy is dumb or wrong for being honest about the state of the game. The point is that there is no need to be insulting to fans by pretending like they are unable to determine for themselves for whom the game would be an appropriate gift. When I hear someone say, "Don't buy my product as a gift.", all I think is "Well fuck you very much, maybe I just won't buy it at all."
If you can't see the problem with the hardline approach, well....*Shrugs*
"Is telling someone you will kill their mother torture?"
Once? Probably not. As part of a larger ongoing theater you've set up to traumatize a victim? Again, yes, and obviously so....
"A submarine during WWII sank a Japanese troop transport ship, leaving many Japanese soldiers in the water. The CO surfaced the sub and then machine gunned the troops. In today's world, that would be a war crime."
I love these types of arguments, because they presuppose that society and humanity doesn't progress and that all standards old are valid standards today. Was machine-gunning Japanese sailors who posed no threat wrong? OF FUCKING COURSE IT WAS. WHY ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!?!?!?!?
"Maybe in your world that is how you work. But then again , I wouldnt invest in a business that after how many years of existence is dependent on Flattr."
I'll let you, Karl and Mike hammer out the NN stuff, since all three of you are far more qualified to discuss the topic than I, the guy who writes the post chiefly designed to make fun of people for a laugh...
...but dude, while I had and guess I still have a ton of respect for your business acumen, that quote above is apropos of nothing, isn't accurate with regards to Techdirt, and simply makes me glad that this forum isn't your silly reality TV show, though you seem to be behaving as though you think it is....
"I don't believe there is or should be a difference however evidence shows that the killing was in self defense."
People REALLY need to stop saying this. The entire point of the post is that our entire system is built on the idea that no evidence is valid evidence until it is put through an adversarial trial. You MIGHT mean to say that there isn't enough evidence to proceed to trial, but that isn't the same thing. What was released by the prosecutor was a naked evidence dump that has no context, not contests against it, and has gone through no adversarial process.
As far as the law is concerned, it's meaningless in terms of assigning guilt or innocence to anyone at all....
"Perhaps Michael Brown's family should have instilled in Michael that stealing a carton of cigarettes and then assaulting the store owner when the owner tried to stop him from leaving with the unpaid merchandise and then walking down the middle of a street, placing the lives of motorists at risk and refusing to listen to the commands of a police officer, then Michael Brown would not have lost his life."
Your comment suggests that these crimes are punishable by death at the hands of a policeman in the street. In which case you're a fucking idiot.
"Numerous witnesses (white and black) report that Michael Brown was charging toward the officer when he was shot 150 feet away from the vehicle."
This ignores the ENTIRE POST YOU'RE COMMENTING UPON. The process by which grand juries work almost all the time is commonly altered when a policeman is the one facing potential charges. What you're stating is evidence that should ONLY be presented at trial, not in a grand jury setting. Grand jury settings are a one-sided account by the prosecutor SOLELY of the reasons why an indictment SHOULD be handed down, not why one should NOT. If you'd read the post, you'd know this.
"With that kind of evidence from numerous eyewitnesses (and ballistics evidence consistent with that account), there is really no reason to go to trial. If you don't want to get shot, don't attack cops physically."
Interesting thought. So is it any person who charges at a cop that should be shot at 12 different times while the shooter gets not even a trial to determine the veracity of his claims or of the worthiness of the testimony and evidence? Or is it only people who weight 280+ lbs? Or only 280+ lbs black men under a certain age? Or maybe they have to have committed a crime recently?
Or might it JUST BE POSSIBLE that we expect police officers to be able to deal with criminals in a manner other than double-digit bullet-expenditures aimed at the head?
Re: School Shootings In The US Are NOT Incredibly Rare
That Wikipedia page is the EXACT statistics I've been debunking in three straight articles now, and you went ahead and cited them anyway.
As far as NZ not having any recorded school shooting deaths:
A. I don't believe that zero statistic and B. Ignoring the obvious population and internal topology of the two countries is great if you want to boast about New Zealand but otherwise incredibly pointless...