My favorite are the ones that loads and displays all the content, and then after about a second second blanks the page and pops up a dialog about how my browser doesn't support javascript and this page absolutely needs javascript to function...
Do you honestly think that an effective counter argument?
No, of course not. But it sort of baffles me how Americans (or the entire English-speaking part of the world?) do not differentiate between wrong and illegal, and I wonder what would happen if I accepted that an act was illegal but did not agree that it was wrong. Would it be important to my questioners that I say that I did something "wrong" (rather than just illegal)? Would the they even understand the difference?
I would certainly never leave instructions for my own killing under any circumstances, because I know how quickly I can change my mind.
So don't then. But why must you also forbid me, who would and am prepared to take the consequences if I turn out to be wrong, from deciding this for myself? (Also, if you change your mind later then you should be allowed to change your instructions. Of course. Something like this should not be a once-and-then-cannot-be-changed-ever decision.)
Agree that torture is a ridiculous word to use in this case, especially for somebody with no ability to communicate.
It is actually quite possible for normal people to discern if others are suffering, through methods like observation, empathy and introspection, even if the subject cannot speak.
Everyone says that all the time, dude. But for some reason the Chinese never seem to actually use this stranglehold they have the US in, even a little.
Also, all those movies where the criminals ask the undercover cop "are you a cop" - in the belief that cops aren't allowed to lie - before they tell him all their secrets would finally be justified.
Many prescription drugs are legal, but there is still a thriving black market for them. Why would heroine be any different?
Uh, isn't that because they are prescription drugs? I.e. you can't get them without a prescription. So if you want them without one, the black market is the only way.
You *can* yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The first amendment does not discriminate about what speech is free and what isn't. It is all free. However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others,
How contrived. I don't endanger anyone. The people who trample others do, and I am not in charge of them. If someone yells fire in a theater, and there is reason to believe that there is a fire, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. Help children and the elderly. Most importantly: do not trample others.
But the point is, why is it so very, very important for Microsoft and Mozilla and the like to remove functionality? Why can't we have both a start menu *and* search?
If you know the names of your seldom-used programs, sure... (Also, really, so searching by typing is the new big thing instead of menus? Like the UNIX command line in the 90's...)
Because it costs a lot of money to do all of this instead of the prosecutor picking up the phone and asking for J. Assange. Also - and this is of course a personal preference - it would be good for the Swedish judicial system to tone down the "prestige" and the we-own-you-peons attitude, in general. This case would a good place to start.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite are the ones that loads and displays all the content, and then after about a second second blanks the page and pops up a dialog about how my browser doesn't support javascript and this page absolutely needs javascript to function...
Why must senior researchers have "tenure"? Why is it important that they can't be sacked if the university no longer wants to keep them on?
Do you honestly think that an effective counter argument?
No, of course not. But it sort of baffles me how Americans (or the entire English-speaking part of the world?) do not differentiate between wrong and illegal, and I wonder what would happen if I accepted that an act was illegal but did not agree that it was wrong. Would it be important to my questioners that I say that I did something "wrong" (rather than just illegal)? Would the they even understand the difference?
Careful. The legal definition of insanity is in place to prevent people from exploiting the definition to get away with crimes.
The definition is largely "do you know that what you did was wrong."...
"Well, not wrong. Illegal, sure, but not wrong in any moral sense."
Now what?
I would certainly never leave instructions for my own killing under any circumstances, because I know how quickly I can change my mind.
So don't then. But why must you also forbid me, who would and am prepared to take the consequences if I turn out to be wrong, from deciding this for myself? (Also, if you change your mind later then you should be allowed to change your instructions. Of course. Something like this should not be a once-and-then-cannot-be-changed-ever decision.)
Agree that torture is a ridiculous word to use in this case, especially for somebody with no ability to communicate.
It is actually quite possible for normal people to discern if others are suffering, through methods like observation, empathy and introspection, even if the subject cannot speak.
Are there pain medication that alleviates the symptoms and suffering of hunger and (especially) thirst?
Nobody wants to say it
Everyone says that all the time, dude. But for some reason the Chinese never seem to actually use this stranglehold they have the US in, even a little.
You're in luck then. With NSA and the constant attacks on freedom and rule of law, soon we will certainly live in DDR Online.
And suddenly the entire Boston, MA, police force will be undercover at all times. Your move, terrorists!
And if Renault goes out of business?
Impossible! And if that should happen anyway the tax payers of all of the Union Européenne will come to ze rescue.
People!
> Exactly. Like. XP.
Shut up and take my money!
Also, all those movies where the criminals ask the undercover cop "are you a cop" - in the belief that cops aren't allowed to lie - before they tell him all their secrets would finally be justified.
Many prescription drugs are legal, but there is still a thriving black market for them. Why would heroine be any different?
Uh, isn't that because they are prescription drugs? I.e. you can't get them without a prescription. So if you want them without one, the black market is the only way.
There has never been a direct death from Marijuana.
False. I remember reading about how someone got a bale of the stuff accidentally dropped on him, and got crushed.
Interesting. Thanks for posting this.
You *can* yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The first amendment does not discriminate about what speech is free and what isn't. It is all free. However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others,
How contrived. I don't endanger anyone. The people who trample others do, and I am not in charge of them. If someone yells fire in a theater, and there is reason to believe that there is a fire, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. Help children and the elderly. Most importantly: do not trample others.
you could replace key parts or even the entire UI if you wanted to.
Sounds illegal. Are you sure there isn't something in the license agreements that prohibits one from swapping parts like that?
That ...is a good question, actually.
But the point is, why is it so very, very important for Microsoft and Mozilla and the like to remove functionality? Why can't we have both a start menu *and* search?
> I hit the Win key and start typing
If you know the names of your seldom-used programs, sure... (Also, really, so searching by typing is the new big thing instead of menus? Like the UNIX command line in the 90's...)
Because it costs a lot of money to do all of this instead of the prosecutor picking up the phone and asking for J. Assange. Also - and this is of course a personal preference - it would be good for the Swedish judicial system to tone down the "prestige" and the we-own-you-peons attitude, in general. This case would a good place to start.
Well, I'd just answer, "Why don't you protect your own children, instead of outsourcing your parental responsibilities to the rest of society?"
"So you don't want to protect the children?! You monster!"
Dronestrike in 3, 2, 1...
We also remember that waterboarding is not torture.