It's a form of filtering, not censorship. Comments are filtered so if you choose you can only view the highly scored comments but that is your choice. Personally I read at -1 so I see all the comments, you can do the same. Everything is like that, you only have so much time so you read what is interesting to you and sometimes have to filter content some way. My mail program is set to put messages into different folders, often based on headers and some folders such as the spam one I hardly read, but it is there if I choose. Same with Slashdot, it is your choice whether to read all comments or let the crowd filter the comments so you can save some time.
Similar situation happened in Canada recently. Cops left and went and got a search warrant for the drugs while leaving a couple of cops guarding the doors. I believe in this case it was a grow-op and perhaps the cops were just being safe but it is simple to get a search warrant in cases like this and ensures legality in the search.
Or people do remember, vote for multiple different parties and the one that most people do not want gets a victory. Tyranny of the minority is perhaps worse then tyranny of the majority.
Wouldn't be so bad if the state nationalized them including taking everything the management owns. Instead they pay off all their debts and give them enough excess money that they can reward themselves with a large bonus then go on screwing their customers and sometimes the worlds economy. To big to fail should mean that they're broken up into small enough to fail units.
The mistake is to divide politics in 2 directions, left and right or liberal and conservative. You can have fiscally conservative, socially liberal people and the opposite so left vs right isn't clear cut. Then you also have the 2 directions of authoritarian vs libertarian. Either can be left or right. Currently almost all politicians are authoritarian. See http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 About political correct speech. Both sides play that card, here in Canada it is currently very politically incorrect to call the bitumen sands tar sands instead of oil sands even though bitumen has much in common with tar.
The right wing libertarians seem to think that only the better people should be allowed to discriminate, and government aren't the better people being servants of the rich. If you're rich or the owner of a business, then it's fine as those poor losers can always sue for equality. Stupid aristocracy worshipers who think they're better then others because they have a broader view of what makes an aristocrat.
Mental health issue makes it sound like they're defective whereas they're just at a different point on a natural spectrum. It would be like saying I have a physical health issue because I'm somewhat short or saying the same about my parents who were even shorter due to growing up in a war environment with food shortages. We're just at one end of a spectrum, not having physical health issues because we were born with a tendency to be short, amplified by food shortages in some our cases.
For Lasik it is as simple as going to the motor vehicle branch and taking a simple eye test. If your vision is good enough without corrective lenses then that restriction is removed. Gender is a bit more tricky but generally it should be as simple as pulling your pants down. You have testicles and/or penis or you don't. Of course that would be done in the privacy of a doctors office or such. In practice it is much more complex as sex seems to be a spectrum. Even amongst natural (as in no surgery) people there are a few where it is hard to define sex. Have a very large clitoris and vagina? Have a vagina and testicles? Even at birth these are hard to classify and current practice is if they have a vagina then everything that looks male is cut off.
You keep calling it a mental health issue yet from my understanding, it's usually just having their brain wired differently with the wiring being done in the womb by exposure to different hormones. There might be some who as an example, had parent[s] who really wanted a different gendered child and warped the kid but the ones I've known it has been the opposite which does cause mental issues as everyone wants to be accepted as themselves.
What makes you say that having none reproducing members of the family/clan/tribe to help the reproducing members raise their children is suicidal? I'm pretty sure there have been studies that show that species where some members reproduce and other members assist them is beneficial to the group and species.
According to the first amendment to the American Constitution there can not be a crime for someone practicing speech. The criminals are the members of Congress who, contrary to the Constitution they swore to uphold, passed a law limiting speech. If they wanted to,make some types of speech illegal, they should have amended the Constitution to allow some types of speech to be illegal.
Actually the copyright clause in the American Constitution is almost an exact copy of Queen Annes statute, the original copyright law. Changes included rewording "to advance learning" to "for the advancement of the sciences and arts", making charts and maps copyrightable, copies going to the library of congress instead of Oxford and Cambridge universities and adding patents. Even the term of copyright was the same. No censorship though previous laws giving book publishers monopolies may have been used for censorship. The interesting part of how the original law was created was that even then the popularly elected House of Commons wanted to,make it unlimited in time and it was the unelected House of Lords that insisted on limited terms so publications would go to the public domain and the reasoning, "advancing learning". The other interesting part is even then the publishers were trying to argue they were "doing it for the authours" and it was as much bullshit as it is now.
I understand it wasn't so much digital fear but fear of their (later) music, which was meant to be heard in its entirety, being cut into singles and sold that way.
1) Copyrights are supposed to encourage the creator to create more work. As soon as the creator is dead, the chances of her/him creating more work are somewhat diminished. At most a copyright period should be for N years or natural death of the creator, whichever comes first.
I've heard of cases of people writing their memoirs or biographies when dieing as a form of pension for their soon to be widow (perhaps with young children) so it is possible for copyright after death to encourage more work. Better just to have a reasonable short limit on all works. The original 14+14 seems reasonable, at the extreme the family would have close to 28 years to get their shit together and usually less.
In 2008 the people voted pretty strongly for change, transparency and such, sadly they didn't get that but that was what the people wanted. My country is the same, we have a government that promised transparency, the end to the abuses the previous government did and so on and they've also been a huge disappointment. Last election the third party almost got in, their leader died and the new leader immediately started changing the party into the other party as "it'll make us more electable"
Really the problem is energy. Given an unlimited (or close to) source of really cheap energy, everything else can be done. Water can be desalinized or otherwise cleaned, food can be grown in greenhouses or even mines and so on. The key to utopia is cheap endless energy and it is a lot easier putting solar energy stations in orbit then farms. Of course this would never happen as our whole system depends on scarcity to the point that artificial barriers are put up to ensure plentiful things stay scarce.
Freedom is always a balancing act with some freedoms that have to be given up. The best example is the freedom of what you can do with your fist. Another example is driving where you give up some freedoms such as which side of the road you drive on or whether to drive on the sidewalk in trade for some safety. The real problem is giving up freedoms for no or very little net gain and that is what has been happening with the terrorist bogeyman. Reasonable freedoms to surrender might include things like having open cockpit doors. Unreasonable is the communication history of everyone.
I remember as a kid when some unlucky kid had to go to the States and go to school there. They'd come back with horror stories about the lack of freedom and that pledge was at the top of the list as one of the signs of a repressive state. The amazing thing was the American propaganda was so good that Americans honestly believe[d] they were living in freedom as they were forced to pledge allegiance.
Good idea. Which ever Party is in power can pick questions that the other party will fail. I like asking whether it was Liberals or Conservatives that were considered OK to tar and feather during the American Revolution.
I mean, we can all have differing opinions on how to make things better going forward, left or right, but if you don't know who James Madison was you simply shouldn't have a say.
I'm not even American but even I know he was the madman who as President got Washington, including the White House, burned to the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a form of filtering, not censorship. Comments are filtered so if you choose you can only view the highly scored comments but that is your choice. Personally I read at -1 so I see all the comments, you can do the same.
Everything is like that, you only have so much time so you read what is interesting to you and sometimes have to filter content some way. My mail program is set to put messages into different folders, often based on headers and some folders such as the spam one I hardly read, but it is there if I choose. Same with Slashdot, it is your choice whether to read all comments or let the crowd filter the comments so you can save some time.
You've never seen someone waving the bill of rights around?
Similar situation happened in Canada recently. Cops left and went and got a search warrant for the drugs while leaving a couple of cops guarding the doors. I believe in this case it was a grow-op and perhaps the cops were just being safe but it is simple to get a search warrant in cases like this and ensures legality in the search.
Or people do remember, vote for multiple different parties and the one that most people do not want gets a victory. Tyranny of the minority is perhaps worse then tyranny of the majority.
Wouldn't be so bad if the state nationalized them including taking everything the management owns. Instead they pay off all their debts and give them enough excess money that they can reward themselves with a large bonus then go on screwing their customers and sometimes the worlds economy.
To big to fail should mean that they're broken up into small enough to fail units.
The mistake is to divide politics in 2 directions, left and right or liberal and conservative. You can have fiscally conservative, socially liberal people and the opposite so left vs right isn't clear cut. Then you also have the 2 directions of authoritarian vs libertarian. Either can be left or right. Currently almost all politicians are authoritarian. See http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
About political correct speech. Both sides play that card, here in Canada it is currently very politically incorrect to call the bitumen sands tar sands instead of oil sands even though bitumen has much in common with tar.
Depends on the mutilation. Piercings and tattoos are some examples of self-mutilation that are somewhat socially acceptable.
The right wing libertarians seem to think that only the better people should be allowed to discriminate, and government aren't the better people being servants of the rich. If you're rich or the owner of a business, then it's fine as those poor losers can always sue for equality. Stupid aristocracy worshipers who think they're better then others because they have a broader view of what makes an aristocrat.
on that note
Interesting, and if I hadn't posted that is how I would mod it.
Mental health issue makes it sound like they're defective whereas they're just at a different point on a natural spectrum. It would be like saying I have a physical health issue because I'm somewhat short or saying the same about my parents who were even shorter due to growing up in a war environment with food shortages. We're just at one end of a spectrum, not having physical health issues because we were born with a tendency to be short, amplified by food shortages in some our cases.
For Lasik it is as simple as going to the motor vehicle branch and taking a simple eye test. If your vision is good enough without corrective lenses then that restriction is removed. Gender is a bit more tricky but generally it should be as simple as pulling your pants down. You have testicles and/or penis or you don't. Of course that would be done in the privacy of a doctors office or such.
In practice it is much more complex as sex seems to be a spectrum. Even amongst natural (as in no surgery) people there are a few where it is hard to define sex. Have a very large clitoris and vagina? Have a vagina and testicles? Even at birth these are hard to classify and current practice is if they have a vagina then everything that looks male is cut off.
You keep calling it a mental health issue yet from my understanding, it's usually just having their brain wired differently with the wiring being done in the womb by exposure to different hormones.
There might be some who as an example, had parent[s] who really wanted a different gendered child and warped the kid but the ones I've known it has been the opposite which does cause mental issues as everyone wants to be accepted as themselves.
What makes you say that having none reproducing members of the family/clan/tribe to help the reproducing members raise their children is suicidal? I'm pretty sure there have been studies that show that species where some members reproduce and other members assist them is beneficial to the group and species.
According to the first amendment to the American Constitution there can not be a crime for someone practicing speech. The criminals are the members of Congress who, contrary to the Constitution they swore to uphold, passed a law limiting speech. ,make some types of speech illegal, they should have amended the Constitution to allow some types of speech to be illegal.
If they wanted to
Actually the copyright clause in the American Constitution is almost an exact copy of Queen Annes statute, the original copyright law. Changes included rewording "to advance learning" to "for the advancement of the sciences and arts", making charts and maps copyrightable, copies going to the library of congress instead of Oxford and Cambridge universities and adding patents. Even the term of copyright was the same. No censorship though previous laws giving book publishers monopolies may have been used for censorship. ,make it unlimited in time and it was the unelected House of Lords that insisted on limited terms so publications would go to the public domain and the reasoning, "advancing learning". The other interesting part is even then the publishers were trying to argue they were "doing it for the authours" and it was as much bullshit as it is now.
The interesting part of how the original law was created was that even then the popularly elected House of Commons wanted to
America can just do what it already does, pressure countries to sign on to the new terms through trade deals and such.
I understand it wasn't so much digital fear but fear of their (later) music, which was meant to be heard in its entirety, being cut into singles and sold that way.
1) Copyrights are supposed to encourage the creator to create more work. As soon as the creator is dead, the chances of her/him creating more work are somewhat diminished. At most a copyright period should be for N years or natural death of the creator, whichever comes first.
I've heard of cases of people writing their memoirs or biographies when dieing as a form of pension for their soon to be widow (perhaps with young children) so it is possible for copyright after death to encourage more work. Better just to have a reasonable short limit on all works. The original 14+14 seems reasonable, at the extreme the family would have close to 28 years to get their shit together and usually less.
In 2008 the people voted pretty strongly for change, transparency and such, sadly they didn't get that but that was what the people wanted. My country is the same, we have a government that promised transparency, the end to the abuses the previous government did and so on and they've also been a huge disappointment. Last election the third party almost got in, their leader died and the new leader immediately started changing the party into the other party as "it'll make us more electable"
Really the problem is energy. Given an unlimited (or close to) source of really cheap energy, everything else can be done. Water can be desalinized or otherwise cleaned, food can be grown in greenhouses or even mines and so on. The key to utopia is cheap endless energy and it is a lot easier putting solar energy stations in orbit then farms.
Of course this would never happen as our whole system depends on scarcity to the point that artificial barriers are put up to ensure plentiful things stay scarce.
Freedom is always a balancing act with some freedoms that have to be given up. The best example is the freedom of what you can do with your fist. Another example is driving where you give up some freedoms such as which side of the road you drive on or whether to drive on the sidewalk in trade for some safety.
The real problem is giving up freedoms for no or very little net gain and that is what has been happening with the terrorist bogeyman. Reasonable freedoms to surrender might include things like having open cockpit doors. Unreasonable is the communication history of everyone.
I remember as a kid when some unlucky kid had to go to the States and go to school there. They'd come back with horror stories about the lack of freedom and that pledge was at the top of the list as one of the signs of a repressive state. The amazing thing was the American propaganda was so good that Americans honestly believe[d] they were living in freedom as they were forced to pledge allegiance.
There was a reason that during the American Revolution tarring and feathering conservatives was quite acceptable.
Good idea. Which ever Party is in power can pick questions that the other party will fail. I like asking whether it was Liberals or Conservatives that were considered OK to tar and feather during the American Revolution.
I mean, we can all have differing opinions on how to make things better going forward, left or right, but if you don't know who James Madison was you simply shouldn't have a say.
I'm not even American but even I know he was the madman who as President got Washington, including the White House, burned to the ground.