Hating someone (which doesn't really affect anyone but yourself) and inciting hate (where one act upon the hate to jeopardize another person's life) is different, just like people who thought of murdering and actually murdering someone is different.
Surely, you have freedom to think whatever you want, but idea have consequences, and thus you need to take responsibility of idea you vocalized/published. But certainly, there need to be a balance.
There is nothing that should be illegal about inciting hate. Inciting violence on the other hand (which appears to be what you really mean when you say "inciting hate") I can understand being made illegal. However, any such law needs to be carefully scrutinized.
According to Wikipedia Region Coding is DRM.
"DVD region codes are a DRM scheme. DVD video discs may be encoded with a region code restricting the area of the world in which they can be played."
And while you may consider Region Coding to be something other than DRM, in order for you to expect other people to agree with you, you will need to provide some reference that agrees with you.
Region Coding is for the purpose of controlling where you can consume a digital product that you bought based on the desires of the copyright holder. Since Digital Rights Management is about protecting the interests of the copyright holder, it sounds like the same thing to me.
When you exit the 1-meter radius the car locks the doors automatically. This system has been in use in high-end cars for years (called keyless entry) and works quite well.
My car has "keyless entry", but it doesn't lock when I exit the 1 meter radius of the car. For that matter it doesn't unlock until I take action to cause it to. "Keyless entry" as generally used by the automotive industry means that I can unlock that car without putting the key in the lock, not that the car unlocks just by me getting close enough to the car (although that would be one form of "keyless entry).
The U.S. equivalent goes around and if they find out that you play music that can be heard by the public, they harass you to get a license. If you claim that you don't need one, they will attempt to convince you that it isn't worth your time to fight them over it. I worked at a bookstore once where the owner put in a CD player and had us play CD's from the stock we "sold". We carried them for sale because that meant that we didn't need a license to play them. The stock we carried for sale was cheaper than the license (and we did sell a few, just not enough to justify the shelf space they took up).
The windows didn't "explode", they "shattered". I actually RTFA. And when you read the article, it appears that even the headline overstates it. In the article it twice refers to the broken windows. Once it says "...breaking her front window". The other time it says "Mythbusters told KCRA 3 they replaced a handful of broken windows."
According to the article lots of people were curious and wanted to know what was going on, but the only person who the article referred to who thought something was done wrong was someone who "was working at a local school". We don't know who this person was because the article gives their name, but doesn't say what they were doing at the school. Since their job title is not mentioned, it seems likely that they don't speak for the school. This means that those who do speak for the school apparently don't think there was anything wrong with what was done.
You are right that the headline is not accurate, since Canada doesn't have free speech.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"
There have been a couple studies of this. The results? Home schooled students were found to be better socialized than public schooled students ( http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html ). This is not the original source I had for this. I originally found reference to this in a non-homeschooling source. However the link I gave references a University of Florida PhD thesis (Which was published in 1992, that date would explain the paucity of references on the internet).
If you can provide more recent research indicating that this finding was wrong, please link it. I could not find anything.
That's definitely the best idea I've heard. Regulate the timings on traffic lights, specifically the minimum time a light stays yellow based on the maximum speed of the road.
It's not going to happen. Just because those backwoods Europeans have been doing just the same for decades, and everyone knows that they can't get anything right.
Actually it has happened, most states have laws regulating how long a traffic light must stay yellow. You know the interesting thing, many cities with redlight cameras are in violation of such laws.
So, exactly how does it help me when I get a ticket in the mail for running a red light? Ooh, I know, I can go to the light, time the yellow, then go to court and challenge the ticket. How much of my time does that take up? How much was that ticket again? Yeah, I'll just pay the ticket and move on, it's cheaper. My time has value, the value of the time it takes to challenge the ticket is greater than the amount of the ticket.
This reminds me of the two rules for voting I learned a long time ago. The first one I have mentioned on slashdot before: "When in doubt, vote the Ins, Out." The second one is: "When deciding between two candidates for public office, vote against the lawyer."
I have taken personality tests for several jobs that I applied for. I was not offered an interview at any of these jobs. I do not know if the test had anything to do with it. However, at one of them a friend of mine was offered a job. I know that he has no qualms about stealing from his employer. He has always had a justification for stealing from every employer that he worked for, but he passed the tests.
Additionally, I was a store manager for a company that decided to introduce personality tests into the hiring process. My boss as part of the roll out, had the existing employees take the test to give HR a baseline. All of the store managers but one failed. The one who passed was one they were trying to get rid of for poor performance. They did away with the tests shortly after they fired her for stealing from the company.
In response to your "bad form--better"
If embryonic stem cells are so much better why are there not yet any treatments that use them and yet there are multiple treatments using adult stem cells?
I often see bias in news articles and blogs. However in this case I believe from the way that it was worded that this blogger would have written "introduced by a Republican in a state whose politics is dominated by Democrats....." if this bill had been introduced by a Republican in Massachusetts or other state that is overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats.
I could be mistaken and it is certainly something to watch for. I have seen many news articles that when referring to misdoings by a Republican always prominently refer to the party affiliation, but when those same sources refer to misdoings by a Democrat, one can search the article long and hard without discovering the party affiliation of the wrongdoer. But in this particular case, I would give the blogger the benefit of the doubt.
So you think that its ok when the police ignore the 4th Amendment? Much of the information that is disallowed is information that a court has ruled was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment.
You also think that people who have repeatedly been accused of crimes should go to jail, since that is another class of information that is often disallowed. Many people have a tendency to believe that if someone has been accused of a crime before, they are probably guilty of it this time.
Here's an example based on your line of thinking that would not work out for the best: A person is accused of murder. They have previously been accused of murder in the past, but had all cases dropped for some reason or another. The person actually committed a murder this time. Would you rather have the jury decide this person's fate based on the previous cases that had been dropped, or look at the facts presented for the latest case?
More importantly from the way most people think, the person in your example isn't guilty of this murder even though he may have been guilty of previous ones. However, jurors are more likely to convict him if they think that he got off on a technicality in previous cases.
The problem with this is that there is information that is NOT allowed to be used by the jury to make a decision. Some of that information is evidence that was improperly obtained (e.g., no search warrant), some of it is information that is deemed prejudicial (e.g., previously charged with a crime). This is information that it has been decided by the legal system over the years would interfere with the defendant receiving a fair trial.
No, it's not even close. "Speeding" is driving faster than a number written at the side of the road by people sitting in offices 300 miles away
Sorry, buy you aren't correct. The number on the sign is simply the decided maximum safe speed under ideal conditions.
I am sorry, while that is the theory, all Interstate Highways in the U.S. are designed to be safe for any personal passenger vehicle (this means that a bus or a truck may not meet the handling criteria, but everything else legal on the highway does)driven by the least physically capable driver at 70 mph. That is, any person who is physically legal to drive who is mentally alert and paying attention can safely drive any personal vehicle that is legal on the highway at 70 mph under normal conditions.
Actually the most dangerous behavior I notice when it suddenly rains or snows is not people still going full speed, it is people using their brakes too much. If you are driving and something occurs which suddenly increases the slipperiness of the road the safest thing to do is to take your foot off the accelerator and let your car gradually slow down. Hitting your brakes is the worst thing you can do in that situation, yet that is a reaction I see all the time when roads get slippery.
I have a real simple answer when a salesperson asks me to buy an extended warranty: "Are you telling me I'm making a mistake buying this product?"
If the extended warranty is a good expenditure for the customer, than the actual purchase is a bad expenditure for the customer. Buying a particular product is betting that it is a well made product, buying an extended warranty is betting that it is a poorly made product.
At the time the Constitution was written, the militia was all able bodied men. So, the militia having a right was the same as all able bodied men having that right. However, you have a point, because I am pretty sure that the people who wrote the Constitution would not have wanted to imply that women didn't have the right to bear arms (even if they thought that the majority would not choose to do so most of the time).
It is real easy. Star Wars (any of the movies) is Sci Fi, Star Trek (the original television series) was SF. The difference: there is no sound in a vacuum.
Your signature has absolutely no truth to it whatsoever. Its highly opinionated and stands to spread right-winged propaganda. When will you get it, change starts with the individual.
I don't think the word "opinionated" means what you think it means. I actually checked the ratings...and low and behold, FOX News channel was the third highest rated cable channel in February of 2009. I couldn't find where CNN and MSNBC fell, but according to what I did find it was much lower.
So, the OP signature was fact, not opinion. You may think it is inappropriate to spread that fact, but it is not opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh* yet another person who thinks you can only be a good, moral person if you believe in god.
No, the question is: if there is no god, why should I be a good, moral person?
Hating someone (which doesn't really affect anyone but yourself) and inciting hate (where one act upon the hate to jeopardize another person's life) is different, just like people who thought of murdering and actually murdering someone is different.
Surely, you have freedom to think whatever you want, but idea have consequences, and thus you need to take responsibility of idea you vocalized/published. But certainly, there need to be a balance.
There is nothing that should be illegal about inciting hate. Inciting violence on the other hand (which appears to be what you really mean when you say "inciting hate") I can understand being made illegal. However, any such law needs to be carefully scrutinized.
According to Wikipedia Region Coding is DRM.
"DVD region codes are a DRM scheme. DVD video discs may be encoded with a region code restricting the area of the world in which they can be played." And while you may consider Region Coding to be something other than DRM, in order for you to expect other people to agree with you, you will need to provide some reference that agrees with you.
Region Coding is for the purpose of controlling where you can consume a digital product that you bought based on the desires of the copyright holder. Since Digital Rights Management is about protecting the interests of the copyright holder, it sounds like the same thing to me.
When you exit the 1-meter radius the car locks the doors automatically. This system has been in use in high-end cars for years (called keyless entry) and works quite well.
My car has "keyless entry", but it doesn't lock when I exit the 1 meter radius of the car. For that matter it doesn't unlock until I take action to cause it to. "Keyless entry" as generally used by the automotive industry means that I can unlock that car without putting the key in the lock, not that the car unlocks just by me getting close enough to the car (although that would be one form of "keyless entry).
Right, since they can't fix, why bother, just dig the hole deeper.
The U.S. equivalent goes around and if they find out that you play music that can be heard by the public, they harass you to get a license. If you claim that you don't need one, they will attempt to convince you that it isn't worth your time to fight them over it. I worked at a bookstore once where the owner put in a CD player and had us play CD's from the stock we "sold". We carried them for sale because that meant that we didn't need a license to play them. The stock we carried for sale was cheaper than the license (and we did sell a few, just not enough to justify the shelf space they took up).
It was far enough to be safe, no one got hurt.
The windows didn't "explode", they "shattered". I actually RTFA. And when you read the article, it appears that even the headline overstates it. In the article it twice refers to the broken windows. Once it says "...breaking her front window". The other time it says "Mythbusters told KCRA 3 they replaced a handful of broken windows."
According to the article lots of people were curious and wanted to know what was going on, but the only person who the article referred to who thought something was done wrong was someone who "was working at a local school". We don't know who this person was because the article gives their name, but doesn't say what they were doing at the school. Since their job title is not mentioned, it seems likely that they don't speak for the school. This means that those who do speak for the school apparently don't think there was anything wrong with what was done.
You are right that the headline is not accurate, since Canada doesn't have free speech.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"
There have been a couple studies of this. The results? Home schooled students were found to be better socialized than public schooled students ( http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html ). This is not the original source I had for this. I originally found reference to this in a non-homeschooling source. However the link I gave references a University of Florida PhD thesis (Which was published in 1992, that date would explain the paucity of references on the internet).
If you can provide more recent research indicating that this finding was wrong, please link it. I could not find anything.
That's definitely the best idea I've heard. Regulate the timings on traffic lights, specifically the minimum time a light stays yellow based on the maximum speed of the road.
It's not going to happen. Just because those backwoods Europeans have been doing just the same for decades, and everyone knows that they can't get anything right.
Actually it has happened, most states have laws regulating how long a traffic light must stay yellow. You know the interesting thing, many cities with redlight cameras are in violation of such laws.
So, exactly how does it help me when I get a ticket in the mail for running a red light? Ooh, I know, I can go to the light, time the yellow, then go to court and challenge the ticket. How much of my time does that take up? How much was that ticket again? Yeah, I'll just pay the ticket and move on, it's cheaper. My time has value, the value of the time it takes to challenge the ticket is greater than the amount of the ticket.
This reminds me of the two rules for voting I learned a long time ago. The first one I have mentioned on slashdot before: "When in doubt, vote the Ins, Out." The second one is: "When deciding between two candidates for public office, vote against the lawyer."
I have taken personality tests for several jobs that I applied for. I was not offered an interview at any of these jobs. I do not know if the test had anything to do with it. However, at one of them a friend of mine was offered a job. I know that he has no qualms about stealing from his employer. He has always had a justification for stealing from every employer that he worked for, but he passed the tests.
Additionally, I was a store manager for a company that decided to introduce personality tests into the hiring process. My boss as part of the roll out, had the existing employees take the test to give HR a baseline. All of the store managers but one failed. The one who passed was one they were trying to get rid of for poor performance. They did away with the tests shortly after they fired her for stealing from the company.
In response to your "bad form--better" If embryonic stem cells are so much better why are there not yet any treatments that use them and yet there are multiple treatments using adult stem cells?
I often see bias in news articles and blogs. However in this case I believe from the way that it was worded that this blogger would have written "introduced by a Republican in a state whose politics is dominated by Democrats....." if this bill had been introduced by a Republican in Massachusetts or other state that is overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats.
I could be mistaken and it is certainly something to watch for. I have seen many news articles that when referring to misdoings by a Republican always prominently refer to the party affiliation, but when those same sources refer to misdoings by a Democrat, one can search the article long and hard without discovering the party affiliation of the wrongdoer. But in this particular case, I would give the blogger the benefit of the doubt.
So, I take it you don't believe in any specific pre-Renaissance persons?
So you think that its ok when the police ignore the 4th Amendment? Much of the information that is disallowed is information that a court has ruled was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment.
You also think that people who have repeatedly been accused of crimes should go to jail, since that is another class of information that is often disallowed. Many people have a tendency to believe that if someone has been accused of a crime before, they are probably guilty of it this time.
Here's an example based on your line of thinking that would not work out for the best: A person is accused of murder. They have previously been accused of murder in the past, but had all cases dropped for some reason or another. The person actually committed a murder this time. Would you rather have the jury decide this person's fate based on the previous cases that had been dropped, or look at the facts presented for the latest case?
More importantly from the way most people think, the person in your example isn't guilty of this murder even though he may have been guilty of previous ones. However, jurors are more likely to convict him if they think that he got off on a technicality in previous cases.
The problem with this is that there is information that is NOT allowed to be used by the jury to make a decision. Some of that information is evidence that was improperly obtained (e.g., no search warrant), some of it is information that is deemed prejudicial (e.g., previously charged with a crime). This is information that it has been decided by the legal system over the years would interfere with the defendant receiving a fair trial.
Sorry, buy you aren't correct. The number on the sign is simply the decided maximum safe speed under ideal conditions.
I am sorry, while that is the theory, all Interstate Highways in the U.S. are designed to be safe for any personal passenger vehicle (this means that a bus or a truck may not meet the handling criteria, but everything else legal on the highway does)driven by the least physically capable driver at 70 mph. That is, any person who is physically legal to drive who is mentally alert and paying attention can safely drive any personal vehicle that is legal on the highway at 70 mph under normal conditions.
Actually the most dangerous behavior I notice when it suddenly rains or snows is not people still going full speed, it is people using their brakes too much. If you are driving and something occurs which suddenly increases the slipperiness of the road the safest thing to do is to take your foot off the accelerator and let your car gradually slow down. Hitting your brakes is the worst thing you can do in that situation, yet that is a reaction I see all the time when roads get slippery.
I have a real simple answer when a salesperson asks me to buy an extended warranty: "Are you telling me I'm making a mistake buying this product?"
If the extended warranty is a good expenditure for the customer, than the actual purchase is a bad expenditure for the customer. Buying a particular product is betting that it is a well made product, buying an extended warranty is betting that it is a poorly made product.
At the time the Constitution was written, the militia was all able bodied men. So, the militia having a right was the same as all able bodied men having that right. However, you have a point, because I am pretty sure that the people who wrote the Constitution would not have wanted to imply that women didn't have the right to bear arms (even if they thought that the majority would not choose to do so most of the time).
It is real easy. Star Wars (any of the movies) is Sci Fi, Star Trek (the original television series) was SF. The difference: there is no sound in a vacuum.
Your signature has absolutely no truth to it whatsoever. Its highly opinionated and stands to spread right-winged propaganda. When will you get it, change starts with the individual.
I don't think the word "opinionated" means what you think it means. I actually checked the ratings...and low and behold, FOX News channel was the third highest rated cable channel in February of 2009. I couldn't find where CNN and MSNBC fell, but according to what I did find it was much lower.
So, the OP signature was fact, not opinion. You may think it is inappropriate to spread that fact, but it is not opinion.