The extreme cases that you point to could be problematic, but typing is still mainly a matter of knowing where the keys are and being able to hit them quickly. I learnt to type by writing BASIC, which isn't exactly standard English either.
The type of language they use in IM conversations is an issue totally separate from the fact that kids learn to type faster when they regularly use IM.
Non-editable PDFs since when. PDFs have always been intended to be a read-only, final-document format. We geeks have tools to edit PDFs, but hardly anyone else does. Even a document carved in stone could be photographed, then OCRed and edited in a word processor. That doesn't stop it being the proverbial ultimate final document.
The only copies of the law that should be un-editable are those housed with in the government and of legal government record. No, it is obvious to everyone but you that finished government documents such as laws ought to be distributed to the public in a form that presents them as uneditable (PDF, paper booklet, brass plaque, TV broadcast...). In a representative democracy, the populace edits laws by voting, not by using software. We're living on Earth, not Wikipedia.
To claim distributed PDFs as some sort of secure method of distributing of laws is just so laughable, it is impossible to believe you are serious. That's because it's a straw man. I never said it was secure. At most, it is soft security. It's mostly a matter of professionalism, and of not actually encouraging people to play with finished documents. In the same way, I use ODF or RTF if I send my CV to a friend for suggestions for improvement, but I send it in PDF to employers.
The government is using plain text and ODF for documents that need to be edited (whether they are incoming or outgoing). They are using PDF for final documents that ought not to be edited, such as proclamations of laws.
This is all relevant only for "Working Office Document formats". For final presentation, they're using PDF. For web pages, they're using HTML 4 or XHTML with testing in Firefox 2 and IE6, plus later versions. What is it with this tradition of inaccurate summaries on Slashdot?
I wouldn't call it ironic, but it does raise the question of what they want to do with (largely) non-editable, finished documents. Surely PDF is more suitable than ODF for such purposes. They should either add PDF to their list of approved formats. If PDF is not free enough for them, they should have published this press release in ODF or plain text, in order to start on the right foot.
Yes, humour used to laugh away a massive current problem that requires awareness. You may have meant it innocently, but we have no obligation to give you the benefit of the doubt in the current political climate.
Again, this is summed up with two words: "tough shit". I'm not about to waste my money giving a platform to people with ideas I don't agree with. Why should I? This sounds like a rather extreme socialist idea to me. Yes, freedom usually does, to people who don't really believe in it.
[...] To be headline grabbing, censorship normally needs to [...] It doesn't necessarily have to [...] You seem to think you have contradicted me, but please note that "doesn't necessarily have to" does not contradict "normally needs to".
For instance, there were some charges recently that Verizon Wireless was censoring [...] Sure. If you make a good case for the idea that a company has censored people with the same crushing power as the state, I'm with you. But the point is that no one has successfully argued that Google failing to propagate a trademark-infringing advert is an example of this.
Additionally, if we are going to complain every time a platform is denied [...] it is worth questioning why we consider lack of money to be a valid reason to deny such a platform. Why would lack of money be an invalid reason to deny a platform?
From a freedom-of-speech perspective, the burden of proof is upon you to show why it is OK to silence people, not the other way round. You might as well say, "why would having the wrong ideas be an invalid reason to deny a platform?".
To clarify yet again, what I am pointing out is that freedom-of-speech concerns generally come up when something happens such as a government deciding that any statements against the Leader, in any medium, will lead to imprisonment. It doesn't generally come up when someone is denied one specific platform. Indeed, the fact is that the vast majority of platforms are denied to most of us all the time (I will probably never be on TV, never have an ad in a national paper or magazine, not talk on radio for more than a few seconds, or be the main commentator on any high-traffic website). But if we are going to start whining because a bunch of rich, murderous bastards are not allowed to spew their vile propaganda over one particular channel of the Internet unless they refrain from using others' trademarks (like anyone else using that channel), then why should we accept the denial of a platform to people with vital messages of public service who happen not to be quite so cashed up?
But you'd have to be really broke to not afford a website, since you can get a small one for $5/month now.
There are a couple of things wrong with that. One is that $5 a month is actually a not inconsiderable sum of money for millions of people. The second thing is that, sure, you can get yourself a website, or even a free MySpace page; a mediaeval peasant could stand in the village square and shout stuff, too. What is important to grasp is that this is as nothing compared to the persuading power of the multi-million-dollar communication budgets of States and corporations.
Indeed. It's technically "censorship" that I have to teach some kids English today, and not deliver a long political rant. But this is not something that usually raises "freedom of speech" concerns, or prompts jingoistic Anonymous Cowards to declare that such a thing couldn't happen in their fine US of A. To be headline grabbing, censorship normally needs to be state-sponsored. This is why I questioned the vocabulary used to condemn Google.
Additionally, if we are going to complain every time a platform is denied (with a fairly solid rationale) to a group with a message, it is worth questioning why we consider lack of money to be a valid reason to deny such a platform.
...the dissemination of what some deem to be "propaganda." (One's man's "truth" is another man's "propaganda.")
You seem to have missed the point. It's not that the ad was propaganda, it's that it was (I repeat) propaganda defending killing on a scale greater than that of the Rwandan genocide, at a time when convincing the US electorate of this makes a difference measurable in thousands of additional lives. In this sense, the effect of an organisation refusing to disseminate the propaganda is far more beneficial than harmful.
The comparison is clichéd of course, but let me put this side-to-side with the idea of a cinema in 1940 refusing to put Der Ewige Jude on their screen. You can say it is "one man's truth" all you want, but that is no comfort to the thousands of grieving families.
If an advert called for the assassination of a specific person, you would probably the same exception as everyone else: you would call the ad criminal and agree with not only the suppression of it but also the arrest of the people behind it. Don't try to imply that you make no exceptions for freedom of speech. (Not to mention the amusing implication that America makes no exception for freedom of speech!)
Note again that we are not talking about actual censorship by the authorities, but just a company enforcing its trademark policy, with us conjecturing that there was also an intent not to disseminate unethical material.
I'd also be quite interested in knowing specific instances in which NGOs'...
You can research it yourself.
...assuming the NGOs have the money to pay for the ad time.
It's also telling that although you like a broad definition of censorship, you don't count the censorship of the poor. Why is it OK to refuse to put out the progressive message of a large group that doesn't have a lot of money, but terrible to refuse to put out the murderous message of a group with bulging pockets? That's a fairly meaningless freedom of speech that you're defending.
If only there were real equality in public debate and propaganda. Then, I'd be happy seeing evil and murderous ideas promoted, because they'd be so easy to shoot down with the arrows of truth (if you'll pardon the poetic turn of phrase). However, that is not the world we are living in, so I'm afraid that I have no sympathy when racists' freedom of speech is violated when their spraypainted N-words are scrubbed away, or tobacco-companies' lies are banned, or Google upholds their trademark policy against a bunch of right-wingers trying to bring Uncle Sam's boot down a bit harder on the Iraqi face.
To deserve any further replies, you'll have to post non-anonymously.
The censorship of something is always worse than the thing which is being censored.
We're talking about propaganda that aims at the defence and continuation of a war of aggression that has already claimed many more lives than the Rwandan genocide and is still not over. Censorship of this is clearly not worse than the thing itself.
Furthermore, that's begging the question of whether Google's action is accurately described as "censorship" anyway. There are factors that contest that:
It's just a private organisation deciding what other organisations it deals with, not a state restricting what can be said.
Google indicated that it was a trademark issue, implying that they would have propagated the ads sans trademark violation.
One should also bear in mind that restrictions are the norm when it comes to political advertisements. For example, numerous NGOs have tried to broadcast TV adverts encouraging people to consume less, or not harm animals, and these have been forbidden by the authorities; whereas adverts telling people to consume more or to harm animals are fired out in their hundreds every day.
WinVista lacks a LOT of drivers (for fairly common hardware, too). If you have hardware that WinVista doesn't support, you're unhappy (see years of previous complaints about Linux).
WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP.
WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux).
Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps.
What part of that doesn't apply to Linux?
(You correctly mention Linux, but I'm just emphasising the point for Linuxers who bash Vista.)
I have no problem with eye candy. I have Compiz-Fusion installed, with all the trimmings. It works like a dream. I had to look hard for drivers for my printer-scanner, but I just put that down to Canon being lazy. Linux was hard to learn when I was so used to Windows, but it's OK now.
I dual boot with XP. If I could replace that with a gratis copy of Vista, I would.
I don't know why people are talking about this being Google showing its true colours. Google have always claimed that their motto is "don't be evil", and supporting a pro-democracy group over a militarist group is simply in line with that.
I want to see an anethetic/capiscum hot sauce. So you get a brief busrt of fiery goodness, then soothing numbness follows.
"Why yes, I will have my buffalo wings in the Icy Hot-n-blazin' sauce please!"
Such a thing almost exists. Chinese Sichuan pepper has a numbing effect, and it is often combined with chilli in Chinese cuisine. I have it all the time.
Australia is strange in reserving the word "pepper" for actual Piper nigrum.
In Finland, "pepper" translates to "pippuri" which is likewise reserved for Piper nigrum. Sweet peppers are called "paprika", and [hot] Capsicums are usually called "chili", or by the native name of the specific variant. Chili powder is often called "chilipippuri" though, but this is probably due to the association with black/white pepper.
The way you quoted me there makes it look like you think that your comment contradicts mine, but it doesn't. I was talking about Australia (and New Zealand too, come to think of it) being unusual in the way they use the word "pepper" in English. Finnish is rather irrelevant in this respect.
Thanks for the info, however. It confirms my other point, which was that English is not the only language to use words originally meaning old-world pepper to refer to new-world peppers too. (The word paprika comes from the Latin piper.)
Outside the US, capsicums and chillies aren't called "peppers".
Nonsense. Don't confuse Australia with "outside the US". Australia is strange in reserving the word "pepper" for actual Piper nigrum. The UK, for example, is just like the US in that "pepper" is used to refer to the fruit of the Capsicum genus native to Mexico. The hot varieties are called "chillis" or "chilli peppers", and the mild varieties are known as "green peppers", "yellow peppers" or "red peppers" according to their colour; the generic term is "sweet peppers". Piper nigrum is known as "black pepper" or "white pepper" according to its colour.
There is never any ambiguity even when a colour is not mentioned, as the word is used as a mass noun to refer to Piper nigrum and a count noun to refer to Capsicum, i.e. "I like pepper" means one thing and "I like peppers" means another.
The recycling of the word "pepper" is not even peculiar to English: the word for Capsicum is many languages is just a minor variation on the word for Piper nigrum. Here are the respective words for pepper, sweet peppers, and chilli in some languages. French: poivre, poivron, piment/chili. Spanish: pimienta, pimiento, chile/ají. Italian: pepe, peperone, peperoncino.
Strangely, Australians will use the word "peppers" to refer to Capsicum if they are roasted. I believe this is under foreign influence. They do, however, stubbornly make sure that pepper spray (containing capsaicin) is always referred to as "capsicum spray".
Aussies tend to think that their usage is more exact than UK/US usage, in that they do not extend the old-world term "pepper" to cover the new-world fruit, but what they usually don't realise is that to botanists "Capsicum" includes the fiery fruits which Aussies always call "chillis", and never "capsicum".
One final bit of trivia: Australians virtually always mispronounce it "capsicun", although they are rarely aware of it.
Really? How would user-pays work for national defense, for instance? Or general law enforcement? Or for healthcare, or for anything else? The same as for anything else: the rich would pay for protection, and others would be left out. No one (except for the more extremist pro-capitalists) is saying that this would be a good idea, only that it could be like this if society wanted it to be so.
The answer is usually to reboot in safe mode and scan from there. How safe is safe mode? I reboot into Linux and scan the Windows partition from there.
My point was only that there might be objections unrelated to one's own secret desires. These objections don't have to be valid.
If we begin to discuss specific objections, then apart from it being disgusting, one could also argue it was abuse, or likely to encourage species-hopping in pathogens. Moreover, killing and eating animals is not universally recognised as OK. I for one am vegetarian, as are many millions of Indians.
Why would you not accept homosexuality, unless you were terrified of your own homosexual inclinations? Why would you not accept zoophilia, unless you were terrified of your own inclinations towards barnyard fun?
I've refrained from profanity, racial/ethnic epitaphs and am 5'11" - how can I be ranked as troll?
I don't think that means what you think it means.
An epitaph is one thing. An epithet is another. In any case, what you really meant to say was probably insult.
Moreover, most troll legends have them human-sized or a bit larger. 5'11" is within range. You seem to be implying you are too tall. Maybe you were thinking of pixies.
Slashdot Mirror
The extreme cases that you point to could be problematic, but typing is still mainly a matter of knowing where the keys are and being able to hit them quickly. I learnt to type by writing BASIC, which isn't exactly standard English either.
The type of language they use in IM conversations is an issue totally separate from the fact that kids learn to type faster when they regularly use IM.
Are you joking?
The government is using plain text and ODF for documents that need to be edited (whether they are incoming or outgoing). They are using PDF for final documents that ought not to be edited, such as proclamations of laws.
OK, I've just RTFA.
This is all relevant only for "Working Office Document formats". For final presentation, they're using PDF. For web pages, they're using HTML 4 or XHTML with testing in Firefox 2 and IE6, plus later versions. What is it with this tradition of inaccurate summaries on Slashdot?
I wouldn't call it ironic, but it does raise the question of what they want to do with (largely) non-editable, finished documents. Surely PDF is more suitable than ODF for such purposes. They should either add PDF to their list of approved formats. If PDF is not free enough for them, they should have published this press release in ODF or plain text, in order to start on the right foot.
Ah yes, I remember them well. I had a Siena, then a Series 3, then a Series 5. My dad had one of those old Psion Organisers. Them were the days!
WTF? I moderated that "Funny". How did it come out as "Troll"?
Posting to undo my modding.
Yes, humour used to laugh away a massive current problem that requires awareness. You may have meant it innocently, but we have no obligation to give you the benefit of the doubt in the current political climate.
Yes, freedom usually does, to people who don't really believe in it.
From a freedom-of-speech perspective, the burden of proof is upon you to show why it is OK to silence people, not the other way round. You might as well say, "why would having the wrong ideas be an invalid reason to deny a platform?".
To clarify yet again, what I am pointing out is that freedom-of-speech concerns generally come up when something happens such as a government deciding that any statements against the Leader, in any medium, will lead to imprisonment. It doesn't generally come up when someone is denied one specific platform. Indeed, the fact is that the vast majority of platforms are denied to most of us all the time (I will probably never be on TV, never have an ad in a national paper or magazine, not talk on radio for more than a few seconds, or be the main commentator on any high-traffic website). But if we are going to start whining because a bunch of rich, murderous bastards are not allowed to spew their vile propaganda over one particular channel of the Internet unless they refrain from using others' trademarks (like anyone else using that channel), then why should we accept the denial of a platform to people with vital messages of public service who happen not to be quite so cashed up?
But you'd have to be really broke to not afford a website, since you can get a small one for $5/month now.There are a couple of things wrong with that. One is that $5 a month is actually a not inconsiderable sum of money for millions of people. The second thing is that, sure, you can get yourself a website, or even a free MySpace page; a mediaeval peasant could stand in the village square and shout stuff, too. What is important to grasp is that this is as nothing compared to the persuading power of the multi-million-dollar communication budgets of States and corporations.
Indeed. It's technically "censorship" that I have to teach some kids English today, and not deliver a long political rant. But this is not something that usually raises "freedom of speech" concerns, or prompts jingoistic Anonymous Cowards to declare that such a thing couldn't happen in their fine US of A. To be headline grabbing, censorship normally needs to be state-sponsored. This is why I questioned the vocabulary used to condemn Google.
Additionally, if we are going to complain every time a platform is denied (with a fairly solid rationale) to a group with a message, it is worth questioning why we consider lack of money to be a valid reason to deny such a platform.
...the dissemination of what some deem to be "propaganda." (One's man's "truth" is another man's "propaganda.")You seem to have missed the point. It's not that the ad was propaganda, it's that it was (I repeat) propaganda defending killing on a scale greater than that of the Rwandan genocide, at a time when convincing the US electorate of this makes a difference measurable in thousands of additional lives. In this sense, the effect of an organisation refusing to disseminate the propaganda is far more beneficial than harmful.
The comparison is clichéd of course, but let me put this side-to-side with the idea of a cinema in 1940 refusing to put Der Ewige Jude on their screen. You can say it is "one man's truth" all you want, but that is no comfort to the thousands of grieving families.
If an advert called for the assassination of a specific person, you would probably the same exception as everyone else: you would call the ad criminal and agree with not only the suppression of it but also the arrest of the people behind it. Don't try to imply that you make no exceptions for freedom of speech. (Not to mention the amusing implication that America makes no exception for freedom of speech!)
Note again that we are not talking about actual censorship by the authorities, but just a company enforcing its trademark policy, with us conjecturing that there was also an intent not to disseminate unethical material.
I'd also be quite interested in knowing specific instances in which NGOs'...You can research it yourself.
...assuming the NGOs have the money to pay for the ad time.It's also telling that although you like a broad definition of censorship, you don't count the censorship of the poor. Why is it OK to refuse to put out the progressive message of a large group that doesn't have a lot of money, but terrible to refuse to put out the murderous message of a group with bulging pockets? That's a fairly meaningless freedom of speech that you're defending.
If only there were real equality in public debate and propaganda. Then, I'd be happy seeing evil and murderous ideas promoted, because they'd be so easy to shoot down with the arrows of truth (if you'll pardon the poetic turn of phrase). However, that is not the world we are living in, so I'm afraid that I have no sympathy when racists' freedom of speech is violated when their spraypainted N-words are scrubbed away, or tobacco-companies' lies are banned, or Google upholds their trademark policy against a bunch of right-wingers trying to bring Uncle Sam's boot down a bit harder on the Iraqi face.
To deserve any further replies, you'll have to post non-anonymously.
The censorship of something is always worse than the thing which is being censored.
We're talking about propaganda that aims at the defence and continuation of a war of aggression that has already claimed many more lives than the Rwandan genocide and is still not over. Censorship of this is clearly not worse than the thing itself.
Furthermore, that's begging the question of whether Google's action is accurately described as "censorship" anyway. There are factors that contest that:
One should also bear in mind that restrictions are the norm when it comes to political advertisements. For example, numerous NGOs have tried to broadcast TV adverts encouraging people to consume less, or not harm animals, and these have been forbidden by the authorities; whereas adverts telling people to consume more or to harm animals are fired out in their hundreds every day.
WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP.
WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux).
Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps.
What part of that doesn't apply to Linux?
(You correctly mention Linux, but I'm just emphasising the point for Linuxers who bash Vista.)
I have no problem with eye candy. I have Compiz-Fusion installed, with all the trimmings. It works like a dream. I had to look hard for drivers for my printer-scanner, but I just put that down to Canon being lazy. Linux was hard to learn when I was so used to Windows, but it's OK now.
I dual boot with XP. If I could replace that with a gratis copy of Vista, I would.
I don't know why people are talking about this being Google showing its true colours. Google have always claimed that their motto is "don't be evil", and supporting a pro-democracy group over a militarist group is simply in line with that.
Read up on condoms. You'll find that they have also been made of lambskin and other materials. They are not necessarily high-tech.
"Why yes, I will have my buffalo wings in the Icy Hot-n-blazin' sauce please!"
Such a thing almost exists. Chinese Sichuan pepper has a numbing effect, and it is often combined with chilli in Chinese cuisine. I have it all the time.In Finland, "pepper" translates to "pippuri" which is likewise reserved for Piper nigrum. Sweet peppers are called "paprika", and [hot] Capsicums are usually called "chili", or by the native name of the specific variant. Chili powder is often called "chilipippuri" though, but this is probably due to the association with black/white pepper.
The way you quoted me there makes it look like you think that your comment contradicts mine, but it doesn't. I was talking about Australia (and New Zealand too, come to think of it) being unusual in the way they use the word "pepper" in English. Finnish is rather irrelevant in this respect.
Thanks for the info, however. It confirms my other point, which was that English is not the only language to use words originally meaning old-world pepper to refer to new-world peppers too. (The word paprika comes from the Latin piper.)
Nonsense. Don't confuse Australia with "outside the US". Australia is strange in reserving the word "pepper" for actual Piper nigrum. The UK, for example, is just like the US in that "pepper" is used to refer to the fruit of the Capsicum genus native to Mexico. The hot varieties are called "chillis" or "chilli peppers", and the mild varieties are known as "green peppers", "yellow peppers" or "red peppers" according to their colour; the generic term is "sweet peppers". Piper nigrum is known as "black pepper" or "white pepper" according to its colour.
There is never any ambiguity even when a colour is not mentioned, as the word is used as a mass noun to refer to Piper nigrum and a count noun to refer to Capsicum, i.e. "I like pepper" means one thing and "I like peppers" means another.
The recycling of the word "pepper" is not even peculiar to English: the word for Capsicum is many languages is just a minor variation on the word for Piper nigrum. Here are the respective words for pepper, sweet peppers, and chilli in some languages. French: poivre, poivron, piment/chili. Spanish: pimienta, pimiento, chile/ají. Italian: pepe, peperone, peperoncino.
Strangely, Australians will use the word "peppers" to refer to Capsicum if they are roasted. I believe this is under foreign influence. They do, however, stubbornly make sure that pepper spray (containing capsaicin) is always referred to as "capsicum spray".
Aussies tend to think that their usage is more exact than UK/US usage, in that they do not extend the old-world term "pepper" to cover the new-world fruit, but what they usually don't realise is that to botanists "Capsicum" includes the fiery fruits which Aussies always call "chillis", and never "capsicum".
One final bit of trivia: Australians virtually always mispronounce it "capsicun", although they are rarely aware of it.
— A Brit in Oz
How safe is safe mode? I reboot into Linux and scan the Windows partition from there.
My point was only that there might be objections unrelated to one's own secret desires. These objections don't have to be valid.
If we begin to discuss specific objections, then apart from it being disgusting, one could also argue it was abuse, or likely to encourage species-hopping in pathogens. Moreover, killing and eating animals is not universally recognised as OK. I for one am vegetarian, as are many millions of Indians.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
An epitaph is one thing. An epithet is another. In any case, what you really meant to say was probably insult .
Moreover, most troll legends have them human-sized or a bit larger. 5'11" is within range. You seem to be implying you are too tall. Maybe you were thinking of pixies.