Kind of like counting cards for single deck blackjack. It's illegal to be too smart.
Counting cards isn't actually illegal, at least anywhere I'm aware of. The casinos can ban you from coming back for it, or for any reason they like. I haven't heard of anyone being denied their winnings from counting cards, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does happen sometimes.
You are wrong on most of your arguments. Take the xray scanners at the airports. They "randomly" send people to get xrayed, doing them no good, yet, 95%+ just go along with it. They don't care how they work. They don't care how much damage those devices are causing or could be causing. They don't care that their risk of dying from the scanner is higher than from a terrorist blowing up the plane (based on government's own numbers!). They don't care....
So I say, do not overestimate people.
Or they just don't want to fight every single battle that comes along. Same reasons I don't picket a store that allows people with 11 items in the 10-or-fewer line.
No, I'm pretty sure that's exactly all there is to it. All packets are equal, and all ISPs are common carriers.
Traffic that should be given high priority includes VOIP, video conferencing, infrastructure interfaces (hospitals, fire stations, security companies, etc.), and anything else that requires a nearly live transmission (OnLive, for example).
Anything the network can ID as an attack, such as DDOS's, should be decreased in priority or dropped.
Could we actually get an article with some details, rather than an editorial about what the policy MIGHT contain?
Commenters here and at Huffington Post are seriously suggesting we have a second American Revolution because you didn't get everything you wanted on a Net Neturality policy change?
Jesus, get some perspective! I hope most of you realize that this is the first time Net Neturality is being tried in the US. At all. Anyone spending more than 5 minutes looking into Net Neutrality realize its a complex issue that can't be solved with "Don't discriminate." There are unintended consequences for any action they take.
You do realize that policies can be changed at a later date, right? They aren't written in stone. These policies make more sense than the alternative of doing nothing, and they make more sense than being heavy handed and creating more problems then they solve. If problems crop up, they can be dealt with.
Why do you think people will pay anything if they don't have to?
59,174 people (and counting) have so far paid a total of $419,914.75 (and growing), even though they didn't have to.
Maybe we aren't all pirates after all.
I heard a figure once during my local Public Radio pledge drive that there's a 6-1 ratio of people that regularly listen and don't contribute to those that do.
Of course, it doesn't really answer the question of if people were required to pay to listen, would that increase revenue or decrease it?
What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?
Who is "our"? The USA? I think the people living in the countries with potentially unstable leaders would absolutely want to know if high-level world leaders think their local president/general/despot is nutters. They probably are not getting that information from the local propaganda/media.
That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.
You're making the same mistake alot of people are that I've talked to about this. Wikileaks is not American. They operate on a worldwide scale. There are plenty of people worldwide who do want to know what is going on in the US and other governments.
Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.
Which documents are you referring to? Again, I've heard this complaint alot, but no one can point to which documents should not have been released. Even if some documents are mundane garbage, the whole philosophy of Wikileaks is that they do not make these sort of judgments as to what to release and what not to release. If someone leaks data to them, they release it in way that will get the most publicity. That's the deal, and that's why informants leak this data, because they can be sure whatever is sent to Wikileaks will get out.
Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?
Who are these people? What names? Again, these claims are commonly made without sourcing who specifically is being talked about. As to what crimes they committed, I can't speak to that without knowing who they are. As far as general policy, Wikileaks has on numerous occasions contacted the US government to try and get help with removing actually sensitive data, such as names and locations. The US government knew that Wikileaks was going to release these documents, and decided not to point out which names were sensitive. Why aren't you blaming them?
In addition to conditions above, curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots.
That part isn't really a concern, since he doesn't have to be in studio to do a live interview. And of course, a taped interview can be recorded anytime.
More seriously, there's a whole genre of humour about bad stuff happening to someone else. E.g., the so called Gallows Humour or Black Comedy.
Fair enough, and gallows humor can be pretty funny, but there's just something about prison rape jokes that really bother me. I think its because there are many people that genuinely believe prison rape is a justified form of punishment, and making jokes about it makes it sound like its just something to be endured, rather than actively prevented.
Totally agreed. Try applying those low standards to any other product.
Would you accept a television that switched itself off 12 times in 35 hours?
Etc.
Any other product category, you'd consider the product to be broken and return it.
I would be fine with it, if the T.V. I did buy was greatly superior in every way (except stability) to almost all other T.V.s available.
The problem for me isn't buggy games, but crap games in general. If a game is full of bugs, and I still have a better time with it than 90% of every other game out there, what does that say about the quality of the average video game? Or at least what a dumb-ass I am for buying crap games.:-)
I would rather harp on repeatedly poor design decisions, which can't and won't be patched out, rather than bugs that will, given time.
The only they could do was keep it from getting even worse with the stimulus money.
That's absolute bullshit. They could have closed the bankrupt TBTF institutions and prosecuted every single responsible individual under RICO, releasing non-violent pot heads to make room in the prisons for all the white collar thugs.
Instead the rest of the economy is being bled dry to prop them up and cover for their theft.
I've heard this a few times now, and I'm curious what you think would have happened if the US decided to shut down, or allow to fail, some of the largest banks in the world.
Do you honestly believe everything would have turned up roses, or are you just venting? We have examples both in the US and worldwide of what happens when a government allows it's major banks to fail, and its not pretty.
It's always more fun to watch someone destroy the creations than watch someone build them.
That does explain the amount of devoutly religious people in the world willing to kill for God and preaching celibacy. They're just trying to entertain God in the most efficient way possible.
But the patent office would have to require a WORKING prototype of whatever you're trying to patent.
The biggest problem is that the patent office will now accept patent applications for items that do not exist. This allows companies to block other inventors by having a patent filed prior to the inventor inventing the invention.
The problem with requiring a working prototype means the inventor also needs to fund the creation of a prototype. Otherwise whatever investors or companies he shows the product to can simply steal the idea and create it faster. Certainly contracts can attempt to prevent this, but I can think of a number of ways around any sort of NDA a company may have to sign.
Um, people *are* going to be forced to buy health insurance, per the Democrats' gift-to-the-private-health-care-industry-in-the-guise-of-health-care-reform plan.
Jeeze, the Dems can't win, can they? They're damned for trying to offer a public option for insurance as commie socialist freedom haters, and when the Republicans block it, they're damned for the only compromise they can get through, mandated private health insurance, as corporate whoring freedom haters.
Its funny how many people around here want to change the law to benefit themselves while demonizing others that are trying to do the same.
You expect writers of technical manuals to do public readings now to earn income? Or maybe software writers should offer to personally train users in their programs?
If copyright continues to exist, what are you losing, exactly? The people that are creating duplicatable works that they want to give away will continue to do so. The people that want to charge will continue to do so. If you take away copyright, you eliminate the later with no increase in the former.
That's a big part of it, certainly. To many intelligent people, intelligence seems to trump knowledge.
The other issue is that most people don't understand the science of psychology/psychiatry. Treatment and diagnosis is generally the opposite of physical based illnesses. If you have a broken bone, the doctor diagnoses and treats a broken bone. But ADD/ADHD, PTSD, etc. are a series of symptoms causing a negative impact on someone's life. The first line of treatment is to address these symptoms. After which, if the cause of the symptoms can be identified (often difficult) and treated (often more difficult), that is done.
The biggest problem with ADD/ADHD is that a cause can not usually be identified, and the person identifying the symptoms is almost always not the patient. A child often doesn't have enough experience or language to describe the problem. So the parents are relied upon to notice an issue. In this case, the study is suggesting that parents of younger children are comparing their younger children to older children in the same grade, and finding that their children are not as capable, thus needing treatment. It seems like a sensible study conclusion to me, when its backed up with data.
But yes, it doesn't mean ADD/ADHD is bunk and all the kids should not be given treatment. These drugs do often improve quality of life.
What's a "convicted criminal"?
This includes first-time MISDEMEANOR DUIs. In other words, a "convicted criminal" in the same sense as a first-time conviction for shoplifting candy bars.
In my honest opinion, this law is the real crime.
That's a pretty big leap. Stealing a candy bar isn't quite the same as risking the lives of everyone you encounter on the road. And then there's the argument "he wasn't THAT drunk." Come on. You don't need to drink. You don't need to drive after you drink. It's not that hard to just be responsible, and if you can't handle the responsibility, you don't get to drive without the lock.
People who use guns too irresponsibly don't get to keep guns. People who treat children too irresponsibly don't get to keep children. People who drive too irresponsibly don't get to drive. An interlock system is a way to allow people that need to drive the ability to do so while decreasing the likelihood of them killing someone.
Note, this isn't the only thing that came up. The AP mentions several more:
*snip*
All of which sound like pretty much what I've heard people complaining about for years now. Good to see the valid exemptions to the law are finally being updated to be somewhat logical.
One major ability that is missing is format shifting. That one is a biggie, and I doubt it'll be fixed anytime soon as long as MPAA/RIAA keeps its strength.
>>>Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public?
Never. The ultimate authority if the People, which is above all governments. When government seeks to censor photos or news articles, it flips that arrangement and becomes the Master while the people are demoted to children to be "cared for" and "protected." That's a reversion to pre-Enlightenment Middle Ages thinking.
Then my question to you would be: Why DO governments exist? I believe the answer is that governments exist, and their fundemental purpose is, to protect their citizens. So I could argue it is conceivably within the scope of government to protect innocents from riots and civil unrest. This includes censoring materials which would cause these actions.
I could argue the Rwandan genocide would not have happened if the government censored those individuals calling for violence before it got out of hand.
Well - I'm not an American so my point of view is based on what I read.
I'm glad you mentioned it. Despite the rhetoric, the US does, in fact, have more freedom of speech than most other Western democratic countries.
Having said that - your freedom ends where mine begins. I am in FAVOR of (some) hate-speech laws because most hate-speech IS racism and racism SHOULD be illegal. Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you. It ends before you can intrude on my right.
Nobody has the right not to be offended, but you damn sure have the right not be a victim of racist behavior INCLUDING slurs.
Incorrect, at least in the US. You have the freedom to call people racist slurs all you like.
AFAIK (and other Americans can correct me if I'm wrong), there are only a very few things in the US that are illegal to say/write down:
Slander/libel
Insightment to violence
Threats
State secrets
Aid and comfort to the enemy
How to bypass DRM
Slander/libel has a very specific definition in the US, and only carries civil penalties. The plaintiff must prove that what was said was a lie, was believable by average Americans, and is harmful to the reputation of the individual. If the plaintiff can't prove all three, the case can't be won. It is very difficult to win these cases in court.
Insightment to violence can carry criminal penalties. It also is rather difficult to convict in these cases. I believe it has to be proven that the defendant intended to encourage a specific group of people to commit violence, and that specific group of people actually did commit violence as a result.
Threats are pretty straightforward, and can carry criminal penalties. The threat has to be believable to be convicted.
State secrets are also pretty straightforward and can carry criminal penalties.
Aid and comfort to the enemy is a bit unclear, and has been expanded quite a bit kind of recently. If I remember, there's a bill that was signed into law recently that might, for example, make it illegal for me to tell people why the Taliban are good and why we should support them, but it hasn't been tested in court. There's a good chance when tested that such speech will be considered protected.
Bypassing DRM is kind of ridiculous when lined up with the rest of the list, especially because it can carry criminal penalties. You can't teach others how to do it. I can teach you how to build a bomb, but not how to break the protection on a Bluray disc.
On the other hand, since people generally don't stick a gun to your head and MAKE you read the hustler, there is no excuse for banning any porn, ever. No, not even child-porn - we'd do a LOT better going after the people who make the stuff than trying to censor it out of existence.
Having said all that - that's the idealistic viewpoint. More realistically I say that the real problem with censorship is this:
1) it ALWAYS fails
Keep in mind you have only heard of the cases where it HAS failed. You don't hear about the ones that succeeded. I find it hard to believe that there are not many warcrimes and other various atrocities that have been successfully covered up. Do you?
2) No matter how noble it's goal may be, the unintended results are always MORE harmful to society than whatever you censored.
Again, I don't think that's true. Telling an enemy troop movements and allowing individuals to be threatened without repercussion are certainly more harmful than censoring such speech.
So though I think people should have the right not be called racist slurs, in practical terms I'm opposed to hate-speech laws because it's better to let the racists shout and know who they are than to let the disease of it fester behind closed doors where it inevitably leads to violence against others.
It may be oppression (with the obvious pointer to "terrorist" versus "freedom fighter" issues that can apply to the term), but if it is done to prevent a riot or public uprising then it would technically be a move to stop a threat to "social stability". The impact and the intent can be slightly detached, even if the intent defines why they want the impact.
Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public? I don't really see how that could be a good thing, but I'm willing to be convinced. In cases like this, if a photo of a murder/police action can cause a public uprising, should a real government (i.e. representing the governed) have any interest in covering it up? Is the potential safety of the governed more important than accurate information?
Agree to very limited contact with the outside, and limited and/or prohibited personal use of cell phone, texting, e-mail, Facebook, etc., during the residence period.
Absolutely no visitors overnight or when the Museum is closed to the public.
You must be available to live in the Museum for 30 days with no outside personal or work responsibilities.
It seems like they're really missing out, there. One of the best ways to promote something like this and popularize the museum is to require regular social media postings to places like Twitter, Facebook, etc. so people can get excited about what the person is doing. What a loss.
It would also be great for things people would always want to do in the museum, but never are allowed to, due to safety, security, or just too many people...
Just walked through the mine exhibit with only headlamps. Forgot about the drain pool and feet are wet.
Tried to play against self in the brain activity game. I lost.
Ran myself to exhaustion and tested the giant heart rate monitor. Sounded like a dance club.
Fixed six of the broken exhibits I wanted to play with.
Tried to mess with the torpedo tubes on the sub.
Farmville doesn't really relate well to raising chicks. Hid the evidence in the torpedo tubes.
At my last job, they sat me down in a conference room with a laptop that had the wireless card yanked. They gave me a piece of paper with some database tables and asked me to write a web app that would let someone add, remove and view entries in those tables. They gave you 45 minutes to write a working web app, in the language of your choice, with no outside references and no way to actually run of test any of the code. Along the way I noticed that they had a couple errors in their schema.
I agree that these are excellent methods. They go much further than asking trivia questions about a language that no one (except interviewers) really care about. A simple code review of a basic app is a great way to start a conversation about the applicant's thought process, and how well they they interact/cooperate with other technical staff.
7 isn't bad if you turn Aero off. I'm posting this from a Windows 7 netbook, "Windows Classic" theme.
HAHA! This sounds exactly like a Linux apologist from 5 to 10 years ago.
"Linux isn't bad as long as you don't try to play anything proprietary like a flash video or avi. And as long as you buy the right sound card and video card, you'll be fine."
Meh. Not really close. The install even gives you the option of turning it on or off, so it's part of the installer. More like Linux distros offering a Gnome or KDE desktop. Most Win 7 users will probably prefer Classic, since that's what they're already used to. There's nothing wrong with Aero, it's just new.
At least the tobacco industry has mostly given up claiming smoking isn't bad for you. Now their shills are working for the climate change deniers. Yes, it's the same shills.
So, those would be Ad Hominem and Guilt By Association logical fallacies? Why did you include this at all? Who they used to work for or that they are being paid at all has no influence on whether or not the information they present is factual.
And why did you include this? It's another Guilt By Association fallacy.
There are reasonable people with reasonable questions about the science behind human caused climate change, and you aren't going to do anything except turn them away from the true science by attacking them personally. I prefer to educate those that have incorrect perceptions, rather than personally attack them.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of like counting cards for single deck blackjack. It's illegal to be too smart.
Counting cards isn't actually illegal, at least anywhere I'm aware of. The casinos can ban you from coming back for it, or for any reason they like. I haven't heard of anyone being denied their winnings from counting cards, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does happen sometimes.
You are wrong on most of your arguments. Take the xray scanners at the airports. They "randomly" send people to get xrayed, doing them no good, yet, 95%+ just go along with it. They don't care how they work. They don't care how much damage those devices are causing or could be causing. They don't care that their risk of dying from the scanner is higher than from a terrorist blowing up the plane (based on government's own numbers!). They don't care....
So I say, do not overestimate people.
Or they just don't want to fight every single battle that comes along. Same reasons I don't picket a store that allows people with 11 items in the 10-or-fewer line.
No, I'm pretty sure that's exactly all there is to it. All packets are equal, and all ISPs are common carriers.
Traffic that should be given high priority includes VOIP, video conferencing, infrastructure interfaces (hospitals, fire stations, security companies, etc.), and anything else that requires a nearly live transmission (OnLive, for example).
Anything the network can ID as an attack, such as DDOS's, should be decreased in priority or dropped.
Could we actually get an article with some details, rather than an editorial about what the policy MIGHT contain?
Commenters here and at Huffington Post are seriously suggesting we have a second American Revolution because you didn't get everything you wanted on a Net Neturality policy change?
Jesus, get some perspective! I hope most of you realize that this is the first time Net Neturality is being tried in the US. At all. Anyone spending more than 5 minutes looking into Net Neutrality realize its a complex issue that can't be solved with "Don't discriminate." There are unintended consequences for any action they take.
You do realize that policies can be changed at a later date, right? They aren't written in stone. These policies make more sense than the alternative of doing nothing, and they make more sense than being heavy handed and creating more problems then they solve. If problems crop up, they can be dealt with.
59,174 people (and counting) have so far paid a total of $419,914.75 (and growing), even though they didn't have to.
Maybe we aren't all pirates after all.
I heard a figure once during my local Public Radio pledge drive that there's a 6-1 ratio of people that regularly listen and don't contribute to those that do.
Of course, it doesn't really answer the question of if people were required to pay to listen, would that increase revenue or decrease it?
What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?
Who is "our"? The USA? I think the people living in the countries with potentially unstable leaders would absolutely want to know if high-level world leaders think their local president/general/despot is nutters. They probably are not getting that information from the local propaganda/media.
That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.
You're making the same mistake alot of people are that I've talked to about this. Wikileaks is not American. They operate on a worldwide scale. There are plenty of people worldwide who do want to know what is going on in the US and other governments.
Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.
Which documents are you referring to? Again, I've heard this complaint alot, but no one can point to which documents should not have been released. Even if some documents are mundane garbage, the whole philosophy of Wikileaks is that they do not make these sort of judgments as to what to release and what not to release. If someone leaks data to them, they release it in way that will get the most publicity. That's the deal, and that's why informants leak this data, because they can be sure whatever is sent to Wikileaks will get out.
Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?
Who are these people? What names? Again, these claims are commonly made without sourcing who specifically is being talked about. As to what crimes they committed, I can't speak to that without knowing who they are. As far as general policy, Wikileaks has on numerous occasions contacted the US government to try and get help with removing actually sensitive data, such as names and locations. The US government knew that Wikileaks was going to release these documents, and decided not to point out which names were sensitive. Why aren't you blaming them?
In addition to conditions above, curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots.
That part isn't really a concern, since he doesn't have to be in studio to do a live interview. And of course, a taped interview can be recorded anytime.
More seriously, there's a whole genre of humour about bad stuff happening to someone else. E.g., the so called Gallows Humour or Black Comedy.
Fair enough, and gallows humor can be pretty funny, but there's just something about prison rape jokes that really bother me. I think its because there are many people that genuinely believe prison rape is a justified form of punishment, and making jokes about it makes it sound like its just something to be endured, rather than actively prevented.
Agreed. Though this particular asshole deserves the full stretch.
Pun intended.
I'm disappointed this was modded funny. Rape in any form isn't funny, its a nightmare.
A society allowing it to go on in prisons and then making jokes about it is all kinds of screwed up.
Totally agreed. Try applying those low standards to any other product.
Any other product category, you'd consider the product to be broken and return it.
I would be fine with it, if the T.V. I did buy was greatly superior in every way (except stability) to almost all other T.V.s available.
The problem for me isn't buggy games, but crap games in general. If a game is full of bugs, and I still have a better time with it than 90% of every other game out there, what does that say about the quality of the average video game? Or at least what a dumb-ass I am for buying crap games. :-)
I would rather harp on repeatedly poor design decisions, which can't and won't be patched out, rather than bugs that will, given time.
That's absolute bullshit. They could have closed the bankrupt TBTF institutions and prosecuted every single responsible individual under RICO, releasing non-violent pot heads to make room in the prisons for all the white collar thugs.
Instead the rest of the economy is being bled dry to prop them up and cover for their theft.
I've heard this a few times now, and I'm curious what you think would have happened if the US decided to shut down, or allow to fail, some of the largest banks in the world.
Do you honestly believe everything would have turned up roses, or are you just venting? We have examples both in the US and worldwide of what happens when a government allows it's major banks to fail, and its not pretty.
It's always more fun to watch someone destroy the creations than watch someone build them.
That does explain the amount of devoutly religious people in the world willing to kill for God and preaching celibacy. They're just trying to entertain God in the most efficient way possible.
But the patent office would have to require a WORKING prototype of whatever you're trying to patent.
The biggest problem is that the patent office will now accept patent applications for items that do not exist. This allows companies to block other inventors by having a patent filed prior to the inventor inventing the invention.
The problem with requiring a working prototype means the inventor also needs to fund the creation of a prototype. Otherwise whatever investors or companies he shows the product to can simply steal the idea and create it faster. Certainly contracts can attempt to prevent this, but I can think of a number of ways around any sort of NDA a company may have to sign.
Um, people *are* going to be forced to buy health insurance, per the Democrats' gift-to-the-private-health-care-industry-in-the-guise-of-health-care-reform plan.
Jeeze, the Dems can't win, can they? They're damned for trying to offer a public option for insurance as commie socialist freedom haters, and when the Republicans block it, they're damned for the only compromise they can get through, mandated private health insurance, as corporate whoring freedom haters.
Its funny how many people around here want to change the law to benefit themselves while demonizing others that are trying to do the same.
You expect writers of technical manuals to do public readings now to earn income? Or maybe software writers should offer to personally train users in their programs?
If copyright continues to exist, what are you losing, exactly? The people that are creating duplicatable works that they want to give away will continue to do so. The people that want to charge will continue to do so. If you take away copyright, you eliminate the later with no increase in the former.
That's a big part of it, certainly. To many intelligent people, intelligence seems to trump knowledge.
The other issue is that most people don't understand the science of psychology/psychiatry. Treatment and diagnosis is generally the opposite of physical based illnesses. If you have a broken bone, the doctor diagnoses and treats a broken bone. But ADD/ADHD, PTSD, etc. are a series of symptoms causing a negative impact on someone's life. The first line of treatment is to address these symptoms. After which, if the cause of the symptoms can be identified (often difficult) and treated (often more difficult), that is done.
The biggest problem with ADD/ADHD is that a cause can not usually be identified, and the person identifying the symptoms is almost always not the patient. A child often doesn't have enough experience or language to describe the problem. So the parents are relied upon to notice an issue. In this case, the study is suggesting that parents of younger children are comparing their younger children to older children in the same grade, and finding that their children are not as capable, thus needing treatment. It seems like a sensible study conclusion to me, when its backed up with data.
But yes, it doesn't mean ADD/ADHD is bunk and all the kids should not be given treatment. These drugs do often improve quality of life.
What's a "convicted criminal"? This includes first-time MISDEMEANOR DUIs. In other words, a "convicted criminal" in the same sense as a first-time conviction for shoplifting candy bars. In my honest opinion, this law is the real crime.
That's a pretty big leap. Stealing a candy bar isn't quite the same as risking the lives of everyone you encounter on the road. And then there's the argument "he wasn't THAT drunk." Come on. You don't need to drink. You don't need to drive after you drink. It's not that hard to just be responsible, and if you can't handle the responsibility, you don't get to drive without the lock.
People who use guns too irresponsibly don't get to keep guns. People who treat children too irresponsibly don't get to keep children. People who drive too irresponsibly don't get to drive. An interlock system is a way to allow people that need to drive the ability to do so while decreasing the likelihood of them killing someone.
Note, this isn't the only thing that came up. The AP mentions several more: *snip* All of which sound like pretty much what I've heard people complaining about for years now. Good to see the valid exemptions to the law are finally being updated to be somewhat logical.
One major ability that is missing is format shifting. That one is a biggie, and I doubt it'll be fixed anytime soon as long as MPAA/RIAA keeps its strength.
>>>Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public?
Never. The ultimate authority if the People, which is above all governments. When government seeks to censor photos or news articles, it flips that arrangement and becomes the Master while the people are demoted to children to be "cared for" and "protected." That's a reversion to pre-Enlightenment Middle Ages thinking.
Then my question to you would be: Why DO governments exist? I believe the answer is that governments exist, and their fundemental purpose is, to protect their citizens. So I could argue it is conceivably within the scope of government to protect innocents from riots and civil unrest. This includes censoring materials which would cause these actions.
I could argue the Rwandan genocide would not have happened if the government censored those individuals calling for violence before it got out of hand.
Well - I'm not an American so my point of view is based on what I read.
I'm glad you mentioned it. Despite the rhetoric, the US does, in fact, have more freedom of speech than most other Western democratic countries.
Having said that - your freedom ends where mine begins. I am in FAVOR of (some) hate-speech laws because most hate-speech IS racism and racism SHOULD be illegal. Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you. It ends before you can intrude on my right. Nobody has the right not to be offended, but you damn sure have the right not be a victim of racist behavior INCLUDING slurs.
Incorrect, at least in the US. You have the freedom to call people racist slurs all you like.
AFAIK (and other Americans can correct me if I'm wrong), there are only a very few things in the US that are illegal to say/write down:
Slander/libel has a very specific definition in the US, and only carries civil penalties. The plaintiff must prove that what was said was a lie, was believable by average Americans, and is harmful to the reputation of the individual. If the plaintiff can't prove all three, the case can't be won. It is very difficult to win these cases in court.
Insightment to violence can carry criminal penalties. It also is rather difficult to convict in these cases. I believe it has to be proven that the defendant intended to encourage a specific group of people to commit violence, and that specific group of people actually did commit violence as a result.
Threats are pretty straightforward, and can carry criminal penalties. The threat has to be believable to be convicted.
State secrets are also pretty straightforward and can carry criminal penalties.
Aid and comfort to the enemy is a bit unclear, and has been expanded quite a bit kind of recently. If I remember, there's a bill that was signed into law recently that might, for example, make it illegal for me to tell people why the Taliban are good and why we should support them, but it hasn't been tested in court. There's a good chance when tested that such speech will be considered protected.
Bypassing DRM is kind of ridiculous when lined up with the rest of the list, especially because it can carry criminal penalties. You can't teach others how to do it. I can teach you how to build a bomb, but not how to break the protection on a Bluray disc.
On the other hand, since people generally don't stick a gun to your head and MAKE you read the hustler, there is no excuse for banning any porn, ever. No, not even child-porn - we'd do a LOT better going after the people who make the stuff than trying to censor it out of existence.
Having said all that - that's the idealistic viewpoint. More realistically I say that the real problem with censorship is this: 1) it ALWAYS fails
Keep in mind you have only heard of the cases where it HAS failed. You don't hear about the ones that succeeded. I find it hard to believe that there are not many warcrimes and other various atrocities that have been successfully covered up. Do you?
2) No matter how noble it's goal may be, the unintended results are always MORE harmful to society than whatever you censored.
Again, I don't think that's true. Telling an enemy troop movements and allowing individuals to be threatened without repercussion are certainly more harmful than censoring such speech.
So though I think people should have the right not be called racist slurs, in practical terms I'm opposed to hate-speech laws because it's better to let the racists shout and know who they are than to let the disease of it fester behind closed doors where it inevitably leads to violence against others.
I am ha
It may be oppression (with the obvious pointer to "terrorist" versus "freedom fighter" issues that can apply to the term), but if it is done to prevent a riot or public uprising then it would technically be a move to stop a threat to "social stability". The impact and the intent can be slightly detached, even if the intent defines why they want the impact.
Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public? I don't really see how that could be a good thing, but I'm willing to be convinced. In cases like this, if a photo of a murder/police action can cause a public uprising, should a real government (i.e. representing the governed) have any interest in covering it up? Is the potential safety of the governed more important than accurate information?
From http://www.msichicago.org/matm/the-details
Agree to very limited contact with the outside, and limited and/or prohibited personal use of cell phone, texting, e-mail, Facebook, etc., during the residence period.
Absolutely no visitors overnight or when the Museum is closed to the public.
You must be available to live in the Museum for 30 days with no outside personal or work responsibilities.
It seems like they're really missing out, there. One of the best ways to promote something like this and popularize the museum is to require regular social media postings to places like Twitter, Facebook, etc. so people can get excited about what the person is doing. What a loss.
It would also be great for things people would always want to do in the museum, but never are allowed to, due to safety, security, or just too many people...
At my last job, they sat me down in a conference room with a laptop that had the wireless card yanked. They gave me a piece of paper with some database tables and asked me to write a web app that would let someone add, remove and view entries in those tables. They gave you 45 minutes to write a working web app, in the language of your choice, with no outside references and no way to actually run of test any of the code. Along the way I noticed that they had a couple errors in their schema.
I agree that these are excellent methods. They go much further than asking trivia questions about a language that no one (except interviewers) really care about. A simple code review of a basic app is a great way to start a conversation about the applicant's thought process, and how well they they interact/cooperate with other technical staff.
7 isn't bad if you turn Aero off. I'm posting this from a Windows 7 netbook, "Windows Classic" theme.
HAHA! This sounds exactly like a Linux apologist from 5 to 10 years ago.
"Linux isn't bad as long as you don't try to play anything proprietary like a flash video or avi. And as long as you buy the right sound card and video card, you'll be fine."
Meh. Not really close. The install even gives you the option of turning it on or off, so it's part of the installer. More like Linux distros offering a Gnome or KDE desktop. Most Win 7 users will probably prefer Classic, since that's what they're already used to. There's nothing wrong with Aero, it's just new.
At least the tobacco industry has mostly given up claiming smoking isn't bad for you. Now their shills are working for the climate change deniers. Yes, it's the same shills.
So, those would be Ad Hominem and Guilt By Association logical fallacies? Why did you include this at all? Who they used to work for or that they are being paid at all has no influence on whether or not the information they present is factual.
RationalWiki (unfinished) comparative example: A comparative guide to science denial.
And why did you include this? It's another Guilt By Association fallacy.
There are reasonable people with reasonable questions about the science behind human caused climate change, and you aren't going to do anything except turn them away from the true science by attacking them personally. I prefer to educate those that have incorrect perceptions, rather than personally attack them.