Ok, I don't want to defend trolls, but he has a point. The timing of Obama's trip was to remain secret for security purposes, just like Bush's, McCain's, and everyone else's to Iraq. McCain (possibly) gave away that timing (McCain says he doesn't know exact timing for Obama's trip), allowing possible assassins, in a warzone, to better target Obama. That goes beyond fraud into the territory of (possibly) abetting terrorists. If someone gave away that info regarding Bush, they'd be in GITMO, and I may agree with that detention.
Wow, good argument for just swapping the batteries then, huh? Or not using EVs for non-commuter vehicles, kind of like choosing a Toyota Matrix or a Smart Car if you're only a city driver and springing for the Camry if you go between cities, one would have to make trade offs- like having an EV for daily use and a hybrid or fuel cell car for taking to the highway with. Most people I know have a small car and rent a big vehicle for their twice-yearly highway trips anyway... And thanks for the response, it was informative.
You're right, but your reasoned response requires a thinking adult who is not interested in telco money to implement such a plan... have you seen anyone who meets that description (outside of the visitor's gallery) hanging around the Capitol Building recently? That said, my point was more that they could profit financially acting as they are- they probably aren't even considering the hassle they'd get from the administration.
The Bush administration will make their life difficult if they investigate telecomm immunity.
If they look into ISP privacy issues then the telecomm industry will buy them expensive vacations and contribute to their "re-election campaign fund" (not to influence them though).
If you were a political hack, which would you look into?
Dude, I'm not saying that the resources aren't there. I'm saying that the allocation of resources is what politics is all about. Of course it's a political problem. My issue is that you have a very reactionary view of how to solve them, and the examples you gave in your original post were laughable in their naivete (no way we can just all of a sudden decide to give everyone what they need, even if we have it theoretically available- not even communists pretend that).
If we're to shoot the people (or just the leaders) in Zimbabwe, then who decides whom to shoot and where we stop? What happens if a majority earth government decided that you were part of the problem? BTW, I never advocated foreign aid, propping up thugs, humanitarian aid, or other. You set up those straw men- knocking them down only means that you have a well developed internal argument; internal to your head, not this discussion.
I have no idea what it's like on the ground in Haiti, like you said, but if you were handing out DOIs to people in Myanmar (which they probably wiped their bottoms with), then you have little more knowledge of those people than I do the French from looking at the Mona Lisa while in Paris. Listen to the others who've posted in response to you- listen for a change, and you may find the world which you've visited suddenly open up to you. There may be a time to start shooting, but that comes after the time to listen and discuss with those who can be reasoned with. Are you reasonable, or one of the people who "has what they want"?
One last point, just because an internal revolution is costly and uncertain is no reason not to fight it. Where would we be if George Washington had said at Valley Forge that it's just not worth the cost or the risk?
Serious question here- How can someone cite you without permission? If they're citing you, then they are giving you credit for you work done in published material. Last time I checked, that was not only legal and ethical, but desirable. Am I missing something, or did you mean some other word than "cited"? Even if they quoted you without attribution, how'd you get that from a search for your name if it wasn't attributed?
I really don't know whether to laugh or to cry at your post. But while we're in imaginationland where we can put everyone into Texas and solve all the worlds problems, well...I'd like a pony gosh-darn-it.
Interesting/Informative my hairy ass. Shit, why didn't you throw in the fact that there's enough iron and nickel plus "trace" elements in the Earth's core to solve all our metallurgical resource problems as well? If only we could put all those happy Indian people to work digging to the center with spoons... Maybe 'cause, like the rest of your post, it's only useful if we have half a chance of ever making such a scheme work, and I don't see one proposal in your post that doesn't smack of "if wishes were horses".
"Prejudice" never means "discrimination". Even when talking about race/ethnicity/religion "prejudice" only refers to the (often unwarranted) opinion one forms, or the opinion given to someone, not what one does about it (hint: "prejudice" can be noun or verb, depending on whether its the opinion formed or the act of imparting an opinion or slant). "Discrimination" refers to the treatment one gives a person or group based on something like a prejudiced opinion of them (hint: only a verb as an action has to take place). That's why prejudice (in race) isn't illegal in the U.S. but discrimination is: we still haven't outlawed all thoughts, just actions based on them.
Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but in all likelihood they knew that they'd been pwned all along but just didn't want to admit it or do anything about it. I mean, what were you going to do? Move to another trader?...oh, right.
You are absolutely correct that Fox New has every right to lie. It's not illegal, and it should not be illegal, criminally or civilly IMO. It is, however, immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong for a "fourth estate" member to lie willingly, repeatedly, and especially unrepentantly. Based on this "Faux" News has been convicted in the court of public opinion, and I'm afraid that there is no higher court where reputation is concerned.
If they require that one keeps paying for their service for the privilege of having the box "lent" to them, then I'd say that they are, if in effect only, "renting" the box. Slice it up by saying that the box is lent "as part of our service" or what have you, the difference between rent and lent in this instance should not matter, legally, IMO.
Talk to any right-of-center politico in the U.S.A and they'll generally agree that F.D.R was a "left wing kook". It's not political stance, left or right, that makes you pass a law like this, it's a desire for control over others.
Sorry, I made that oldest of mistakes and thought that you lived in a free country, not France. I'm American of the U.S.A ilk, so, if I don't specify otherwise, I'm talking about the laws and customs of the U.S.A. Here you can't be jailed for saying that you hate a group, or that you disbelieve anything (that's what the topic of the sub-thread was about, Hate Laws in the U.S.), but you can be jailed for actively encouraging people to harm groups or individuals based on race, religion, sex, or ethnicity. There is a world of difference between those two actions.
Try reading 1984 again (1974 is a lifetime ago, literally for me as I was born that year). Also, go ahead and visit Auschwitz. It's there, it's real, it's awful. Or Birkenau; visit either, they're there, really. I can't "provide" you with proof, however. If the information available from eye-witnesses and historians isn't enough for you, then you'll have to go see it yourself.
Others here have already addressed how you could possibly educate yourself on this issue, so I'll answer your questions more simply. You are not a hate criminal unless you were to say something like, "the death camps never happened AND I think we should take (these steps) to make them real because it's a good idea". It's advocacy of harm to an individual or group that constitutes criminal behavior, not saying that you hate any group for whatever reason.
Thought crime, BTW, is not disagreeing with the rulers, it's the idea that having an inclination towards or a perceived predilection for a criminal act is just as bad as the act itself and should be punished as such. Try reading 1984 when you do your Holocaust research. If you can understand either you may find that you're not a criminal for your beliefs; if you've been treated poorly when you express your beliefs surrounding the Holocaust... well, try not to mistake people thinking that you're stupid for people thinking that you're criminal.
"except possibly a top executive or two" Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard in a long, long time. Are you 12, or did you just suffer from a temporary attack of naivete? Either way, thanks for the laugh.
Ok, first, I have stopped listening to most music (and I didn't die (general statement of fact)).
Second, I find it difficult to swallow any argument that says record executives, let alone media sentry or others have invested "their own" money to produce music (response to parent post).
Third, it is ultimately the artists' own problem if they choose to produce using a label- they should know in advance by now that their music will be locked away from all but their law-breaking fans. With a cheap mac-mini they could produce their own CDs at a quality that rivals all but the best label-produced albums, but they get greedy, make their manager's rich, and suffer the consequences. boo hoo.
Give me the artists that produce their own albums to support their live performances, not hacks who tour to support album sales for their corporate overlords.
Considering where they're pounding our rights into your use of the sledgehammer in the analogy made me cringe that much more. BTW, just leave the cell phone/crackberry at home when you don't absolutely need it. We'll all live if we miss a call now and again. Great post, even if it was a fraud prevention program (which Spitzer had imposed on the banking industry when he was AG of NY) which caught him, not the "Patriot" Act monitoring we're all subject to in any state.
Your post made me mad... then I realized that was because I didn't want to hear it, not because you're incorrect. Normally I'd fight against any "blame the victim" argument, but in this case it's hard to argue. At work before the primaries (Indiana's, first time it's mattered in years) people were bitching up a storm. I heard harangues against Obama, Hillary, and even McCain. Many people went on about how we need change, and how Bush has disappointed them and ruined our country. I began asking, "so who are you going to vote for?". Time after time I heard in reply, "Oh, I don't vote." OTOH, they looked at me like I was an idiot when I'd ask how they thought anything was ever going to change.
Bingo. The only thing I've learned from this discussion is that a group of interested, intelligent, involved people cannot make sense of what amounts to a legal morass of such arcane complexity (i.e. "copyright") that we're reduced either to stultified zombies or misanthropes of one stripe or another. When will lawyers and government learn that if people can't easily understand a law that it won't be followed? Or is that the point? *starts to look for a tin-foil hat dealer*
You say tomato... and you could be right. However, protestantism opened up a door we can't back out of, and now anyone's interpretation of these lines is between him and God, not you and me. My point again: hate speech, without explicit calls to violence, should not be banned- they are too subjective.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I don't want to defend trolls, but he has a point. The timing of Obama's trip was to remain secret for security purposes, just like Bush's, McCain's, and everyone else's to Iraq. McCain (possibly) gave away that timing (McCain says he doesn't know exact timing for Obama's trip), allowing possible assassins, in a warzone, to better target Obama. That goes beyond fraud into the territory of (possibly) abetting terrorists. If someone gave away that info regarding Bush, they'd be in GITMO, and I may agree with that detention.
Wow, good argument for just swapping the batteries then, huh? Or not using EVs for non-commuter vehicles, kind of like choosing a Toyota Matrix or a Smart Car if you're only a city driver and springing for the Camry if you go between cities, one would have to make trade offs- like having an EV for daily use and a hybrid or fuel cell car for taking to the highway with. Most people I know have a small car and rent a big vehicle for their twice-yearly highway trips anyway... And thanks for the response, it was informative.
You're right, but your reasoned response requires a thinking adult who is not interested in telco money to implement such a plan... have you seen anyone who meets that description (outside of the visitor's gallery) hanging around the Capitol Building recently? That said, my point was more that they could profit financially acting as they are- they probably aren't even considering the hassle they'd get from the administration.
I share your frustration.
OOOh, OOOh, OOOh, "Someone figured it out"! Then it must be true!
All joking aside, source please.
If they look into ISP privacy issues then the telecomm industry will buy them expensive vacations and contribute to their "re-election campaign fund" (not to influence them though).
If you were a political hack, which would you look into?
Dude, I'm not saying that the resources aren't there. I'm saying that the allocation of resources is what politics is all about. Of course it's a political problem. My issue is that you have a very reactionary view of how to solve them, and the examples you gave in your original post were laughable in their naivete (no way we can just all of a sudden decide to give everyone what they need, even if we have it theoretically available- not even communists pretend that).
If we're to shoot the people (or just the leaders) in Zimbabwe, then who decides whom to shoot and where we stop? What happens if a majority earth government decided that you were part of the problem? BTW, I never advocated foreign aid, propping up thugs, humanitarian aid, or other. You set up those straw men- knocking them down only means that you have a well developed internal argument; internal to your head, not this discussion.
I have no idea what it's like on the ground in Haiti, like you said, but if you were handing out DOIs to people in Myanmar (which they probably wiped their bottoms with), then you have little more knowledge of those people than I do the French from looking at the Mona Lisa while in Paris. Listen to the others who've posted in response to you- listen for a change, and you may find the world which you've visited suddenly open up to you. There may be a time to start shooting, but that comes after the time to listen and discuss with those who can be reasoned with. Are you reasonable, or one of the people who "has what they want"?
One last point, just because an internal revolution is costly and uncertain is no reason not to fight it. Where would we be if George Washington had said at Valley Forge that it's just not worth the cost or the risk?
Thanks, I was wondering. That would tick me off too.
Serious question here- How can someone cite you without permission? If they're citing you, then they are giving you credit for you work done in published material. Last time I checked, that was not only legal and ethical, but desirable. Am I missing something, or did you mean some other word than "cited"? Even if they quoted you without attribution, how'd you get that from a search for your name if it wasn't attributed?
I really don't know whether to laugh or to cry at your post. But while we're in imaginationland where we can put everyone into Texas and solve all the worlds problems, well...I'd like a pony gosh-darn-it.
Interesting/Informative my hairy ass. Shit, why didn't you throw in the fact that there's enough iron and nickel plus "trace" elements in the Earth's core to solve all our metallurgical resource problems as well? If only we could put all those happy Indian people to work digging to the center with spoons... Maybe 'cause, like the rest of your post, it's only useful if we have half a chance of ever making such a scheme work, and I don't see one proposal in your post that doesn't smack of "if wishes were horses".
Free trade? "Well placed bullets"? Grow up.
Oddly, I expected to see you modded down for making sense. Good, concise, logical, sensible post BTW.
"Prejudice" never means "discrimination". Even when talking about race/ethnicity/religion "prejudice" only refers to the (often unwarranted) opinion one forms, or the opinion given to someone, not what one does about it (hint: "prejudice" can be noun or verb, depending on whether its the opinion formed or the act of imparting an opinion or slant). "Discrimination" refers to the treatment one gives a person or group based on something like a prejudiced opinion of them (hint: only a verb as an action has to take place). That's why prejudice (in race) isn't illegal in the U.S. but discrimination is: we still haven't outlawed all thoughts, just actions based on them.
Bow to your grammar overlords. BOW I said! ;)
Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but in all likelihood they knew that they'd been pwned all along but just didn't want to admit it or do anything about it. I mean, what were you going to do? Move to another trader? ...oh, right.
You are absolutely correct that Fox New has every right to lie. It's not illegal, and it should not be illegal, criminally or civilly IMO. It is, however, immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong for a "fourth estate" member to lie willingly, repeatedly, and especially unrepentantly. Based on this "Faux" News has been convicted in the court of public opinion, and I'm afraid that there is no higher court where reputation is concerned.
If they require that one keeps paying for their service for the privilege of having the box "lent" to them, then I'd say that they are, if in effect only, "renting" the box. Slice it up by saying that the box is lent "as part of our service" or what have you, the difference between rent and lent in this instance should not matter, legally, IMO.
Talk to any right-of-center politico in the U.S.A and they'll generally agree that F.D.R was a "left wing kook". It's not political stance, left or right, that makes you pass a law like this, it's a desire for control over others.
Sorry, I made that oldest of mistakes and thought that you lived in a free country, not France. I'm American of the U.S.A ilk, so, if I don't specify otherwise, I'm talking about the laws and customs of the U.S.A. Here you can't be jailed for saying that you hate a group, or that you disbelieve anything (that's what the topic of the sub-thread was about, Hate Laws in the U.S.), but you can be jailed for actively encouraging people to harm groups or individuals based on race, religion, sex, or ethnicity. There is a world of difference between those two actions.
Try reading 1984 again (1974 is a lifetime ago, literally for me as I was born that year). Also, go ahead and visit Auschwitz. It's there, it's real, it's awful. Or Birkenau; visit either, they're there, really. I can't "provide" you with proof, however. If the information available from eye-witnesses and historians isn't enough for you, then you'll have to go see it yourself.Others here have already addressed how you could possibly educate yourself on this issue, so I'll answer your questions more simply. You are not a hate criminal unless you were to say something like, "the death camps never happened AND I think we should take (these steps) to make them real because it's a good idea". It's advocacy of harm to an individual or group that constitutes criminal behavior, not saying that you hate any group for whatever reason.
Thought crime, BTW, is not disagreeing with the rulers, it's the idea that having an inclination towards or a perceived predilection for a criminal act is just as bad as the act itself and should be punished as such. Try reading 1984 when you do your Holocaust research. If you can understand either you may find that you're not a criminal for your beliefs; if you've been treated poorly when you express your beliefs surrounding the Holocaust... well, try not to mistake people thinking that you're stupid for people thinking that you're criminal."except possibly a top executive or two" Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard in a long, long time. Are you 12, or did you just suffer from a temporary attack of naivete? Either way, thanks for the laugh.
Ok, first, I have stopped listening to most music (and I didn't die (general statement of fact)).
Second, I find it difficult to swallow any argument that says record executives, let alone media sentry or others have invested "their own" money to produce music (response to parent post).
Third, it is ultimately the artists' own problem if they choose to produce using a label- they should know in advance by now that their music will be locked away from all but their law-breaking fans. With a cheap mac-mini they could produce their own CDs at a quality that rivals all but the best label-produced albums, but they get greedy, make their manager's rich, and suffer the consequences. boo hoo.
Give me the artists that produce their own albums to support their live performances, not hacks who tour to support album sales for their corporate overlords.You said it, "all else being equal." All else is not equal, hence, you're wrong.
Considering where they're pounding our rights into your use of the sledgehammer in the analogy made me cringe that much more. BTW, just leave the cell phone/crackberry at home when you don't absolutely need it. We'll all live if we miss a call now and again. Great post, even if it was a fraud prevention program (which Spitzer had imposed on the banking industry when he was AG of NY) which caught him, not the "Patriot" Act monitoring we're all subject to in any state.
Your post made me mad... then I realized that was because I didn't want to hear it, not because you're incorrect. Normally I'd fight against any "blame the victim" argument, but in this case it's hard to argue. At work before the primaries (Indiana's, first time it's mattered in years) people were bitching up a storm. I heard harangues against Obama, Hillary, and even McCain. Many people went on about how we need change, and how Bush has disappointed them and ruined our country. I began asking, "so who are you going to vote for?". Time after time I heard in reply, "Oh, I don't vote." OTOH, they looked at me like I was an idiot when I'd ask how they thought anything was ever going to change.
Bingo. The only thing I've learned from this discussion is that a group of interested, intelligent, involved people cannot make sense of what amounts to a legal morass of such arcane complexity (i.e. "copyright") that we're reduced either to stultified zombies or misanthropes of one stripe or another. When will lawyers and government learn that if people can't easily understand a law that it won't be followed? Or is that the point? *starts to look for a tin-foil hat dealer*
No, they said that the information is eventually released! /irony
You say tomato... and you could be right. However, protestantism opened up a door we can't back out of, and now anyone's interpretation of these lines is between him and God, not you and me. My point again: hate speech, without explicit calls to violence, should not be banned- they are too subjective.