And I have to agree that giving up a small part of one freedom in exchange for a much bigger freedom, might not be such a bad idea.
So what are you going to do when they take a freedom you actually care about, and you can't say a thing about it because that freedom was already taken?
Your point, and by extension your professors point, are crap.
I think you should have said "I read a story about a guy..." because we read it too. And that way when you find out that his conviction was overturned on appeal, you won't look so silly.
"TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- The Michigan Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a 105-year-old law against using vulgar language in front of women and children, throwing out the conviction of a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling into the water.
A three-judge panel ruled in favor of Timothy Joseph Boomer. An Arenac County jury had found him guilty in 1999 of swearing after tumbling into the Rifle River."
If you knew the guy like you implied, you'd know that too.
And the obscenity laws you talk about have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional when challenged.
Huh? That is the absolutely dumbest question I've heard all week (but it's Monday). There are a lot of flavors of Linux, there's Sun, there's Be, there's Apple. or did I misunderastand the question?
I think you misunderstood the question, he meant, "what will they replace it with that is an actual possibility for adoption".
Pretending is fun, but there's only one answer in your list that currently fits that bill.
Is this the place where those of us who loathe Vista as a bloated, DRM-ridden piece of crap that just can't wait to rat on its owners come for an apology from all those people who accused us of spreading FUD about it?
You make a valid point about my assumptions, but you seem more interested in attacking me with your childish "even shittier logic" comment than you are in having a philosophical discussion.
Typically, children don't curse, so calling that "childish", which in itself is a childish attack, demonstrates exactly what I meant about your shitty logic.
Feel free to make the last comment if it makes you feel better. I promise not to respond.
You mean you can't respond, everything I've said is true, and you have no refutation. Your logic did suck, your are a hypocrite, and there is nothing you an say to prove otherwise.
I was sort of subtly pointing at that with the post-post-script, what with President Bush (and other Republicrats) running his lying, whore mouth about how Americans don't want to do "those jobs."
I imagine they can at least tell the difference between Japan and the US, which puts them ahead of you.
Why would I care about anything you have to say after that?
"But, I think you're being overly critical."
I couldn't care less as Long as I'm accurate, which I am, irrefutably. And honestly, if you attack someone's logic with even shittier logic like you did, you deserve criticism.
Not according to the Fourth Amendment to the US constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
That's amazing, you'd better get that info to the 9th circuit (where the decision was made), I can't believe they'd overlook something like that.../sarcasm
Maybe someone can explain why the act of entering the country nullifies my constitutional rights.
Have you read the judgment? That might be a good place to start.
Actually, ants are the least of your worries. It's been pointed out by security specialists that container ships are an ideal way for terrorists to bring in the parts of nuclear weapons.
I fail to see how something that is actually occurring is "less" than something that is overblown, only theorized, and far less damaging in the long run.
See, people in the West doesn't see a problem with such an article, while many in China would take offence, that's part of the problem.
I agree, taking offense against an article that is accurate is a problem, no matter what stupid contrived reasons your fabricate.
You'll notice that not only was my response tactless, it was TRUE. I hope you take something from this little demonstration about what is valued over what.
that's funny, did I ever say my point of view was universal, with no exceptions?
DId I ever claim you did?
I can only dream what you will make up for my stance to be this time.
You mean like you did right there in the line above this right?
More backpedaling, more hypocrisy.
More proof that I was right and you're an imbecile.
I do enjoy that you are obviously all worked up and flustered by your inability to refute a single point I've made. It's fun to see you completely failing at communication using your "effective" methods while I have quite clearly demonstrated my point, that you're an idiot, using the methods you denounced.
How does it feel to get crushed and be unable to do anything buy cry about it?
Apart from it being totally wrong, is that Chinese policy was an active contributor to the scope of the disaster.
I'm not talking bungling or neglect, I'm talking decisions that were made to deliberately change the country in a way that made this disaster more serious.
China can already legitimately claim that its brand of government is better at delivering demanded results than the American version.
Not really, but I can legitimately claim the scope of this disaster is a direct result of Chinese domestic policy.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. You quite clearly were recounting a story you read and passing it of as something you actually witnessed.
Please stop pretending otherwise, it's even more embarrassing than lying in the first place.
Not to mention, you were factually wrong in any case.
"As another user has pointed out, the British justice system doesn't work."
Fixed that for you.
So what are you going to do when they take a freedom you actually care about, and you can't say a thing about it because that freedom was already taken?
Your point, and by extension your professors point, are crap.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15992
I think you should have said "I read a story about a guy..." because we read it too. And that way when you find out that his conviction was overturned on appeal, you won't look so silly.
"TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- The Michigan Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a 105-year-old law against using vulgar language in front of women and children, throwing out the conviction of a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling into the water.
A three-judge panel ruled in favor of Timothy Joseph Boomer. An Arenac County jury had found him guilty in 1999 of swearing after tumbling into the Rifle River."
If you knew the guy like you implied, you'd know that too.
And the obscenity laws you talk about have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional when challenged.
If that's true, how come none of them seem to be doing that?
"I wouldn't call him (or you) an idiot, just point out a communication breakdown."
I couldn't care less about your opinion on the subject, but you couldn't call me an idiot unless you were willing to do so for no reason.
He, on the other hand, earned the insult with his idiotic post.
You have also earned the insult with yours, but I'll leave it as implied so as not to ruffle your sensitive widdle feathers.
You're also an idiot, and your logic sucks.
Maybe you could learn to read? Please? Your post shoes you still have some improvement on that front...
Did that raging paranoia get modded to anything but "+5 take your fucking meds so you'll stop bothering us with tin foil hat bullshit"?
I don't know what's scarier, that OP actually believes that crap or that 5 other people agree with him.
I think you misunderstood the question, he meant, "what will they replace it with that is an actual possibility for adoption".
Pretending is fun, but there's only one answer in your list that currently fits that bill.
I agree, Slashdot has gone to the trolls.
"The end goal is great technology and happy people. How we get there is much less important.
OK, but we have determined that the optimal path includes you giving me all your assets and equity, and you being executed."
I hope you see why you're an idiot.
All moderation really does is change the type of abuse.
Typically, children don't curse, so calling that "childish", which in itself is a childish attack, demonstrates exactly what I meant about your shitty logic.
You mean you can't respond, everything I've said is true, and you have no refutation. Your logic did suck, your are a hypocrite, and there is nothing you an say to prove otherwise.
I imagine they can at least tell the difference between Japan and the US, which puts them ahead of you.
Seems to me that would make these degrees not so worthless after all...
Then the very first thing you type is
"I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume..."
Why would I care about anything you have to say after that?
"But, I think you're being overly critical."
I couldn't care less as Long as I'm accurate, which I am, irrefutably. And honestly, if you attack someone's logic with even shittier logic like you did, you deserve criticism.
When you entered the US you were examined and sent on your way, while when you entered China, you were sent on your way, then the examination began.
Frankly, you can have "easier to enter" if the end result is you leave me the fuck alone once I'm in.
That's amazing, you'd better get that info to the 9th circuit (where the decision was made), I can't believe they'd overlook something like that...
Have you read the judgment? That might be a good place to start.
I fail to see how something that is actually occurring is "less" than something that is overblown, only theorized, and far less damaging in the long run.
Your ignorance is no measure of anything but your ignorance.
http://truthlaidbear.com/TrafficRanking.php
1) Gizmodo, the Gadget Guide 1804776 visits/day (72)
2) MSFTextrememakeover 1646627 visits/day (60551)
3) Daily Kos: State of the Nation 1126007 visits/day (1)
I agree, taking offense against an article that is accurate is a problem, no matter what stupid contrived reasons your fabricate.
You'll notice that not only was my response tactless, it was TRUE. I hope you take something from this little demonstration about what is valued over what.
DId I ever claim you did?
You mean like you did right there in the line above this right?
More backpedaling, more hypocrisy.
More proof that I was right and you're an imbecile.
I do enjoy that you are obviously all worked up and flustered by your inability to refute a single point I've made. It's fun to see you completely failing at communication using your "effective" methods while I have quite clearly demonstrated my point, that you're an idiot, using the methods you denounced.
How does it feel to get crushed and be unable to do anything buy cry about it?
I'm not talking bungling or neglect, I'm talking decisions that were made to deliberately change the country in a way that made this disaster more serious.
Not really, but I can legitimately claim the scope of this disaster is a direct result of Chinese domestic policy.
I find it interesting that you ascribe that to a philosophical difference, when the citizens are never given a legitimate alternative.
How much of a philosophical difference is it when you have two choices, agree or die?
Only if one wants the truth about the matter, instead of a convenient segue to US prison statistics.