While this is true, do note that the destruction (perhaps think in terms of $) also caused by 9/11 was considerable, and that additional casualties may have been incurred via illness caused from toxins or toxic debris, not to mention overall disruption and panic.
Not that I'm supporting the US government's subsequent (increased) trampling of rights.
If society decides that certain groups of people don't have "inalienable rights", then the government is in the right to exterminate them at the majority's will?
You have to understand that certain people make special exceptions for internet censorship when it's Thailand. I'm not quite sure why yet, but whenever Thailand comes up on slashdot you always get a few apologists out of the woodwork defending Thailand's latest crackdown on insulting the king or other speech censorship. I have no idea what makes Thailand so special, but certain slashdotters will defend Thai censorship to their dying breath.
Oh, and in any case, OP is insinuating the governments own their citizens, or that oppression can't happen if it's majority-driven. "Oh ho ho ho, well, I respect Iran/North Korea/Nazi Germany's right to govern itself, if you don't like it..."
Re:your first sentence is technically flawed
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 1
Around here the computers at those thrift stores are hilariously over-priced. 200 dollars for something 10 years old? I'd rather just buy a netbook...!
On the contrary, I used to edit wikipedia, I know exactly what sorts of games you wikipedia bureaucrats play. It's exactly like nerds are trying to roleplay a bureaucracy. I'm glad I stopped trying to contribute to that site a long time ago.
Though, my reasons had little to do with notability. Although I should mention that something can be put up for a vote over and over again until it finally passes, in which case it can't be easily put up again; you guys did that to the GNAA article, after all.
There's also the fact that wikipedia removes anything "not notable." What is "not notable" is usually whatever a bunch of wikipedia bureaucrats decide. Wikipedia, being run by your traditional fatnerd, is more likely to label this sort of stuff as "not notable" as opposed to something they would find notable (like the made-up histories of individual Final Fantasy characters or the stats of pokemon characters).
So you're saying that since it has "Communication" in the name, it has free reign to decide over all matters of communication? I suppose, then, that you feel the FCC is entirely within its right to dole out fines and restrictions that censor the airwaves as well...? After all, that falls under "communication."
If you reject that argument, and want to claim there are limits to what the FCC can do, then you have to reject that naive argument that merely having "Communications" in the acronym does not give the FCC license to do just anything with "communications" media.
It's ultimately about controlling the ideas that youth are exposed to. Sure, children may be sent to some pretty wrong-headed schools with these vouchers... but the parents, and eventually the child, presumably are taxpayers.
It's all about social control. The left is concerned (rightfully) about children being taught anti-evolution, racist, religious bullshit, but it's more than that. It's about instilling social, democratic values into youth. The right tends to feel that vouchers/homeschooling are a good way to shaping youth, the left, as always prefers to "socialize" (in the "society") sense of the word and wants to build a "community" and by extension obedience to community standards and norms, even if they have to force community's down people's throat like the right wants to force religion on other people.
That's the same excuses communists give for the faults of the USSR, too--that it wasn't "real" communism", that it wasn't enough communism.
Democracy is a failed ideology just like communism is. I am not advocating whatever James Lovelock is; I am saying, quite simply, that democracy has failed to make us free. Freer than earlier tyrannies? Perhaps, though even during the days of monarchs the trend was towards more freedom in general.
I'd imagine they'd infiltrate private filesharing sites and help collect IP data on torrents. This can be pretty damaging as these people can operate in the background and go undetected pretty easily--how are you going to tell who is and isn't a spy?
How is a "police action" (a la Vietnam) not a war? Hairsplitting and semantic quibblings go far in the world of politics. After all, nobody is more powerful than the politicians and courts themselves to challenge them, and so long as they give themselves the appearance of expertise and authority political consensus can do whatever the hell it wants.
Appeals to the Constitution are not necessary. Modern political thought is wishy-washy on the Constitution--it's something to trot out as a convenience if it agrees with you, but also safely ignored if the Constitution runs contrary to your agenda. And, hell, whose to say you can't just reinterpret it through a postmodern perspective (as a "living document")?
The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law. The fears, wants, desires, and agendas of the judges affect constitution rules moreso than whatever the constitution itself says.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just plain ol' Consumer Watchdog being shrill, reactionary, and just plain anti-capitalist (yeah, that's right, I said it) again.
I bet he screamed when he got caught.
So sexual innuendo is art?
While this is true, do note that the destruction (perhaps think in terms of $) also caused by 9/11 was considerable, and that additional casualties may have been incurred via illness caused from toxins or toxic debris, not to mention overall disruption and panic.
Not that I'm supporting the US government's subsequent (increased) trampling of rights.
If society decides that certain groups of people don't have "inalienable rights", then the government is in the right to exterminate them at the majority's will?
Some of you populists are sickening.
You have to understand that certain people make special exceptions for internet censorship when it's Thailand. I'm not quite sure why yet, but whenever Thailand comes up on slashdot you always get a few apologists out of the woodwork defending Thailand's latest crackdown on insulting the king or other speech censorship. I have no idea what makes Thailand so special, but certain slashdotters will defend Thai censorship to their dying breath.
Oh, and in any case, OP is insinuating the governments own their citizens, or that oppression can't happen if it's majority-driven. "Oh ho ho ho, well, I respect Iran/North Korea/Nazi Germany's right to govern itself, if you don't like it..."
No, you're absolutely correct.
*gasp* they resort to polyamory??? FIENDS!
Around here the computers at those thrift stores are hilariously over-priced. 200 dollars for something 10 years old? I'd rather just buy a netbook...!
On the contrary, I used to edit wikipedia, I know exactly what sorts of games you wikipedia bureaucrats play. It's exactly like nerds are trying to roleplay a bureaucracy. I'm glad I stopped trying to contribute to that site a long time ago.
Though, my reasons had little to do with notability. Although I should mention that something can be put up for a vote over and over again until it finally passes, in which case it can't be easily put up again; you guys did that to the GNAA article, after all.
There's also the fact that wikipedia removes anything "not notable." What is "not notable" is usually whatever a bunch of wikipedia bureaucrats decide. Wikipedia, being run by your traditional fatnerd, is more likely to label this sort of stuff as "not notable" as opposed to something they would find notable (like the made-up histories of individual Final Fantasy characters or the stats of pokemon characters).
Screw you buddy, I'm trash and I'm proud of it. Bigot.
So you're saying that since it has "Communication" in the name, it has free reign to decide over all matters of communication? I suppose, then, that you feel the FCC is entirely within its right to dole out fines and restrictions that censor the airwaves as well...? After all, that falls under "communication."
If you reject that argument, and want to claim there are limits to what the FCC can do, then you have to reject that naive argument that merely having "Communications" in the acronym does not give the FCC license to do just anything with "communications" media.
For all the people that endlessly complain about Microsoft... just imagine if Apple had one the computer wars. We'd all be on closed platforms...
It's ultimately about controlling the ideas that youth are exposed to. Sure, children may be sent to some pretty wrong-headed schools with these vouchers... but the parents, and eventually the child, presumably are taxpayers.
It's all about social control. The left is concerned (rightfully) about children being taught anti-evolution, racist, religious bullshit, but it's more than that. It's about instilling social, democratic values into youth. The right tends to feel that vouchers/homeschooling are a good way to shaping youth, the left, as always prefers to "socialize" (in the "society") sense of the word and wants to build a "community" and by extension obedience to community standards and norms, even if they have to force community's down people's throat like the right wants to force religion on other people.
It must be insult to injury to get sued over an Uwe Boll film. Not only did they watch it, but they got sued for doing so. Nobody needs that!
That's the same excuses communists give for the faults of the USSR, too--that it wasn't "real" communism", that it wasn't enough communism.
Democracy is a failed ideology just like communism is. I am not advocating whatever James Lovelock is; I am saying, quite simply, that democracy has failed to make us free. Freer than earlier tyrannies? Perhaps, though even during the days of monarchs the trend was towards more freedom in general.
I'd imagine they'd infiltrate private filesharing sites and help collect IP data on torrents. This can be pretty damaging as these people can operate in the background and go undetected pretty easily--how are you going to tell who is and isn't a spy?
Wouldn't be a problem if ACTA wasn't a secret.
Quit being such a suppressive person.
I would've thought Travolta would've compared it to Passion of the Christ
You're half-right. Poor starving people revolt, it's just not the poor starving people that lead the revolutions.
How is a "police action" (a la Vietnam) not a war? Hairsplitting and semantic quibblings go far in the world of politics. After all, nobody is more powerful than the politicians and courts themselves to challenge them, and so long as they give themselves the appearance of expertise and authority political consensus can do whatever the hell it wants.
Appeals to the Constitution are not necessary. Modern political thought is wishy-washy on the Constitution--it's something to trot out as a convenience if it agrees with you, but also safely ignored if the Constitution runs contrary to your agenda. And, hell, whose to say you can't just reinterpret it through a postmodern perspective (as a "living document")?
The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law. The fears, wants, desires, and agendas of the judges affect constitution rules moreso than whatever the constitution itself says.
That's complete bullshit given that their competitors don't engage in the same kind of censorship.