No, but I happen to have several advanced degrees in canon law and theology and related fields (PhD, MSc, LLB, MDiv, DMin, Thd, DLitt). Reading's on democracy are required for all my student's.
HEY BUDDY I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR PROBLEM IS maybe you are STUPID but the NEW YORK TIMES is a good newspaper you should LEARN TO READ instead of being a fat nerd clearly you thought it would be FUNNY to make a joke like that i really hate people like you. right now my daughter who just learned to read is CRYING because of what you posted
The invisible hand will build FIOS to the McMansions in the wastelands and eliminate all bandwidth caps! Tax breaks will allow consumers to choose between all the free market competition out there, just like in my area where I can choose between exactly *one* high speed provider. At least that's better than a government monopoly where I would only have ONE internet provider!
You do not understand the point of S1. The point of S1 is that laws (e.g. hate speech laws) CAN BE PASSED which limit your free speech and this does not infringe on your charter rights of S2.
1. In Canada restrictions on charter rights ARE justified and this is well established in in jurisprudence. "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." (Charter 1.1)
2. Free speech is important, nobody is debating that. But there have to be limits on free speech when they can demonstrably justified. I cannot say ANYTHING I want about Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Gays in ANY forum at ANY time, especially when I target one group and I could impact THEIR right to live a happy and free life.
3. Mark Steyn's thesis is that muslims are taking over the west, "breeding like mosquitoes," and that they plan to replace our western legal system with Sharia law. And he is pretty offensive in the way he argues it. But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.
Why should we "democratize" news coverage? If you had a health problem, would you want even the most uninformed voting on your diagnosis, or would you rather see a top specialist working with advanced knowledge and experience?
I am so fucking sick of this belief on digg etc. that "the people" are finally taking back the web.
Why does Wikipedia need to sell it? They are already a bastion of free "neutral" articles written by POV cronies by corprorate shells. From Republican politicians to large corporations like Wal-Mart, Wikipedia should start invoicing for hosting their "neutral" public relations flyers.
Why are people entitled to have every luxury good at an such a low cost that it jeopardizes human and environmental health and safety? I do not think a Wal Mart world is something to aspire to. Too bad the free market basically only takes into account demand and cost.
I never got lucky by pushing a button. Unless "pushing a button" is used metaphorically to include phrases such as "I love you," "you are so beautiful," "just one more drink" etc.
Kind of like the universal laws of physics. Here are the laws every blogger should know:
1. Nobody wants to read your blog. 2. 95% of bloggers are illiterate. 3. Yes, the top blog spam garbage makes money (digg etc.) But do not quit your day job because, honey, you ain't gonna make no money. The days when "AllAdvantage" paid you to surf your computer are over.
If your panties are all wet for blogspam, then go read Roland's technology trends or digg.com
Personally, I think this is fantastic news. People expose themselves on the Internet far too often and quite often volunteer information which they really should not.
Slashdot Mirror
My slashdot password is "digg sucks shit". And they haven't changed it yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy
You must be new here.
My Gods, Jimbo Wales, is that you?
No, but I happen to have several advanced degrees in canon law and theology and related fields (PhD, MSc, LLB, MDiv, DMin, Thd, DLitt). Reading's on democracy are required for all my student's.
Remember, the collective ignorance of the people is wiser than the educated and specialised few!
Also, the market determines the merit of everything!
Conclusion: don't listen to scientists, just buy the cheaper one at Wal-Mart.
How much does the pill weigh? You can damn well bet I am not going to move my hand to pick up more than 8-10 grams.
HEY BUDDY I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR PROBLEM IS maybe you are STUPID but the NEW YORK TIMES is a good newspaper you should LEARN TO READ instead of being a fat nerd clearly you thought it would be FUNNY to make a joke like that i really hate people like you. right now my daughter who just learned to read is CRYING because of what you posted
Of course, world-wide, we have different laws.
Hateful speech is not illegal.
See R. v. Keegstra. In Canada at least, you do not have an unlimited right to free speech, even if you are not targeting a specific person.
tl,dr: Making hateful statements against a particular identifiable group is illegal in Canada.
The invisible hand will build FIOS to the McMansions in the wastelands and eliminate all bandwidth caps! Tax breaks will allow consumers to choose between all the free market competition out there, just like in my area where I can choose between exactly *one* high speed provider. At least that's better than a government monopoly where I would only have ONE internet provider!
You do not understand the point of S1. The point of S1 is that laws (e.g. hate speech laws) CAN BE PASSED which limit your free speech and this does not infringe on your charter rights of S2.
See for example R. v. Keegstra
1. In Canada restrictions on charter rights ARE justified and this is well established in in jurisprudence. "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." (Charter 1.1)
2. Free speech is important, nobody is debating that. But there have to be limits on free speech when they can demonstrably justified. I cannot say ANYTHING I want about Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Gays in ANY forum at ANY time, especially when I target one group and I could impact THEIR right to live a happy and free life.
3. Mark Steyn's thesis is that muslims are taking over the west, "breeding like mosquitoes," and that they plan to replace our western legal system with Sharia law. And he is pretty offensive in the way he argues it. But the REAL issue of why he's on trial is because McLean's magazine (Canada's largest circulated magazine) has him as a regular contributer while refusing to let anyone offer a rebuttal. So, people complained.
Is there a retroactive program?
To put this is some perspective, the US has offered Burma (Myanmar) $3m in aid.
Why should we "democratize" news coverage? If you had a health problem, would you want even the most uninformed voting on your diagnosis, or would you rather see a top specialist working with advanced knowledge and experience?
I am so fucking sick of this belief on digg etc. that "the people" are finally taking back the web.
Why does Wikipedia need to sell it? They are already a bastion of free "neutral" articles written by POV cronies by corprorate shells. From Republican politicians to large corporations like Wal-Mart, Wikipedia should start invoicing for hosting their "neutral" public relations flyers.
Why are people entitled to have every luxury good at an such a low cost that it jeopardizes human and environmental health and safety? I do not think a Wal Mart world is something to aspire to. Too bad the free market basically only takes into account demand and cost.
I never got lucky by pushing a button. Unless "pushing a button" is used metaphorically to include phrases such as "I love you," "you are so beautiful," "just one more drink" etc.
Can you be notable for being not-notable? Or famous simply for being famous? ... Before you answer "no" think of celebrities like Paris Hilton...
How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
Kind of like the universal laws of physics. Here are the laws every blogger should know:
1. Nobody wants to read your blog.
2. 95% of bloggers are illiterate.
3. Yes, the top blog spam garbage makes money (digg etc.) But do not quit your day job because, honey, you ain't gonna make no money. The days when "AllAdvantage" paid you to surf your computer are over.
If your panties are all wet for blogspam, then go read Roland's technology trends or digg.com
Personally, I think this is fantastic news. People expose themselves on the Internet far too often and quite often volunteer information which they really should not.
--
Geoff Robertson
3304 Celeste Ave.
Dupage, IL 39182
(630) 555-1221
I used to disagree with what you said... but after seeing how P2P affects networks first hand, I am now inclined to agree.
P2P is very inefficient.. but the problem is that means that are maximally efficient (e.g. proxies, usenet, etc.) are inaccessible to the masses.
Sugar does not cause diabetes:
i abetes
http://www.google.com/search?q=does+sugar+cause+d
You could say that sugar causes diabetes in the same way that cigarette lighters cause lung cancer.
sugar increases obesity (stroke, heart disease) and risk of diabetes.
Sugar does not cause or increase the risk of diabetes. That is a common myth. Failure of the pancreas encourages diabetes.
Why would it matter if "credentials" were accurate, if the information provided by said person(s) was accurate and worthwhile?
After going through Essjay's edits, it was clear that he was using his "tenured position" to influence edit wars.
What obscure hardware configurations have you managed to get Windows running on?
AMD Athlon 3000+ with 1 GB of RAM. A miracle... I know... and STILL I have to reinstall it every couple of months!!