You know, I bet this observation hasn't occurred to the scientists working on this problem. If they hear it, they'll go "OMG you're right! Why didn't we think of that??"
There's nothing preventing a hosting provider from shutting down your website. I have my own blog, but if BlueHost chooses to, it can knock it offline.
Please define "society" for me. If 49% of people agree to something, can it be called "society's" views? 49.5%? 99%?
"Society" is a bullshit word that has no meaning. It's shorthand for "collection of people". That's it. Don't pretend that "society" has some independent existence. Nothing can "harm society". Individuals may be harmed. Never "society".
But if you cause damage or loss of life, then you should be made to pay for it.
Certainly. But to my knowledge, no words have ever been said that have been directly responsible for damage or loss of life. You always require fists or guns or some other weapon for that. Words can never directly cause harm.
What the hell is suitable for a man? Since when does "being a man" imply being a stupid hulking mindless asshole? Also, you're implying that women have fewer protections than men.
You're' wrong - Americans tolerate insults to christianity every single day. Just go watch south park. Sorry, but there are no double standards here. Free expression > offended feelings.
There was nothing wrong with Microsoft giving away IE free per se. The problem what that it unfairly gave IE advantages that other browsers couldn't take advantage of. From the Wikipedia page:
"It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct."
This is worlds apart from Google giving away stuff for free. Competitors are a click of the mouse away - there's no lock in. Only one person decides whether to use Android/Google or not the customer. No other forces make that decision.
From what I understand, IE was baked into the OS in a way that gave it special capabilities and advantages over other browsers. As for Windows, I believe they had tied up the market in such a way that it was difficult to purchase a laptop without it. "Difficult" - not impossible.
Those are very different from a completely optional service like Google.
Shouldn't a complaint from at least one customer be a basis for an anti trust suit given that this is meant to prevent harm to consumers? I'm getting the feeling here that the only people doing the complaining are the competitors.
Words should be responded to with words. Don't break the virtual barrier. In no universe can anyone "get what he deserves" if he faces physical punishment for merely typing something. Emotional harm is not punishable in situations like this.
Those who were "offended" could have just ignored it right? Or marked it as spam. If enough people do that, problem solved! Why isn't this a perfectly ideal solution?
It should be perfectly legal to be an asshole. Shouting "Fire" in a theatre has specific, well known physical consequences. In an effort to save their lives, people might stampede. The father on the other hand is expect to merely ignore what some random dude says - no matter how offensive. His life or physical safety is not perceived to be in danger.
I'd have to pull out my dusty old O2 to recall how I used to zoom in. Don't remember now. There is no doubt however that browsing was possible, including filling out forms, or whatever.
There were many smartphones for "use by normal people" before the iPhone. Name one new functionality the iPhone brought that other phones couldn't do before it.
This just shows that you never had a real smartphone before the iPhone came out. Yes, I could (and did regularly) browse the web on my Windows Mobile phone.
I didn't understand your question about third party apps. There were huge app stores both for Palm and Windows mobile. I used both regularly.
I don't particularly respect Ford. Nor do I disdain Jobs. I'm saying that The former is far more important than the latter. Assembly line > pretty smartphone.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I bet this observation hasn't occurred to the scientists working on this problem. If they hear it, they'll go "OMG you're right! Why didn't we think of that??"
There's nothing preventing a hosting provider from shutting down your website. I have my own blog, but if BlueHost chooses to, it can knock it offline.
In addition to what the person above has already responded, consider this. There sometimes really IS a fire!
So if you're truly convinced that god is bullshit, saying it is an adequate defence because the truth is a defence.
Please define "society" for me. If 49% of people agree to something, can it be called "society's" views? 49.5%? 99%?
"Society" is a bullshit word that has no meaning. It's shorthand for "collection of people". That's it. Don't pretend that "society" has some independent existence. Nothing can "harm society". Individuals may be harmed. Never "society".
But if you cause damage or loss of life, then you should be made to pay for it.
Certainly. But to my knowledge, no words have ever been said that have been directly responsible for damage or loss of life. You always require fists or guns or some other weapon for that. Words can never directly cause harm.
What the hell is suitable for a man? Since when does "being a man" imply being a stupid hulking mindless asshole? Also, you're implying that women have fewer protections than men.
You're' wrong - Americans tolerate insults to christianity every single day. Just go watch south park. Sorry, but there are no double standards here. Free expression > offended feelings.
Any link to elaborate on that?
There was nothing wrong with Microsoft giving away IE free per se. The problem what that it unfairly gave IE advantages that other browsers couldn't take advantage of. From the Wikipedia page:
"It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct."
This is worlds apart from Google giving away stuff for free. Competitors are a click of the mouse away - there's no lock in. Only one person decides whether to use Android/Google or not the customer. No other forces make that decision.
From what I understand, IE was baked into the OS in a way that gave it special capabilities and advantages over other browsers. As for Windows, I believe they had tied up the market in such a way that it was difficult to purchase a laptop without it. "Difficult" - not impossible.
Those are very different from a completely optional service like Google.
Shouldn't a complaint from at least one customer be a basis for an anti trust suit given that this is meant to prevent harm to consumers? I'm getting the feeling here that the only people doing the complaining are the competitors.
If only Google didn't have the temerity to create a competing OS and decimate iOS's market share, this wouldn't have happened.
Hundreds of years of tradition where someone either got a bullet or a fist if they said someone's daughter was a whore disagree with you.
There mere fact that something happens doesn't mean it's right.
Deliberate griefing IS spam, in that spam is simply something unwanted in your message stream. Do you want deliberate griefing? No. Then it's spam.
Words should be responded to with words. Don't break the virtual barrier. In no universe can anyone "get what he deserves" if he faces physical punishment for merely typing something. Emotional harm is not punishable in situations like this.
Those who were "offended" could have just ignored it right? Or marked it as spam. If enough people do that, problem solved! Why isn't this a perfectly ideal solution?
It should be perfectly legal to be an asshole. Shouting "Fire" in a theatre has specific, well known physical consequences. In an effort to save their lives, people might stampede. The father on the other hand is expect to merely ignore what some random dude says - no matter how offensive. His life or physical safety is not perceived to be in danger.
Umm...why couldn't people just mark it as spam instead?
Clearly you've never used a smartphone before the iPhone. I mean seriously how are you claiming that they were unusable if you haven't used one?
Tens of thousands of apps.
I'd have to pull out my dusty old O2 to recall how I used to zoom in. Don't remember now. There is no doubt however that browsing was possible, including filling out forms, or whatever.
There were many smartphones for "use by normal people" before the iPhone. Name one new functionality the iPhone brought that other phones couldn't do before it.
This just shows that you never had a real smartphone before the iPhone came out. Yes, I could (and did regularly) browse the web on my Windows Mobile phone.
I didn't understand your question about third party apps. There were huge app stores both for Palm and Windows mobile. I used both regularly.
And without finance there are no products either. That doesn't mean that finance gets a share of the glory.
I'll listen when you show me which inventions of Jobs measures up to the achievements of the Edison and Ford.
I don't particularly respect Ford. Nor do I disdain Jobs. I'm saying that The former is far more important than the latter. Assembly line > pretty smartphone.