There is no "at this point" since absolute simultaneity doesn't exist in the universe. Consider this: The photons reaching us from that place have only "just left" according to them! So for us to say "right now" means very different things depending on your frame of reference.
There is no absolute "now" in the universe since we have the concept of relative simultaneity. The photons reaching us from there have "just left" according to them even though they may seem to have traveled a huge distance according to a third party observer. Since time dilates and space shrinks as you approach the speed of light, every photon reaches its destination "instantly"
So while we can talk about "now" and "then", it's meaningless on an absolute scale. For this reason, when light from someplace reaches us, we treat it as if it's happening "now". Because if you were a photon, you would reach every place instantly.
At least the "flags" are clicked by the user. Not by an algorithm. I trust the masses judgement. So what he meant was that he would leave if Slashdot started pre screening comments. And I agree. I would leave too.
This is not about legality. No one's disputing that. Of COURSE Apple has the "right" to do what it wants on its platform. This is not about whether or not what Apple is doing is legal. It's about them being assholes. It's legal to be an asshole for sure, but they're still assholes.
For starters, I do. Some of us like to keep track of endeavors as they happen and not merely be at the receiving end of a "finished product" announcement.
It's about time Apple started innovating instead of stealing the hard work and research of other companies. You know...what they accused Android of doing!
Congratulations on fitting me into one of your predefined stereotypes of people who assume that all arguments are valid like anti evolution crazy people or climate change deniers when I didn't mean what you imply at all. Do you get some kind of moral satisfaction by finding ways by which you can find yourself superior to other people?
If it was so scientific, there wouldn't be a long drawn out court case with many reversals and appeals. Instead, we should all settle antitrust disputes using a simple computer program right? True, not all views are valid. That doesn't mean that there CAN'T be two views to an issue.
It's about not understanding antitrust laws. It's about me not accepting the definition of antitrust in this particular case. Every side has more than one way of looking at it after all.
Personally, I could never understand why Microsoft got into trouble with IE. After all, you could always change browsers if you wanted to...like most of us did. To my mind, having something as a default as long as there was an easy way to override it should not be reasons for antitrust.
Now if Windows had disallowed or otherwise hindered users from installing another browser, THAT would be a different matter altogether!
...compare whatever issues Apple's app store to the wild-west mentality and cess pool policies that Android's "open" model has.
It's not as if being the "wild west" is something new. Regular operating systems like Windows have been a "wild west" for decades and I hope they will continue to be that way. Android is even MORE controlled than Windows since there's no single windows marketplace. The wild west is a good thing. It democratizes the ecosystem and does immense good for the computing world in general.
But prisoners of war are not free. They cannot just "walk away" since they're confined to prison. So it's not a valid example to show psychological harm in this case since the prisoners don't have the defences available to them that the rest of us in the real world have.
Unless a person is (perhaps) paralyzed or is being forced to remain (which by itself is a crime), why can't anyone with a psychological problem learn to just "walk away"?
And this case has nothing to do with physical harm whatsoever. My point is that without any element of physical harm, no one cares for psychological harm. Why? Because every adult has an adequate defence against psychological harm.
What is that defence. Easy. They can just walk away. Ta da!
It's not that simple. Any person with a "weak" mind will then be able to claim distress. In practice, this kind of thing is severely circumscribed in court and many states insist that it be accompanies by something like libel, threat of physical injury etc.
Only when a real crime has taken place. Like libel, assault, malpractice, unfair discrimination etc. In the absence of the a real fault, no one will care for your mental pain and anguish.
And why is that? Because everyone has a defence against "mental pain". They can just...wait for it...walk away!.
The thing is that none of the above conditions legally absolve someone from the consequences of their actions. Drunk driving is crime. It's not a defense to say "The alcohol made me do it".
Mental pain and trauma have to usually arise from a real criminal act in the first place. They're secondary effects attached to something more substantial. Give me a case where a person had to pay ONLY for mental trauma with no other offence involved - like libel, criminal malpractice, unfair discrimination etc.
Clinical depression is way too "mild" an excuse for murder. It has to be something far more serious. And in any case, it's never used as an excuse to convict somebody of "egging on" another.
Only physical pain matters. Mental pain cannot be punished because it's not verifiable. It's not measurable. You can't prove a causal relationship. You can't prove that he wouldn't have committed suicide if they hadn't said that.
The law provides a defense against physical attacks. You're expected to fend of mental attacks by yourself.
Yes those egging him on were adults. And they're assholes. Assholes face the consequences of people not liking them. That's it. No government imposed consequences can be allowed.
Being clinically depressed isn't an excuse for not being responsible for your actions - as far as I know. If you murder someone, it's not a defense to say that you were clinically depressed and not responsible for what you do. Thousands or millions of people can be clinically depressed.
Nevertheless, if you're saying they're not responsible for their actions, then they're not to be treated as adults and shouldn't be allowed on the Internet in the first place. They should be in a safe secluded area like a mental hospital or with their qualified guardians. But if they go where the adults are, then they get treated like one.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no "at this point" since absolute simultaneity doesn't exist in the universe. Consider this: The photons reaching us from that place have only "just left" according to them! So for us to say "right now" means very different things depending on your frame of reference.
There is no absolute "now" in the universe since we have the concept of relative simultaneity. The photons reaching us from there have "just left" according to them even though they may seem to have traveled a huge distance according to a third party observer. Since time dilates and space shrinks as you approach the speed of light, every photon reaches its destination "instantly"
So while we can talk about "now" and "then", it's meaningless on an absolute scale. For this reason, when light from someplace reaches us, we treat it as if it's happening "now". Because if you were a photon, you would reach every place instantly.
At least the "flags" are clicked by the user. Not by an algorithm. I trust the masses judgement. So what he meant was that he would leave if Slashdot started pre screening comments. And I agree. I would leave too.
This is not about legality. No one's disputing that. Of COURSE Apple has the "right" to do what it wants on its platform. This is not about whether or not what Apple is doing is legal. It's about them being assholes. It's legal to be an asshole for sure, but they're still assholes.
Yup - the bigger a star is, the faster it burns through its fuel.
For starters, I do. Some of us like to keep track of endeavors as they happen and not merely be at the receiving end of a "finished product" announcement.
Jesus, there are still people like this around?
It's about time Apple started innovating instead of stealing the hard work and research of other companies. You know...what they accused Android of doing!
Congratulations on fitting me into one of your predefined stereotypes of people who assume that all arguments are valid like anti evolution crazy people or climate change deniers when I didn't mean what you imply at all. Do you get some kind of moral satisfaction by finding ways by which you can find yourself superior to other people?
If it was so scientific, there wouldn't be a long drawn out court case with many reversals and appeals. Instead, we should all settle antitrust disputes using a simple computer program right? True, not all views are valid. That doesn't mean that there CAN'T be two views to an issue.
Wow - angry much? A simple clarification would have been enough!
It's about not understanding antitrust laws. It's about me not accepting the definition of antitrust in this particular case. Every side has more than one way of looking at it after all.
Personally, I could never understand why Microsoft got into trouble with IE. After all, you could always change browsers if you wanted to...like most of us did. To my mind, having something as a default as long as there was an easy way to override it should not be reasons for antitrust.
Now if Windows had disallowed or otherwise hindered users from installing another browser, THAT would be a different matter altogether!
...compare whatever issues Apple's app store to the wild-west mentality and cess pool policies that Android's "open" model has.
It's not as if being the "wild west" is something new. Regular operating systems like Windows have been a "wild west" for decades and I hope they will continue to be that way. Android is even MORE controlled than Windows since there's no single windows marketplace. The wild west is a good thing. It democratizes the ecosystem and does immense good for the computing world in general.
But prisoners of war are not free. They cannot just "walk away" since they're confined to prison. So it's not a valid example to show psychological harm in this case since the prisoners don't have the defences available to them that the rest of us in the real world have.
Unless a person is (perhaps) paralyzed or is being forced to remain (which by itself is a crime), why can't anyone with a psychological problem learn to just "walk away"?
The geneva convention deals with prisoners of war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention
And this case has nothing to do with physical harm whatsoever. My point is that without any element of physical harm, no one cares for psychological harm. Why? Because every adult has an adequate defence against psychological harm.
What is that defence. Easy. They can just walk away. Ta da!
It's not that simple. Any person with a "weak" mind will then be able to claim distress. In practice, this kind of thing is severely circumscribed in court and many states insist that it be accompanies by something like libel, threat of physical injury etc.
In any case, here're the relevant wikipedia pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_infliction_of_emotional_distress
Only when a real crime has taken place. Like libel, assault, malpractice, unfair discrimination etc. In the absence of the a real fault, no one will care for your mental pain and anguish.
And why is that? Because everyone has a defence against "mental pain". They can just...wait for it...walk away!.
The thing is that none of the above conditions legally absolve someone from the consequences of their actions. Drunk driving is crime. It's not a defense to say "The alcohol made me do it".
It's an analogy....
It's also a false analogy.
Mental pain and trauma have to usually arise from a real criminal act in the first place. They're secondary effects attached to something more substantial. Give me a case where a person had to pay ONLY for mental trauma with no other offence involved - like libel, criminal malpractice, unfair discrimination etc.
Clinical depression is way too "mild" an excuse for murder. It has to be something far more serious. And in any case, it's never used as an excuse to convict somebody of "egging on" another.
Only physical pain matters. Mental pain cannot be punished because it's not verifiable. It's not measurable. You can't prove a causal relationship. You can't prove that he wouldn't have committed suicide if they hadn't said that.
The law provides a defense against physical attacks. You're expected to fend of mental attacks by yourself.
Yes those egging him on were adults. And they're assholes. Assholes face the consequences of people not liking them. That's it. No government imposed consequences can be allowed.
Sorry - I didn't understand that...
Being clinically depressed isn't an excuse for not being responsible for your actions - as far as I know. If you murder someone, it's not a defense to say that you were clinically depressed and not responsible for what you do. Thousands or millions of people can be clinically depressed.
Nevertheless, if you're saying they're not responsible for their actions, then they're not to be treated as adults and shouldn't be allowed on the Internet in the first place. They should be in a safe secluded area like a mental hospital or with their qualified guardians. But if they go where the adults are, then they get treated like one.