Then why was he allowed on the Internet at all if he wasn't in possession of his senses? If you enter a place where regular adults are interacting, they're going to treat you like an adult as well. And that includes being responsible for your actions.
If this guy was clinically unable to take responsibility, he should either be in a mental hospital, or in the care of guardians who don't allow him access to the Internet.
Asthama is a physical condition. Laws deal with physical harm, not mental harm to adults. No one cares about anyone's feelings and the law shouldn't care either. Adults are expected to take care of their own brains.
The idea is that adults are responsible for their own actions. Adults are not supposed to be able to blame their actions on other people who "egged them on".
If that's what you think, then you're not an ardent "speech should not be illegal" type. Only physical hurt counts. Mental hurt of an adult does not. It's not measurable. It's not verifiable. No conclusive causative link can be drawn - unlike your peanut allergy example.
Adults are supposed to be accountable for their own actions. No one can say "but he talked me into it!"
But you're assuming there's no competition in your scenario. The situation you're describing is how a single seller would determine price in the absence of competition.
That's what this who DOJ thing is about isn't it? That's it's not a free market in the first place, but one that is being distorted by price collusion. After all, merely because a market is not free doesn't mean that people will still not buy and sell things.
The point is that if the market was working as it should, the lower costs would have gotten passed on to the consumers at some point of time. Even if you say that printing, transportation, storage, paper, ink etc are not much (which I don't believe), it's still something. Even a price reduction of 50 cents would indicate that. Instead, we see nothing - no price reduction at all. And possibly even higher prices!
The thing with a PC is that it can be made as customizable as you want. So if one wants to design an application to be used by random members of the public with no training, that's certainly possible.
But even given the two benefits outlined, there're still too many things a tablet is incapable of doing for it to be called "post pc". Post PC will come when devices blow away current PCs in terms of things that can be done. Like say AI. Or wearable micro chips that feed stuff into your ear/brain/eyes. Or robotics. Any of those can be called "post PC".
Generally, the next stage of evolution in computing delivers devices that can do more than the previous crop. This is the only time people are calling devices that can do less, "next generation".
I bought my tablet two months ago for $600 and it's been lying unused on my couch for weeks. There's nothing my PC won't do and plenty of things things my PC WILL do that the tablet won't.
That's more on the lines of terrorism - which follows a completely different behavior pattern. For regular "communal tensions" as they exist in a country like India, the law is a pretty good deterrent if enforced.
Fear of the law is a very primal fear. Fear of getting punished is also primal not "rational". Like I mentioned in an earlier comment, it's never been tried in India. Punish everyone properly in ONE riot and then see the change
You say people are not rational. I say people are cowards. They riot because they can get away with it.
That's not true. It's not as if there are no "group divides" in a country like the US. They have republican, democrats, christians, muslims, atheists etc. The problem is HOW the groups fight each other.
In India unlike in other countries, people resort to violence because they KNOW they will not be punished. You say that impartial justice will never work. Has it ever been tried? Name one riot where EVERYONE who indulged in violence has ended up behind bars regardless of the political backing and affiliation. Answer - never. These goons who indulge in violence know that they can get away with it and THAT is the reason for so called "communal violence". Indian governments are afraid to punish those indulging in rioting based on "communal" lines.
If on the other hand, these "communal groups" fought with each other by writing books, giving speeches, even cursing and abusing and making fun of each other, then great! Mission accomplished. As long as there is no VIOLENCE. That is how it is done in every other civilized country in the world. That is how it should be.
In India, people indulge in communal violence because they can get away with it. Punishment is a new word for them. These people are cowards. Try impartial justice and see how it works first before claiming that it won't. It's a new concept in India.
Unfortunately for your argument, we ARE individuals. The law doesn't try "groups" for murder. It doesn't sentence "groups" to jail. We don't marry in "groups".
If we're discussing the law, don't talk about "groups". The government doesn't and shouldn't give a shit about who belongs to what religion or what "group". It has to ONLY look at - "Did this person act violently?" If so, jail. If no, let them go and to hell with what "group" he or she belongs to.
Do you deny that this is how government works and indeed, SHOULD work?
See there's your problem for you. You think in terms of "groups". Forget about groups and see only individuals. Punish individuals. The government or the state has to be blind to "groups".
If people commit suicide over words, that's their damn problem. If another kills "over words", it's their responsibility as long as they're above the age of 18. Words per se cause no damage. You've heard the saying?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for putting someone in jail for writing/saying anything unless a specific physical or financial injury has taken place. The punishment must fit the crime. Here a person's life is ruined and he spends 56 days in jail. That's the punishment. What pray, is the specific, actual harm that has been caused?
Nothing. NO harm has been caused. Has anyone been injured? No. Is anyone poorer? No. Is someone in danger of their life? No. NOTHING. There is NO FRIGGIN WAY that criminal action should be initiated for something that has HARMED NO ONE.
Here in India, we have the same bullshit about punishing people for "offending others". It's symptomatic of childishness and the INABILITY TO IGNORE.
Re:That's why I like the basic Kindle
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 1
Yep. I do NO reading on my tablet. My nook is all I need. The ONLY thing I use my tablet for is reading comics...which I have to admit is the best comic reading experience I have ever had.
This is a hard truth, but it must be said. The world at large is simply not evolved enough for the Internet. Most of Asia and almost all of the middle east are less able to appreciate the ideals of freedom and tolerance. I say this as an Indian whose government is very keen on controlling what's said on the Internet.
Despite the US's flaws, the first amendment is the strongest protection of free expression in the world. It's an achievement of mankind which the rest of the world is actually just not good enough to appreciate. The Internet is in truth something better than what we humans in our current state of evolution deserve. If you hand it over to the UN, it will become something we actually deserve at this moment in time...and that's not a pretty thing.
We accidentally stumbled upon the Internet as it is today. If people had seen it coming, it would never have been allowed to become what it is. But now that it's here, we have to protect it and treasure it because we've been blessed with something that's too good for us. The UN will reverse that and make it just average since all over unevolved countries will have a say in it.
If people choose to get hurt because of other people's bad manners that's their choice. Only physical harm is counted as something which the state needs to address. If you commit suicide because I pissed on an image of your god, it's your fault not mine.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why was he allowed on the Internet at all if he wasn't in possession of his senses? If you enter a place where regular adults are interacting, they're going to treat you like an adult as well. And that includes being responsible for your actions.
If this guy was clinically unable to take responsibility, he should either be in a mental hospital, or in the care of guardians who don't allow him access to the Internet.
Asthama is a physical condition. Laws deal with physical harm, not mental harm to adults. No one cares about anyone's feelings and the law shouldn't care either. Adults are expected to take care of their own brains.
The idea is that adults are responsible for their own actions. Adults are not supposed to be able to blame their actions on other people who "egged them on".
If that's what you think, then you're not an ardent "speech should not be illegal" type. Only physical hurt counts. Mental hurt of an adult does not. It's not measurable. It's not verifiable. No conclusive causative link can be drawn - unlike your peanut allergy example.
Adults are supposed to be accountable for their own actions. No one can say "but he talked me into it!"
But you're assuming there's no competition in your scenario. The situation you're describing is how a single seller would determine price in the absence of competition.
So you're saying there's no connection whatsoever between higher ebook prices and the DOJ investigation? None at all?
That's what this who DOJ thing is about isn't it? That's it's not a free market in the first place, but one that is being distorted by price collusion. After all, merely because a market is not free doesn't mean that people will still not buy and sell things.
The point is that if the market was working as it should, the lower costs would have gotten passed on to the consumers at some point of time. Even if you say that printing, transportation, storage, paper, ink etc are not much (which I don't believe), it's still something. Even a price reduction of 50 cents would indicate that. Instead, we see nothing - no price reduction at all. And possibly even higher prices!
The thing with a PC is that it can be made as customizable as you want. So if one wants to design an application to be used by random members of the public with no training, that's certainly possible.
But even given the two benefits outlined, there're still too many things a tablet is incapable of doing for it to be called "post pc". Post PC will come when devices blow away current PCs in terms of things that can be done. Like say AI. Or wearable micro chips that feed stuff into your ear/brain/eyes. Or robotics. Any of those can be called "post PC".
Generally, the next stage of evolution in computing delivers devices that can do more than the previous crop. This is the only time people are calling devices that can do less, "next generation".
I bought my tablet two months ago for $600 and it's been lying unused on my couch for weeks. There's nothing my PC won't do and plenty of things things my PC WILL do that the tablet won't.
That's more on the lines of terrorism - which follows a completely different behavior pattern. For regular "communal tensions" as they exist in a country like India, the law is a pretty good deterrent if enforced.
Fear of the law is a very primal fear. Fear of getting punished is also primal not "rational". Like I mentioned in an earlier comment, it's never been tried in India. Punish everyone properly in ONE riot and then see the change
You say people are not rational. I say people are cowards. They riot because they can get away with it.
That's not true. It's not as if there are no "group divides" in a country like the US. They have republican, democrats, christians, muslims, atheists etc. The problem is HOW the groups fight each other.
In India unlike in other countries, people resort to violence because they KNOW they will not be punished. You say that impartial justice will never work. Has it ever been tried? Name one riot where EVERYONE who indulged in violence has ended up behind bars regardless of the political backing and affiliation. Answer - never. These goons who indulge in violence know that they can get away with it and THAT is the reason for so called "communal violence". Indian governments are afraid to punish those indulging in rioting based on "communal" lines.
If on the other hand, these "communal groups" fought with each other by writing books, giving speeches, even cursing and abusing and making fun of each other, then great! Mission accomplished. As long as there is no VIOLENCE. That is how it is done in every other civilized country in the world. That is how it should be.
In India, people indulge in communal violence because they can get away with it. Punishment is a new word for them. These people are cowards. Try impartial justice and see how it works first before claiming that it won't. It's a new concept in India.
A man hits another man and goes to jail. EVERYONE will call that justice. Those who don't need a civics lesson.
Unfortunately for your argument, we ARE individuals. The law doesn't try "groups" for murder. It doesn't sentence "groups" to jail. We don't marry in "groups".
If we're discussing the law, don't talk about "groups". The government doesn't and shouldn't give a shit about who belongs to what religion or what "group". It has to ONLY look at - "Did this person act violently?" If so, jail. If no, let them go and to hell with what "group" he or she belongs to.
Do you deny that this is how government works and indeed, SHOULD work?
See there's your problem for you. You think in terms of "groups". Forget about groups and see only individuals. Punish individuals. The government or the state has to be blind to "groups".
Punish anyone who indulges in violence and ignore the religion.
Very brave on the Internet aren't we? :D
If people commit suicide over words, that's their damn problem. If another kills "over words", it's their responsibility as long as they're above the age of 18. Words per se cause no damage. You've heard the saying?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for putting someone in jail for writing/saying anything unless a specific physical or financial injury has taken place. The punishment must fit the crime. Here a person's life is ruined and he spends 56 days in jail. That's the punishment. What pray, is the specific, actual harm that has been caused?
Nothing. NO harm has been caused. Has anyone been injured? No. Is anyone poorer? No. Is someone in danger of their life? No. NOTHING. There is NO FRIGGIN WAY that criminal action should be initiated for something that has HARMED NO ONE.
Here in India, we have the same bullshit about punishing people for "offending others". It's symptomatic of childishness and the INABILITY TO IGNORE.
Yep. I do NO reading on my tablet. My nook is all I need. The ONLY thing I use my tablet for is reading comics...which I have to admit is the best comic reading experience I have ever had.
I'd like to see you actually act on your claims :)
But the average person has the discretion to decide whether to listen to the advertising or not.
This is a hard truth, but it must be said. The world at large is simply not evolved enough for the Internet. Most of Asia and almost all of the middle east are less able to appreciate the ideals of freedom and tolerance. I say this as an Indian whose government is very keen on controlling what's said on the Internet.
Despite the US's flaws, the first amendment is the strongest protection of free expression in the world. It's an achievement of mankind which the rest of the world is actually just not good enough to appreciate. The Internet is in truth something better than what we humans in our current state of evolution deserve. If you hand it over to the UN, it will become something we actually deserve at this moment in time...and that's not a pretty thing.
We accidentally stumbled upon the Internet as it is today. If people had seen it coming, it would never have been allowed to become what it is. But now that it's here, we have to protect it and treasure it because we've been blessed with something that's too good for us. The UN will reverse that and make it just average since all over unevolved countries will have a say in it.
If people choose to get hurt because of other people's bad manners that's their choice. Only physical harm is counted as something which the state needs to address. If you commit suicide because I pissed on an image of your god, it's your fault not mine.