You can't really wiki anything that requires secrecy.
I thought the "leaks" part of wikileaks was an indication that secrecy was what was being avoided. The whole point of the project was to be a conduit through which conscientious individuals could bring information to the public; information that an agency or corporation might be trying to hide because it would expose activities that are illegal, immoral, or harmful to the public welfare.
WikiLeaks has been removing certain names, places and dates in an attempt to avoid endangering individuals.
No, I'm suggesting that slaves were the same species as slaveholders. Dolphins are not. If it is human enough for you to fuck (and plenty of slave owners were doing exactly that), it is human enough to be granted the same rights as every other human.
I'm from New Zealand, and if your right I guess we'll be hearing a lot about the sheep suffrage movement soon:).
I agree with your conclusion, that known non-human animals should not have rights, but if I were to come across a hypothetical non-human that I could reason with (which I won't), then I would happily break that rule.
Last time I checked, humans are animals. It's you who seems to be invoking a form of special pleading, not to mention assuming your conclusion.
But for right or wrong, rights are usually granted only when pleaded for, certainly those are the only cases where those granted rights are uncontroversial today.
So human or otherwise, for me it's communication that is the barrier, not "speciesism".
...the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago.
Right, because everybody knows that humans and dolphins can interbreed.
With some scientific intervention it might be possible in the future. Are you suggesting that those who are impotent should be stripped of their rights?
Meh. True statements are impossible. Logic is impotent. "Reason" is an 18th-century linguistic fashion.
But it still killed Pyrrhonism.
To compare moral relativism to postmodern relativism is silly, as silly as postmodern relativism itself:). It's perfectly possible for there to be material truths, but outside of human feelings there are no moral truths.
We can attempt to point out inconsistencies in moral beliefs, but at the end of the day there is no way to reason a psychopath into empathy.
Dunno about that. Software engineer is just a hyped up term. If you can list yourself as that rather than a computer programmer it makes the layman think "Oh shit, hes an engineer we need to pay him a bit more". Its like being called a "mathematician" versus a "topologist", "algebraist", "analyst", "graph theorist", or "geometer". They make you think one person has some knowledge the others dont have, but really they all are just mathematicians that each have a particular specialty just like maybe an undergraduate "software engineer" specialized in operating systems or computer graphics. They could still probably do eachother's job if they had time to read up on it.
You could also say that a decent mathematician could do the job of a programmer if they "read up on it". Given enough bluffing, will, and "reading up on it" anyone smart enough could probably fill any role:).
No, it isn't banned. We the state don't ban anything. You just won't be doing business in this town.
I much rather have state censorship. The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.
So, you are free to publish a book that upsets the powers that be, you just won't be finding a publisher or bookstore to sell it. But freedom is ensured as long as you don't try to exercise it.
This guy would also defend "No jews allowed" or "Whites only" on private businesses. The dream he chases? I want none of it.
Utter bullshit, the best democracy can do is allow me to read what the bigoted majority approves of, and that is certainly not the worst it can do.
On the other hand, the worst Amazon can do is not sell me this book, but it seems I can get it from their competitor buy.com.
The "right to read" should never be put to a vote.
Anyone who truthfully answers, before hearing the evidence, that they are unwilling to apply the proscribed penalties shouldn't be seated. It betrays a lack of judgment and critical thinking skills.
Not at all, I would never convict someone of any of these "crimes":
- Hate speech - Inciting Subversion - Drug 'Abuse'
What difference does it make that there is "evidence" that someone is a member of a Communist party or smoked some meth, I don't care whether they did these things or otherwise, because I don't consider them crimes.
There are also markets controlled by cartels. That's what happens when barriers to entry are high and government regulation is lax.
Exactly certain markets are very susceptible to this, but regulation is almost always unwieldy, and often even ill intentioned.
A third possible solution might be for a government to provide the initial capital to start a mutual or cooperative and then giving shares in it back to taxpayers, creating a natural monopoly, but at least one that's owned by it's consumers.
If you honestly believe companies would spend 10's/100's of millions of dollars on R&D if everyone was allowed to copy it then I have a bridge to sell you, slightly used but I promise I am the owner... really.
R&D is EXPENSIVE, The patent system is fucked up beyond repair, it needs a fresh start, but something definitely needs to exist, companies will not throw millions down the tube on research and innovation if the only advantage it gives them is the 2 weeks it takes for their competitors to copy.
It's not hard: keep your invention under wraps until its release and reap the rewards of a having a monopoly on the market until your competitors can tool up.
I'm sure there's a class of people that are unable to spell correctly no matter how much time they have and how much of that time they apply to spelling accurately.
Yes, this is the class of people who (rightfully so) keep getting held back in school. Sure, there are some hard words to spell - but most tests will acknowledge that and will ignore the occasional typo on a long / infrequently used word. However, most spelling is NOT complicated. If you can't figure out how to spell of the difference between they're, their, and there, odds are you're not going to be able to write an essay anyways.
All this policy is doing is encouraging kids to not learn and to type "lik dis iz how u r sppz 2 spel". Do you really want to live in a society where that's not just the norm among idiot kids, but also used in businesses and government? I sure as hell don't.
Exactly, and students should write cursive with pen and ink, with any blotches deducted from their final tally. If you can use a massive hyperbole, then why shouldn't I?
No not the same. The difference is I did not sign a contract and pledge a promise to not convert the Omega watch to cash. No company nor government has any right to stop me from doing so. IN Contrast, the soldier DID sign a contract to keep quiet about classified documents, and he broke that sacred pledge. Hence breach-of-contract. Hence prosecutable.
So you see? The analogy between me and the soldier does not fit. I'm a freeman and have certain inalienable rights, including the right to convert one property (watch) to another property (dollars), and the Union government has zero authority to take-away that right. See Amendments 9 and 10.
Let me guess you just skipped right over your watches EULA without reading it didn't you?
Wonder what the Chinese are making of all this. They seen the romans rice and fall, are we just another empire to die as the Chinese empire continues?
I doubt they were impressed by the Roman rice, theirs had been under development for several thousand years before they even met the Romans.
On a more serious note, I think you should have a closer look at Chinese history, many empires have risen and fallen, unless you think Marx was an ancient Peiligang philosopher;).
Wikileaks, which is revealing the truth about governments and therefore aiding (in a way) the democratic process
How have they done either? What is your truth? Isolationism? What would you do at the reigns of a nation? "Please stop?", "They're all nuts, close all our windows!"
The truth is, most people continue to not understand politics, local and especially international. Just as "assist ugly nation X suppress worse nation Y" doesn't mesh with anyone's rose colored view of the world, "congressman from state X brings huge contract to state X" is met with "gah, teh corruption!!!1"
Everyone wants to believe in some Us vs. Them fantasy world, where Them is fully cognizant, aware and intentionally driving Us in some direction against Our will, unbeknownst to Us, except for You and your favorite radio/TV Host.
Wikileaks can't fix that.
Seriously, how has Wikileaks "aided the democratic process"?
That's just an Ad Hominem attack on the GP.
State secrets undermine democracy because an uninformed vote is worse than no vote; end of.
How about a related industry analogy instead of a car analogy?
Like for instance, what if Dell decided that on your Dell computer, you could only install applications that they approved? Trying to install an HP printer driver? No, not approved. Trying to install Microsoft Media Player? No, only Dell's MusicMatch is approved.
I was thinking about that the other day, considering Apple is going to include the App Store in its next release of OSX; I wonder how long will it be until you can use only the AppStore on your Mac.
. I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.
Did anyone else notice the lovely little bit of racism at the top of the article: "'If a guy from Malaysia can get into networks like this, you can imagine what the Chinese and Russians... are able to do' "
With the net someone from anywhere has just as much access to all the information you'd need to learn how to do this. there's nothing special about the chinese, the russians or the americans, hackers come from everywhere.
The word you were looking for was probably "Xenophobia", not "racism".
What if the person's a little crazy and lacks the kind of resources to actually carry out the crime? There's been some big terrorism convictions where they have given people monstrous sentences for planned crimes that they could not have actually committed.
We should hook up ECG scanners to elderly folk, and when we detect murderous intent for their "carers"; we'll be able to use that as excuse to put them down.
Personally I'm not much interested in someone's motivations for committing a crime
So you don't care if someone's motivation for killing is self-defense?
I don't support hate crimes either, but intent is, and should be, very important in determining the punishment for an action.
Yes and it's critical information when deciding whether or not to parole as well, as those who commit "hate crimes" are very likely to re-offend, so should logically be kept out of society for longer than those who commit crimes out of passion or desperation.
When your killing people simply based on race/sex/beliefs, there are millions of potential victims.
Neologisms are accepted in english. Not all, however, are created equal. Not every made up word deserves to become an acknowledged part of the language, IMO.
There is no such thing as a "pro-labor" party, parties are the ideals, either they want more economic freedom or less economic freedom, more state control over private issues or less control over private issues.
Agreed, but the Austrian free-market seems to abhor the commons, and demand that every material thing must be the property of somebody, which strikes me as the real injustice in mainstream right-libertarianism. This is the opposite of strong property rights as it values the resource that the labour has been "mixed" with as nil, and to me is essentially theft from the commons.
For me a "pro-labour" party is one that accepts that labour is the only commodity.
Slashdot Mirror
I vote for "Spotted Dick".
You can't really wiki anything that requires secrecy.
I thought the "leaks" part of wikileaks was an indication that secrecy was what was being avoided. The whole point of the project was to be a conduit through which conscientious individuals could bring information to the public; information that an agency or corporation might be trying to hide because it would expose activities that are illegal, immoral, or harmful to the public welfare.
WikiLeaks has been removing certain names, places and dates in an attempt to avoid endangering individuals.
No, I'm suggesting that slaves were the same species as slaveholders. Dolphins are not. If it is human enough for you to fuck (and plenty of slave owners were doing exactly that), it is human enough to be granted the same rights as every other human.
I'm from New Zealand, and if your right I guess we'll be hearing a lot about the sheep suffrage movement soon :).
I agree with your conclusion, that known non-human animals should not have rights, but if I were to come across a hypothetical non-human that I could reason with (which I won't), then I would happily break that rule.
Last time I checked, humans are animals. It's you who seems to be invoking a form of special pleading, not to mention assuming your conclusion.
But for right or wrong, rights are usually granted only when pleaded for, certainly those are the only cases where those granted rights are uncontroversial today.
So human or otherwise, for me it's communication that is the barrier, not "speciesism".
Right, because everybody knows that humans and dolphins can interbreed.
With some scientific intervention it might be possible in the future. Are you suggesting that those who are impotent should be stripped of their rights?
Meh. True statements are impossible. Logic is impotent. "Reason" is an 18th-century linguistic fashion.
But it still killed Pyrrhonism.
To compare moral relativism to postmodern relativism is silly, as silly as postmodern relativism itself :). It's perfectly possible for there to be material truths, but outside of human feelings there are no moral truths.
We can attempt to point out inconsistencies in moral beliefs, but at the end of the day there is no way to reason a psychopath into empathy.
Dunno about that. Software engineer is just a hyped up term. If you can list yourself as that rather than a computer programmer it makes the layman think "Oh shit, hes an engineer we need to pay him a bit more". Its like being called a "mathematician" versus a "topologist", "algebraist", "analyst", "graph theorist", or "geometer". They make you think one person has some knowledge the others dont have, but really they all are just mathematicians that each have a particular specialty just like maybe an undergraduate "software engineer" specialized in operating systems or computer graphics. They could still probably do eachother's job if they had time to read up on it.
You could also say that a decent mathematician could do the job of a programmer if they "read up on it". Given enough bluffing, will, and "reading up on it" anyone smart enough could probably fill any role :).
No, it isn't banned. We the state don't ban anything. You just won't be doing business in this town.
I much rather have state censorship. The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.
So, you are free to publish a book that upsets the powers that be, you just won't be finding a publisher or bookstore to sell it. But freedom is ensured as long as you don't try to exercise it.
This guy would also defend "No jews allowed" or "Whites only" on private businesses. The dream he chases? I want none of it.
Utter bullshit, the best democracy can do is allow me to read what the bigoted majority approves of, and that is certainly not the worst it can do.
On the other hand, the worst Amazon can do is not sell me this book, but it seems I can get it from their competitor buy.com.
The "right to read" should never be put to a vote.
Anyone who truthfully answers, before hearing the evidence, that they are unwilling to apply the proscribed penalties shouldn't be seated. It betrays a lack of judgment and critical thinking skills.
Not at all, I would never convict someone of any of these "crimes":
- Hate speech
- Inciting Subversion
- Drug 'Abuse'
What difference does it make that there is "evidence" that someone is a member of a Communist party or smoked some meth, I don't care whether they did these things or otherwise, because I don't consider them crimes.
There are also markets controlled by cartels. That's what happens when barriers to entry are high and government regulation is lax.
Exactly certain markets are very susceptible to this, but regulation is almost always unwieldy, and often even ill intentioned.
A third possible solution might be for a government to provide the initial capital to start a mutual or cooperative and then giving shares in it back to taxpayers, creating a natural monopoly, but at least one that's owned by it's consumers.
If you honestly believe companies would spend 10's/100's of millions of dollars on R&D if everyone was allowed to copy it then I have a bridge to sell you, slightly used but I promise I am the owner... really.
R&D is EXPENSIVE, The patent system is fucked up beyond repair, it needs a fresh start, but something definitely needs to exist, companies will not throw millions down the tube on research and innovation if the only advantage it gives them is the 2 weeks it takes for their competitors to copy.
It's not hard: keep your invention under wraps until its release and reap the rewards of a having a monopoly on the market until your competitors can tool up.
I'm sure there's a class of people that are unable to spell correctly no matter how much time they have and how much of that time they apply to spelling accurately.
Yes, this is the class of people who (rightfully so) keep getting held back in school. Sure, there are some hard words to spell - but most tests will acknowledge that and will ignore the occasional typo on a long / infrequently used word. However, most spelling is NOT complicated. If you can't figure out how to spell of the difference between they're, their, and there, odds are you're not going to be able to write an essay anyways.
All this policy is doing is encouraging kids to not learn and to type "lik dis iz how u r sppz 2 spel". Do you really want to live in a society where that's not just the norm among idiot kids, but also used in businesses and government? I sure as hell don't.
Exactly, and students should write cursive with pen and ink, with any blotches deducted from their final tally. If you can use a massive hyperbole, then why shouldn't I?
Many pornographic sites are named in such a way that children could come across them by mistyping a website they were trying to go to.
I don't particularly wan't my children to accidentally come across a prothestilizing site either, can we please make those opt in as well?
My children's minds are mine to indoctrinate with the ideas that I choose !!!!
eMoan
>>>the point is the same
No not the same. The difference is I did not sign a contract and pledge a promise to not convert the Omega watch to cash. No company nor government has any right to stop me from doing so. IN Contrast, the soldier DID sign a contract to keep quiet about classified documents, and he broke that sacred pledge. Hence breach-of-contract. Hence prosecutable.
So you see? The analogy between me and the soldier does not fit. I'm a freeman and have certain inalienable rights, including the right to convert one property (watch) to another property (dollars), and the Union government has zero authority to take-away that right. See Amendments 9 and 10.
Let me guess you just skipped right over your watches EULA without reading it didn't you?
Wonder what the Chinese are making of all this. They seen the romans rice and fall, are we just another empire to die as the Chinese empire continues?
I doubt they were impressed by the Roman rice, theirs had been under development for several thousand years before they even met the Romans.
On a more serious note, I think you should have a closer look at Chinese history, many empires have risen and fallen, unless you think Marx was an ancient Peiligang philosopher ;).
Wikileaks, which is revealing the truth about governments and therefore aiding (in a way) the democratic process
How have they done either? What is your truth? Isolationism? What would you do at the reigns of a nation? "Please stop?", "They're all nuts, close all our windows!"
The truth is, most people continue to not understand politics, local and especially international. Just as "assist ugly nation X suppress worse nation Y" doesn't mesh with anyone's rose colored view of the world, "congressman from state X brings huge contract to state X" is met with "gah, teh corruption!!!1"
Everyone wants to believe in some Us vs. Them fantasy world, where Them is fully cognizant, aware and intentionally driving Us in some direction against Our will, unbeknownst to Us, except for You and your favorite radio/TV Host.
Wikileaks can't fix that.
Seriously, how has Wikileaks "aided the democratic process"?
That's just an Ad Hominem attack on the GP.
State secrets undermine democracy because an uninformed vote is worse than no vote; end of.
How about a related industry analogy instead of a car analogy?
Like for instance, what if Dell decided that on your Dell computer, you could only install applications that they approved? Trying to install an HP printer driver? No, not approved. Trying to install Microsoft Media Player? No, only Dell's MusicMatch is approved.
I was thinking about that the other day, considering Apple is going to include the App Store in its next release of OSX; I wonder how long will it be until you can use only the AppStore on your Mac.
. I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap. That's one form of damage from these releases.
Jeez, it's this simple; don't fucking gossip.
Did anyone else notice the lovely little bit of racism at the top of the article: ... are able to do' "
"'If a guy from Malaysia can get into networks like this, you can imagine what the Chinese and Russians
With the net someone from anywhere has just as much access to all the information you'd need to learn how to do this.
there's nothing special about the chinese, the russians or the americans, hackers come from everywhere.
The word you were looking for was probably "Xenophobia", not "racism".
Yes. Your only two choices in life are going to college and shoveling cow manure.
Often cases that is one choice.
What if the person's a little crazy and lacks the kind of resources to actually carry out the crime? There's been some big terrorism convictions where they have given people monstrous sentences for planned crimes that they could not have actually committed.
We should hook up ECG scanners to elderly folk, and when we detect murderous intent for their "carers"; we'll be able to use that as excuse to put them down.
Personally I'm not much interested in someone's motivations for committing a crime
So you don't care if someone's motivation for killing is self-defense?
I don't support hate crimes either, but intent is, and should be, very important in determining the punishment for an action.
Yes and it's critical information when deciding whether or not to parole as well, as those who commit "hate crimes" are very likely to re-offend, so should logically be kept out of society for longer than those who commit crimes out of passion or desperation.
When your killing people simply based on race/sex/beliefs, there are millions of potential victims.
Neologisms are accepted in english. Not all, however, are created equal. Not every made up word deserves to become an acknowledged part of the language, IMO.
FTFY, IMO
FTFY, IMO
FTFY, IMO
There is no such thing as a "pro-labor" party, parties are the ideals, either they want more economic freedom or less economic freedom, more state control over private issues or less control over private issues.
Agreed, but the Austrian free-market seems to abhor the commons, and demand that every material thing must be the property of somebody, which strikes me as the real injustice in mainstream right-libertarianism. This is the opposite of strong property rights as it values the resource that the labour has been "mixed" with as nil, and to me is essentially theft from the commons.
For me a "pro-labour" party is one that accepts that labour is the only commodity.