Yeah, I said that seemed harsh and then described that I didn't like something on US news that was tangentially related to what the French ban was targeting.
As opposed to days of yore when they'd send out a camera crew to get random sound bites from people on the street. Maybe you'd prefer they did that instead, but should anyone's preferences carry the force of law?
Nope, that was stupid too. And I think I said "banning the words seems harsh" and never suggested my preferences be enforced by law. Thanks for playing!
Pay your engineers a salary, make customer consultations one of the goals and factors for career advancement and raises.
If you want to give them a percentage cut, give them shares in the company, so their incentive is to benefit the company, not just wring dollars out of customers.
While it's almost certainly against the rules to talk about gmail because thats promoting google's business, to talk about the general concept of email is just fine because its an open standard that covers thousands of different providers.
You can blog about something without implying you're using a particular company's service. You can't follow someone on Twitter without using Twitter. You can't 'like' someone in Facebook without going through Facebook. These forms of communication can only be referred to through the brand names, because only the brand names provide them.
(But there are generic names... microblogging and friending/networking/liking/following, depending on what you're doing. We just don't tend to use them because microblogging is dominated by Twitter [in the West, at least] and social networking by Facebook.)
Wouldn't the news show having a presence on Twitter/Facebook be an endorsement? Indicating that they have said presence isn't so much an endorsement as a statement of fact. Can they mention their website? Is that an implicit endorsement of their web hosting company? The internet providers you might use to reach their site? The companies who manufacture the ethernet and/or wifi devices you might use to access them? Are they endorsing France Télécom when they give out their phone number?
...I wouldn't mind if "newsmen" would stop reading random goddamned tweets on the air as if they're somehow interesting or relevant. If a tweet doesn't have a congressman's penis allegedly contained within, it doesn't belong on your news show.
So photons only go through both slits in the function that describes their movement, not in reality. It's just that the only way to describe their behavior is to assume they go through both slits, because we can't measure these things without disturbing them.
This doesn't explain the single-electron version of the double slit experiment, in which an interference pattern emerges, demonstrating that the electron wave function interfered with itself and thus must have passed through, wave-like, both slits at the same time. It's only when you try to observe which slit the electron goes through that it dutifully fulfills our expectations and goes through both. The experiment discussed above apprarently reveals a way to do some level of observation without completely collapsing the wave functions, or all of the wave functions, or of restoring the wave function post-observation, I guess.
Most people agree that wearing this 'uniform' isn't always voluntary. Especially for Muslim girls there's massive pressure from both family and the community. Muslim boys seem to be taught that girls without headscarves are sluts, whores or worse so they react strongly if their sister doesn't want to wear a headscarf. A ban frees the girls from this pressure and from that point of view it is a very good thing.
I think strippers in the US dress sexually provocatively. Should we pass a law that forces women to dress like strippers in public in order to free them from the social pressure that might result if they voluntarily dressed that way? You know millions of parents every day limit what attire their daughters are allowed to leave the house in. I guess forcing them to wear miniskirts (or, a less extreme example, not allowing women to wear anything that covers their calves), whether they want to or not, would be a "very good thing".
Now, the Muslim culture also holds some limitations for girls in their interaction with men. That this is sexist is blatantly obvious because no similar limits exist for men in their interaction with women. These limitations tend to hinder headscarf-wearing girls from getting work, mostly due to misunderstandings, but it's still there. Also, some businesses refuse to allow their staff to send signals to the customers, neither political nor religious. And that's where the headscarf becomes a problem because sending a signal is what it is for. If it was a matter of covering their hair, why not wear a wig? - It covers your hair and yet you still look like everybody else and you will blend just fine. But no. It is not about covering the hair but rather about sending the signal that you're a devout Muslim.
I wasn't talking about private businesses, I was talking about public schools. Why should people not be allowed to send a signal in public that they are a devout Muslim (or Christian, or Hindu, or Sikh, or atheist), if they so choose? Further, your argument here contradicts the above... if a woman wears a traditionally Muslim headscarf to signal that she is a devout Muslim, then I think we can assume she is not being coerced into wearing it any more than anyone else is coerced by social and/or religious pressure.
If you are afraid of women being coerced into wearing something they would not choose to wear, then why not make that illegal, rather than limiting their choices for their own good (which seems rather patronizing to me).
Rather than rely on others do do your arguing for you, why don't you explain why you think copyright infringement is analogous to theft? I don't care how eloquent or articulate you are if you can make a cogent argument.
I never said Europe was better or worse, simply that the views on what is appropriate for children are in a large part merely artifacts of culture.
You cite things which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand which was entertainment and appropriate entertainment for children. I've found nudity and violence to be the two largest differentiators.
Actually the discussion was not so much "what is appropriate" as what is damaging. If seeing Nazi symbols or public headscarves are damaging for adults, one can only presume that it is at least as damaging for children. At worst, my comments are tangential to the discussion.
It seems from your post that you like nudity, don't particularly like violence and dislike Europe. None for any rational reasons
I have no idea where you get these ideas from. If you think you are capable of forming a psychological profile of me from one comment on/., then let me assure you that you are mistaken. I like nudity, I watch plenty of violent entertainment, and I like Europe. Objecting to a couple of laws in some European states that inhibit what I consider freedom of speech doesn't mean I dislike Europe as a whole. As someone who gives lip service to "rational reasons", your ridiculous conclusion disappoints me.
As such you are forced to find unrelated reasons (read: rational justifications) to claim Europe is worse because you can't accept that they are better than the US by your own standards in this area. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what your post tells me.
You are wrong, and I don't see how my post told you that I claimed Europe is worse. Let me help you decipher me: were I to claim that Europe was worse, then you see in my comments something to the effect of "Europe is worse".
Now let me be blunt: are there situations and attributes of the US that I prefer over Europe? Indeed. And vice versa, of course.
And those are laws, as opposed to this, which is the action of a private a company.
The Hays Code and Comics Code Authority were also purely private entities. Odd how they had monopoly control over every movie and comic that came out in the US for decades.
A private monopoly creating de-facto laws is worse than the government creating actual laws. Actual laws can be described, challenged, found unconstitutional, repealed and in general come under a well established system of public scrutiny. Private laws do not and cannot.
The greatest trick to making someone do something is to make them think they're not being made to do something.
Both the Hays Code and the Comics Code, however, were preemptive reactions to threatened legislative action. But yes, they created de facto censorship, and I am not comfortable with that. However, given the choice between de facto censoship and de jure censorship, I'll take the former. Why? Because I can't easily get locked up for violating the former.
The Hays Code and the Comics Code did not have a monopoly over anything but their own certifications. Except where actual laws were based on them, individual publishers and merchants were free to not seek their approval. They were extremely influential, no doubt about it, but they were influential because publishers and merchants voluntarily acceded to their standards (where there was governmental coercion, then I most decidedly am opposed to that). You don't have to get your movie rated by the MPAA today, but many theaters will choose not to show it. Are privately-owned theaters obligated to show unrated movies? If I'm a theater owner and I am morally opposed to a film's content, do I have an obligation to show it anyway? If you don't like such a theater's film selection, then you don't have to patronize that establishment. If enough people choose not to go to the theater, then it will either go out of business or change its selection to be more market-friendly.
If a private theater
Yeah because if you can't find what you're looking for on the Kindle, then it must not be available anywhere! (At least, in some future world where the Amazon Kindle is the only device capable of exchanging information over the internet.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I said that seemed harsh and then described that I didn't like something on US news that was tangentially related to what the French ban was targeting.
As opposed to days of yore when they'd send out a camera crew to get random sound bites from people on the street. Maybe you'd prefer they did that instead, but should anyone's preferences carry the force of law?
Nope, that was stupid too. And I think I said "banning the words seems harsh" and never suggested my preferences be enforced by law. Thanks for playing!
Pay your engineers a salary, make customer consultations one of the goals and factors for career advancement and raises.
If you want to give them a percentage cut, give them shares in the company, so their incentive is to benefit the company, not just wring dollars out of customers.
Exactly, because your consulting firm will be out of business anyway.
So I guess you also don't read any commercial books, then?
While it's almost certainly against the rules to talk about gmail because thats promoting google's business, to talk about the general concept of email is just fine because its an open standard that covers thousands of different providers.
Try telling that to people who use Outlook.
You misspelled "winning".
You can blog about something without implying you're using a particular company's service. You can't follow someone on Twitter without using Twitter. You can't 'like' someone in Facebook without going through Facebook. These forms of communication can only be referred to through the brand names, because only the brand names provide them.
(But there are generic names... microblogging and friending/networking/liking/following, depending on what you're doing. We just don't tend to use them because microblogging is dominated by Twitter [in the West, at least] and social networking by Facebook.)
Wouldn't the news show having a presence on Twitter/Facebook be an endorsement? Indicating that they have said presence isn't so much an endorsement as a statement of fact. Can they mention their website? Is that an implicit endorsement of their web hosting company? The internet providers you might use to reach their site? The companies who manufacture the ethernet and/or wifi devices you might use to access them? Are they endorsing France Télécom when they give out their phone number?
...I wouldn't mind if "newsmen" would stop reading random goddamned tweets on the air as if they're somehow interesting or relevant. If a tweet doesn't have a congressman's penis allegedly contained within, it doesn't belong on your news show.
So photons only go through both slits in the function that describes their movement, not in reality. It's just that the only way to describe their behavior is to assume they go through both slits, because we can't measure these things without disturbing them.
This doesn't explain the single-electron version of the double slit experiment, in which an interference pattern emerges, demonstrating that the electron wave function interfered with itself and thus must have passed through, wave-like, both slits at the same time. It's only when you try to observe which slit the electron goes through that it dutifully fulfills our expectations and goes through both. The experiment discussed above apprarently reveals a way to do some level of observation without completely collapsing the wave functions, or all of the wave functions, or of restoring the wave function post-observation, I guess.
...they should do that with some economists, and maybe try to feed their people.
I think the word you're looking for is "sabotage".
It's good to know that the Thai authorities have their priorities straight. We wouldn't want them stopping any child prostitution or sex tourism.
... and that is that you can look-up the dresses of Ayane, Koroke, and Kasumi and apparently see something pornographic, and in 3D
...I can get that Tandy computer I've had my heart set on. 80% IBM compatible!
...because neither footballer's name show up in the post.
No... so I could click somewhere on the command line and the cursor would move there.
...can I just get ncurses capability in my bash shell, so it will respond to mouse clicks?
Most people agree that wearing this 'uniform' isn't always voluntary. Especially for Muslim girls there's massive pressure from both family and the community. Muslim boys seem to be taught that girls without headscarves are sluts, whores or worse so they react strongly if their sister doesn't want to wear a headscarf. A ban frees the girls from this pressure and from that point of view it is a very good thing.
I think strippers in the US dress sexually provocatively. Should we pass a law that forces women to dress like strippers in public in order to free them from the social pressure that might result if they voluntarily dressed that way? You know millions of parents every day limit what attire their daughters are allowed to leave the house in. I guess forcing them to wear miniskirts (or, a less extreme example, not allowing women to wear anything that covers their calves), whether they want to or not, would be a "very good thing".
Now, the Muslim culture also holds some limitations for girls in their interaction with men. That this is sexist is blatantly obvious because no similar limits exist for men in their interaction with women. These limitations tend to hinder headscarf-wearing girls from getting work, mostly due to misunderstandings, but it's still there. Also, some businesses refuse to allow their staff to send signals to the customers, neither political nor religious. And that's where the headscarf becomes a problem because sending a signal is what it is for. If it was a matter of covering their hair, why not wear a wig? - It covers your hair and yet you still look like everybody else and you will blend just fine. But no. It is not about covering the hair but rather about sending the signal that you're a devout Muslim.
I wasn't talking about private businesses, I was talking about public schools. Why should people not be allowed to send a signal in public that they are a devout Muslim (or Christian, or Hindu, or Sikh, or atheist), if they so choose? Further, your argument here contradicts the above... if a woman wears a traditionally Muslim headscarf to signal that she is a devout Muslim, then I think we can assume she is not being coerced into wearing it any more than anyone else is coerced by social and/or religious pressure. If you are afraid of women being coerced into wearing something they would not choose to wear, then why not make that illegal, rather than limiting their choices for their own good (which seems rather patronizing to me).
Rather than rely on others do do your arguing for you, why don't you explain why you think copyright infringement is analogous to theft? I don't care how eloquent or articulate you are if you can make a cogent argument.
I never said Europe was better or worse, simply that the views on what is appropriate for children are in a large part merely artifacts of culture.
You cite things which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand which was entertainment and appropriate entertainment for children. I've found nudity and violence to be the two largest differentiators.
Actually the discussion was not so much "what is appropriate" as what is damaging. If seeing Nazi symbols or public headscarves are damaging for adults, one can only presume that it is at least as damaging for children. At worst, my comments are tangential to the discussion.
It seems from your post that you like nudity, don't particularly like violence and dislike Europe. None for any rational reasons
I have no idea where you get these ideas from. If you think you are capable of forming a psychological profile of me from one comment on /., then let me assure you that you are mistaken. I like nudity, I watch plenty of violent entertainment, and I like Europe. Objecting to a couple of laws in some European states that inhibit what I consider freedom of speech doesn't mean I dislike Europe as a whole. As someone who gives lip service to "rational reasons", your ridiculous conclusion disappoints me.
As such you are forced to find unrelated reasons (read: rational justifications) to claim Europe is worse because you can't accept that they are better than the US by your own standards in this area. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what your post tells me.
You are wrong, and I don't see how my post told you that I claimed Europe is worse. Let me help you decipher me: were I to claim that Europe was worse, then you see in my comments something to the effect of "Europe is worse". Now let me be blunt: are there situations and attributes of the US that I prefer over Europe? Indeed. And vice versa, of course.
And those are laws, as opposed to this, which is the action of a private a company.
The Hays Code and Comics Code Authority were also purely private entities. Odd how they had monopoly control over every movie and comic that came out in the US for decades.
A private monopoly creating de-facto laws is worse than the government creating actual laws. Actual laws can be described, challenged, found unconstitutional, repealed and in general come under a well established system of public scrutiny. Private laws do not and cannot.
The greatest trick to making someone do something is to make them think they're not being made to do something.
Both the Hays Code and the Comics Code, however, were preemptive reactions to threatened legislative action. But yes, they created de facto censorship, and I am not comfortable with that. However, given the choice between de facto censoship and de jure censorship, I'll take the former. Why? Because I can't easily get locked up for violating the former. The Hays Code and the Comics Code did not have a monopoly over anything but their own certifications. Except where actual laws were based on them, individual publishers and merchants were free to not seek their approval. They were extremely influential, no doubt about it, but they were influential because publishers and merchants voluntarily acceded to their standards (where there was governmental coercion, then I most decidedly am opposed to that). You don't have to get your movie rated by the MPAA today, but many theaters will choose not to show it. Are privately-owned theaters obligated to show unrated movies? If I'm a theater owner and I am morally opposed to a film's content, do I have an obligation to show it anyway? If you don't like such a theater's film selection, then you don't have to patronize that establishment. If enough people choose not to go to the theater, then it will either go out of business or change its selection to be more market-friendly. If a private theater
Indeed, had I actually made that claim, it would be absurd. Since I didn't, your entire comment is attacking a straw man.
When it comes to selling you stuff on your Kindle, Amazon is not a service provider, they are a merchant.
Yeah because if you can't find what you're looking for on the Kindle, then it must not be available anywhere! (At least, in some future world where the Amazon Kindle is the only device capable of exchanging information over the internet.)