But really, that example is FAR removed from the point. You're example is a translation, not an original text. They aren't rewriting the Hebrew to remove offensive shit. That's just bogus.
I think we should have standards for how we treat them, but I think that comparing the situation to slavery is somewhat over-the-top. Though it's really hard to think of some objective way of deciding just what rights they should have.
I think, maybe, we should just ask, if we can figure out how. Of course, then there's the morass of objectively identifying and interpreting communication.:-)
I fully agree. Our current standards are horrible though.
As a side-note, watch "The Cove" if you get a chance. As with all documentaries it's got an agenda, but I think it's completely legitimate for more reasons than just "the poor dolphins".
all those people that were made homeless by the internet?
Eg:
internet gambling addicts
victims of Nigerian and other scams
people fired for internet use at work contrary to company policy
and of course those who revealed information on their Facebook/Myspace page and got canned / divorced / bullied/don't ask dont tell discharged etc.
It sounds like those people became homeless because of themselves.
Apparently they got so confused they all declared war on each other, since the dead birds were found to suffer from blunt force trauma resulting from repeated external blows.
I would even extend that to every 5 minutes per trader. There's no reason entities need to be trading something every few milliseconds other than trying to manipulate the market. This is about investments. There used to be actual brains behind all this, not bullshit computer algorithms shoving everybody else around and causing massive destabilization in the market.
When a child picks up the text of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and reads the word "nigger" I want them to take offense. Not to take offense at Mark Twain but more so to take offense to and own up to this great country's tortured past and to vow that this will never happen again. This use of a word as a marker of hate and denigration simply because of the color of a person's skin -- and the widespread cultural acceptance of it! If your child never learns the horrible results of that scenario than your child may one day find themselves as a part of that scenario.
But that was not the intent of the author. That word in that book was never meant to incite offence to the degree that it does today. The word is so offensive today that it detracts from the story the book was intended to tell.
If the intent of the word was to offend, or it was an integral part of the story and the meaning of that word was also integral, then I would defend having it stay. But meanings change and *in this case* there is no valid reason to have that word a part of the story. It adds nothing and only detracts from the real message. I see nothing wrong with removing it, and no I don't see that as censorship.
It IS censorship. That book accurately captures and portrays characters from the time the book was written. Failing to understand that and and failing to read it in context isn't the book's fault, nor is it the author's fault. Maybe we should work on educating that point rather than blindly burning away anything we don't understand and are offended by. That's a knee-jerk reaction to perfectly legitimate literature. This kind of reaction is completely ludicrous!
Also, where does this end!?!? You just simply do not destroy original literature. I don't care what it is, you don't alter it's original form. What, are we going to start covering up the statue of David or something now because somebody was scared of a stone penis and might interpret that as modern pornography?
Counting on the service providers to break the law to provide emergency services with priority while the political process works on the later legislation is silly.
Kinda like "Let's pass this bill so we can find out what's in it", right?;)
Holy hell, can't this be modded flamebait? The first paragraph was fine, the second was nothing short of an ignorant bullshit rant based on the poster's own fucked up stereotypes.
I remember reading about a guy who was receiving WiFi to his place from town... over 7 miles away... over a freakin' huge hill. Sadly, I am unable to locate the link for that one. I think he used a small satellite dish from his place, then put some yagis on a tree on top of the hill that had clear line of sight to both his place and whatever was providing the WiFi.
Imagine trying to find out who's stealing your WiFi when the person's doing something like that...
That makes no sense. Disallowing Comcast and its ilk from doing something is regulation.
Now if we split Comcast into a content provider and common carrier and deregulated the former while regulating the latter as a utility, that would make sense.
More importantly, what if a carrier network is carrying VoIP traffic? Your rule would make it illegal to give 911 calls priority over all other traffic, and would undermine the ideas of QoS. I agree with your rule in spirit, but it needs some amendments to be practical.
That one's easy. It's much easier to legislate the exceptions than to come up with a whole new rule. I don't think anybody's gonna call out Comcast for giving priority to emergency services in the meantime.
So, no, Amazon doesn't have the "freedom to not do business with you". They sell raw CPU by the cycle, disk storage and network bandwidth by the byte. In my opinion it is despicable for them to discriminate against customers based on political beliefs and vague innuendo of legal issues when no actual US law has been cited against their customer.
To be fair to Amazon, they do have rules to the use of their hosting service. Wikileaks content could easily be seen to violate those rules they have in place. While it's a matter of opinion, a person would have a hard time blaming Amazon simply for enforcing their rules.
That aside, I hope they find a hosting service who will stand behind Wikileaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Make no mistake, Bernie Madoff is enabled by the government.
I guess that's why the USPS is so successful.
The original text is Hebrew.
I would also like to add that this is not even an example of a "modern translation". They're removing offensive words for the hell of it.
Read the context of the post you dirty troll. It's only as bad as me saying you caused your own burns if you put your hand in the fire.
You going to change Shakespeare, too?
But really, that example is FAR removed from the point. You're example is a translation, not an original text. They aren't rewriting the Hebrew to remove offensive shit. That's just bogus.
Did you read the GP's post or just blindly assume I was talking about ALL homeless? Jesus Christ, understand context before you go off on somebody.
People like you sicken me.
I think we should have standards for how we treat them, but I think that comparing the situation to slavery is somewhat over-the-top. Though it's really hard to think of some objective way of deciding just what rights they should have.
I think, maybe, we should just ask, if we can figure out how. Of course, then there's the morass of objectively identifying and interpreting communication. :-)
I fully agree. Our current standards are horrible though.
As a side-note, watch "The Cove" if you get a chance. As with all documentaries it's got an agenda, but I think it's completely legitimate for more reasons than just "the poor dolphins".
all those people that were made homeless by the internet?
Eg: internet gambling addicts victims of Nigerian and other scams people fired for internet use at work contrary to company policy and of course those who revealed information on their Facebook/Myspace page and got canned / divorced / bullied /don't ask dont tell discharged etc.
It sounds like those people became homeless because of themselves.
Apparently they got so confused they all declared war on each other, since the dead birds were found to suffer from blunt force trauma resulting from repeated external blows.
I would even extend that to every 5 minutes per trader. There's no reason entities need to be trading something every few milliseconds other than trying to manipulate the market. This is about investments. There used to be actual brains behind all this, not bullshit computer algorithms shoving everybody else around and causing massive destabilization in the market.
A good salesman. The opportunities for massive profits when dealing with crazies is endless!!!
But that's hard to fit in a resume or a "skills required" section of an ad for a job!
*slaps forehead* DOH!!! I thought I was merely giving an extreme example. How unsurprising.
The Constitution was recently read in Congress. Sort of. An amended version was read, one that didn't contain the "what do we do about slavery" part.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Law is not literature. The context DOES change with law on a regular basis. Changing the law is hardly censorship.
However, keeping each revision is important too.
First it's because US history in high-school is not history but a fairytale.
BINGO!!! And people wonder why our educational system up through high-school is complete trash.
When a child picks up the text of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and reads the word "nigger" I want them to take offense. Not to take offense at Mark Twain but more so to take offense to and own up to this great country's tortured past and to vow that this will never happen again. This use of a word as a marker of hate and denigration simply because of the color of a person's skin -- and the widespread cultural acceptance of it! If your child never learns the horrible results of that scenario than your child may one day find themselves as a part of that scenario.
But that was not the intent of the author. That word in that book was never meant to incite offence to the degree that it does today. The word is so offensive today that it detracts from the story the book was intended to tell.
If the intent of the word was to offend, or it was an integral part of the story and the meaning of that word was also integral, then I would defend having it stay. But meanings change and *in this case* there is no valid reason to have that word a part of the story. It adds nothing and only detracts from the real message. I see nothing wrong with removing it, and no I don't see that as censorship.
It IS censorship. That book accurately captures and portrays characters from the time the book was written. Failing to understand that and and failing to read it in context isn't the book's fault, nor is it the author's fault. Maybe we should work on educating that point rather than blindly burning away anything we don't understand and are offended by. That's a knee-jerk reaction to perfectly legitimate literature. This kind of reaction is completely ludicrous!
Also, where does this end!?!? You just simply do not destroy original literature. I don't care what it is, you don't alter it's original form. What, are we going to start covering up the statue of David or something now because somebody was scared of a stone penis and might interpret that as modern pornography?
There's something to be said about learning from past mistakes.
Counting on the service providers to break the law to provide emergency services with priority while the political process works on the later legislation is silly.
Kinda like "Let's pass this bill so we can find out what's in it", right? ;)
Holy hell, can't this be modded flamebait? The first paragraph was fine, the second was nothing short of an ignorant bullshit rant based on the poster's own fucked up stereotypes.
The good thing about WiFi hacking is that you have to be nearby. Which means I'll find you.
Not necessarily...
I remember reading about a guy who was receiving WiFi to his place from town... over 7 miles away... over a freakin' huge hill. Sadly, I am unable to locate the link for that one. I think he used a small satellite dish from his place, then put some yagis on a tree on top of the hill that had clear line of sight to both his place and whatever was providing the WiFi.
Imagine trying to find out who's stealing your WiFi when the person's doing something like that...
So, legislating that emergency services are given absolute highest QoS and uninterrupted service is a loophole? How so? Please explain?
That makes no sense. Disallowing Comcast and its ilk from doing something is regulation.
Now if we split Comcast into a content provider and common carrier and deregulated the former while regulating the latter as a utility, that would make sense.
So.... ruling that people be free isn't freedom?
More importantly, what if a carrier network is carrying VoIP traffic? Your rule would make it illegal to give 911 calls priority over all other traffic, and would undermine the ideas of QoS. I agree with your rule in spirit, but it needs some amendments to be practical.
That one's easy. It's much easier to legislate the exceptions than to come up with a whole new rule. I don't think anybody's gonna call out Comcast for giving priority to emergency services in the meantime.
To be fair to Amazon, they do have rules to the use of their hosting service. Wikileaks content could easily be seen to violate those rules they have in place. While it's a matter of opinion, a person would have a hard time blaming Amazon simply for enforcing their rules.
That aside, I hope they find a hosting service who will stand behind Wikileaks.