It's perfectly relevant. You have no more right to restrict what a person says any more than you have to dictate fashion (though the censors are trying to do that also). Their dogma is no better than Sharia law. All you are doing is validating *The devil made me do it* defense. That's not a good idea, but it does keep the slaves from rebelling, so maybe it is good idea, huh? Who wants a bunch of unruly untouchables around?
I'm convinced they have priority. Take a glance at the journal section. I haven't checked recently, but the spam ratio appears to have stabilized around 400:1...
Despite all this, I sincerely hope that it does not provoke deletions by the editors. Censorship would be much offensive than the spam.
You mean the object isn't safety? And maybe labor costs? How close are we supposed to pack everybody? Let's not make this like the airlines. We need legroom!
So, "No means no" really means "No means 'the courts will decide'"? Okay, I get it.. I mean, if everything is going to be open to interpretation, let's start there...
If that's the way it has to be, Then I insist that short skirts and exposed cleavage incite rape, and we can just accept that free will does not exist, that we are compelled to act by one's words or appearance. Some pigs will just have to be a little less equal.
Words and deeds are not the same thing. Do not treat them like they are. If you want actually legal restrictions, you must modify the constitution. And you better put in something about skimpy clothing too. Because if any speech can cause me to involuntarily respond negatively, then so can anything. *The devil made me so it* is a legitimate defense.
If speech can incite violence (it doesn't ), then provocative clothing can incite rape (it doesn't), and we have to cover our women head to toe.. Let's all try to be a bit consistent here. Otherwise you're inciting the imposition of Islamic law.
Actually, as an amendment, the1st overrides copyright law. It is absolutely absolute. The court is wrong, but they have the bullets, so that make them right.
That's right. We both are. I don't even consider your silly dilemmas. Working on the technical solution is much more productive. That is where my major efforts go.
By the way, Obama is going full bore fascist to go after some rapper. You might get your censorship, and we'll have even more incentive to work around it. May the best man win...
You know? really... You should not have been modded down. This is a load of crap. Fire a bullet at the stuff, and then tell us if this shit works. The theoreticals and 'calculations' are bullshit until then.
Man, I know a few people here that need to hear that from somebody besides me. Tribalism is kind of a biological function. It illustrates how the same species can differentiate, almost 'fork', resulting in different phenotypes. If these wackos really don't want their message 'tainted', they definitely need to eliminate all the physical sciences.
And the parents? What's up?? Apparently they approve. It's not like the problem isn't chronic or anything. I guess in the middle of soccer matches and the beauty salon there just isn't enough time in the day to deal with the sprouts' education...
Wait a minute, you actually spend money on that? Why not just grab one of the paper towels they use for your windshield? Actually I think diesel and Chanel go good together...
Probably, with the will, we would have had today's technology 10,000 years ago. But our saving grace is that we are still moving forward and we are moving faster..
On the subject at hand, as long there are internal combustion engines, I personally prefer compression ignition with no throttling over the spark ignition, which and does frequently misfire, sending all sorts of yucky chemicals out the pipe. Really the best thing would be an external combustion engine that continuously burns the fuel. That is the cleanest way. I sure wish more effort was put into developing Stirling engines now that we have better materials. They could turn an generator like on a diesel-electric locomotive and the batteries would be used for rapid response so the engine doesn't have to, and you don't have all that silly 'hybrid' stuff with transmissions by Rube Goldberg..
The simplest ones are most often the correct ones. Anyway, are you advocating the death penalty there? Because if you are, you can get off my lawn right now.
Dennett (an actual philosopher) calls this kind of statement a "Deepity".
Well I don't know about him, but I can finish my 'philosophizing' in less than 30 seconds. In other words (snicker) he's full of shit.
And you have it so completely backwards. Only those with sufficient strength of character have the power to disregard words. It is the weak minded that feels compelled to act and follow the charismatic dictator. It takes greater strength than you apparently have to turn your back. But that is where you find the power, not with the bellicose loudmouth. His strength comes from the followers, not from his belly. The power to disregard is the greatest power you can have.
Here it is in a nutshell. If you are going to insist that words can incite a riot, or compel any action at all, then you must also admit that a certain style of clothing can compel a man to rape. So, what's it going to be? Are you ready to tell women to start wearing burkas if they don't want to be attacked? Or you are going to start believing in free will?
Slashdot Mirror
It's perfectly relevant. You have no more right to restrict what a person says any more than you have to dictate fashion (though the censors are trying to do that also). Their dogma is no better than Sharia law. All you are doing is validating *The devil made me do it* defense. That's not a good idea, but it does keep the slaves from rebelling, so maybe it is good idea, huh? Who wants a bunch of unruly untouchables around?
I'm convinced they have priority. Take a glance at the journal section. I haven't checked recently, but the spam ratio appears to have stabilized around 400:1...
Despite all this, I sincerely hope that it does not provoke deletions by the editors. Censorship would be much offensive than the spam.
Make sure the robots know how to keep their distance from running engines.
You mean the object isn't safety? And maybe labor costs? How close are we supposed to pack everybody? Let's not make this like the airlines. We need legroom!
So, "No means no" really means "No means 'the courts will decide'"? Okay, I get it.. I mean, if everything is going to be open to interpretation, let's start there...
If that's the way it has to be, Then I insist that short skirts and exposed cleavage incite rape, and we can just accept that free will does not exist, that we are compelled to act by one's words or appearance. Some pigs will just have to be a little less equal.
To bad all your lucid points are being lost in your spam. Or maybe you're sending a different message?
Words and deeds are not the same thing. Do not treat them like they are. If you want actually legal restrictions, you must modify the constitution. And you better put in something about skimpy clothing too. Because if any speech can cause me to involuntarily respond negatively, then so can anything. *The devil made me so it* is a legitimate defense.
If speech can incite violence (it doesn't ), then provocative clothing can incite rape (it doesn't), and we have to cover our women head to toe.. Let's all try to be a bit consistent here. Otherwise you're inciting the imposition of Islamic law.
Actually, as an amendment, the1st overrides copyright law. It is absolutely absolute. The court is wrong, but they have the bullets, so that make them right.
Words are not deeds. Everybody needs to stop conflating the two.
If you want to restrict my speech, I want to make women cover themselves. Their provocative dress incites rape.
Jeeze! you're a goofy spammer! Why did you have to post something I agree with??
I'm wasting my time here.
That's right. We both are. I don't even consider your silly dilemmas. Working on the technical solution is much more productive. That is where my major efforts go.
By the way, Obama is going full bore fascist to go after some rapper. You might get your censorship, and we'll have even more incentive to work around it. May the best man win...
You know? really... You should not have been modded down. This is a load of crap. Fire a bullet at the stuff, and then tell us if this shit works. The theoreticals and 'calculations' are bullshit until then.
With me, you will always win the internet..
'Criminal copyright violation'
They will use nuclear weapons to enforce copyright.. The thought is just so cool...
Oh....hahahaha.... cute...
Wouldn't know. Not a fan....
Man, I know a few people here that need to hear that from somebody besides me. Tribalism is kind of a biological function. It illustrates how the same species can differentiate, almost 'fork', resulting in different phenotypes. If these wackos really don't want their message 'tainted', they definitely need to eliminate all the physical sciences.
And the parents? What's up?? Apparently they approve. It's not like the problem isn't chronic or anything. I guess in the middle of soccer matches and the beauty salon there just isn't enough time in the day to deal with the sprouts' education...
So yes, these plastic gloves are a Good Thing
Wait a minute, you actually spend money on that? Why not just grab one of the paper towels they use for your windshield? Actually I think diesel and Chanel go good together...
Probably, with the will, we would have had today's technology 10,000 years ago. But our saving grace is that we are still moving forward and we are moving faster..
On the subject at hand, as long there are internal combustion engines, I personally prefer compression ignition with no throttling over the spark ignition, which and does frequently misfire, sending all sorts of yucky chemicals out the pipe. Really the best thing would be an external combustion engine that continuously burns the fuel. That is the cleanest way. I sure wish more effort was put into developing Stirling engines now that we have better materials. They could turn an generator like on a diesel-electric locomotive and the batteries would be used for rapid response so the engine doesn't have to, and you don't have all that silly 'hybrid' stuff with transmissions by Rube Goldberg..
cui bono, monsieur..
What people are doing now is more like choosing the same door over and over when they already know it's a gag.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, but the 95% reelection rate is still the norm. That just indicates nobody really wants to change anything.
And here it is, the simple answer...
The simplest ones are most often the correct ones. Anyway, are you advocating the death penalty there? Because if you are, you can get off my lawn right now.
Dennett (an actual philosopher) calls this kind of statement a "Deepity".
Well I don't know about him, but I can finish my 'philosophizing' in less than 30 seconds. In other words (snicker) he's full of shit.
And you have it so completely backwards. Only those with sufficient strength of character have the power to disregard words. It is the weak minded that feels compelled to act and follow the charismatic dictator. It takes greater strength than you apparently have to turn your back. But that is where you find the power, not with the bellicose loudmouth. His strength comes from the followers, not from his belly. The power to disregard is the greatest power you can have.
Here it is in a nutshell. If you are going to insist that words can incite a riot, or compel any action at all, then you must also admit that a certain style of clothing can compel a man to rape. So, what's it going to be? Are you ready to tell women to start wearing burkas if they don't want to be attacked? Or you are going to start believing in free will?