Well my wireless Network card came with some software that does exactly that. It connects right away without any intervention. That's how I found out I had neighbours with wifi. I went to disconnect and connect in with a wired connection (to do my banking), and I noticed I wasn't connected to my own network.
And I'd say that more than a few people run the install CD that comes with their hardware.
At no point in my post was I arguing the merits of gay marriage, merely addressing the terms the debate had been cast in.
No I do NOT think the anti-miscegenation were acceptable. They were NOT an equal rights issue, because white people were banned from marrying outside their race as much as black people. Recognizing this fact, does not in ANY way suggest that anti-miscegenation laws are okay.
I guess he too was too busy fighting against equal rights for homosexuals
Now this is something I really don't get. Why some people honestly seem to believe that the whole thing is a question of equal rights. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to start a thread on the rights or wrongs of gay marriage, I'm merely questioning the way in which the terms of debate have been cast.
Frankly, I don't see it as a question of equal rights because the right to marry someone under current law is not based on sexual orientation, but on gender.
For instance, fighting a law that says "black people can't vote in federal elections" is an equal rights thing because there's a clear parallel. A white man has a right to vote in federal elections and a black person does not.
By contrast we do not have any law that says "gays can't marry their partners". What we have is a law that says that all people of the age of majority can marry a person of the opposite sex as long as they are not related or a minor, or already married.
The sexual orientation of a person is not part of the law. I'm heterosexual, and it is against the law for me to marry another man. A gay man has the right to marry a woman. Of course what the gay man wants is the right to marry his male partner, but that doesn't make it an issue of equal rights.
I think the mistake is in thinking of the law in terms of if you're heterosexual, you can marry who you want to. But that isn't what the law is.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it irritates me when people try to phrase everything as a "rights" issue. Some things are just laws we want to have passed. Just because it's not a "right", doesn't it mean it shouldn't be legal.
It's a nice idea, and I tried it. My experience may not be typical, but it didn't go over well. I suspect my experience is typical. The boss was fully aware of the costs, and made the decision to stick with MS. Basically, to an executive, nothing is more valuable than his time, and nothing is as easy to use (and therefore efficient with his time) that something he already knows how to use. Actually, I think that's true of a lot of people.
what are you smoking dude? Loads of Christians including myself find the Harry Potter books really fun to read. I teach in a Christian K-12 school and we have them in our Library. Stop the stereotyping.
oh, and we read Narnia when we're young, because it's written for children. Just like Harry Potter. Like Harry Potter, it's well written enough that adults enjoy it as well despite the fact that it wasn't written for them.
your government isn't being hijacked by anyone. it's the same democratic system you've always had. I'll assume that you're a democrat who voted for Gore & Kerry.
Newsflash: You lost a couple of elections. Get over it. That's what happens with elections. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. There will be another election, you might win that one. You might not. But it is safe to say that the Republicans will eventually lose. Fears about theocracies are just silly.
Speaking as a non-American, you really need to get over your "the sky is falling" attitude just because you're not winning everything.
Sure, but it's not "okay". Hating others is very much not "okay" for Christians. Plenty of Christians cheat on their spouses, but it's not okay either.
That said, I don't think it's generally considered okay in our society to hate Christians. It may be considered socially acceptable to be rude about Christians, but that's a far cry from hate. It's socially okay to be rude about white males, but I don't think most people think that hating white males is okay.
But back to your post...
they have a lock on that market
Right... Only Christians have that particular flaw...
Well The Magician's Nephew is easy because it features different characters than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Jardis and the white witch are the same person, but she's an adult.
It was modded flamebait because it's bringing up gun ownership. An interesting topic to be sure, but it's a red flag issue for many people. It's flamebait because it invites an argument over the right to bear arms which has nothing to do with the topic. There are other comparisons which don't invite straying off topic.
Not all flamebait is rude and offensive. Well written flamebait starts the flamewar without using cheap tactics.
It may not even be intended as flamebait. Maybe unintended troll would be a good classification. Forget about the slashdot moderation system anyway. It's useless. Same with that whole friends-foes thing...
but those laws would be infringing on freedom of speech
No they would not. This would only restrict the speech of a corporation not a citizen. The CEO of the company can still do all the expressing he likes. Corporations do not have the same rights as citizens. When was the last time you saw "Proctor & Gamble" on the voter registration list?
The only thing the poster missed is that you have to outlaw contributions from unions and professional organizations as well. Donations from actual living, breathing citizens only. And while you're at it, take away any tax benefits for doing so. You want to donate to a political party? Fine. But it's not feeding the homeless so do it on your own dime, don't expect a tax receipt for it.
this is what's wrong with slashdot. Rather than have a discussion about the legislation you decide to bring in an unrelated issue. (Namely the war issue).
It's sort of like attaching a measure to penalize pre-releasers to an unrelated bill addressing auto-filtering DVD players.
I think you're right. It's a double standard and it isn't fair. Although the bit about killing isn't necessary and it muddies the issue. It appears from the context of the law that saying "God says you should hate all gays/Jews/unbelievers, so please hate them", is legal, but saying "I say" in front of that is illegal.
I don't really see a solution though. Hate is an awfully slippery thing to pin down in law so anytime you try to make hate illegal you're going to end up with a clumsy law. The problem comes in because they were trying to make it explicit that religious freedoms weren't being altered when the section was introduced. It's a sloppy piece of law in my opinion.
now that is a good troll. You almost had me. I actually got a sentence or two into your bit on Chomsky before I realized I'd been suckered. I must be slipping in my old age...
Publishing information or photos of minors should fall under different restrictions because minors need more protection than adults.
The policy which I had a hand in writing at the school I work at is that we won't publish photos of a student without the written consent of a parent and we never post the photo and name on the same page or on two pages linked in a way that makes the connection obvious. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
additionally, I don't see why the regular press shouldn't be restricted any more than a blogger. So if the press can't do it, why should bloggers be allowed since both groups are really just groups of individuals with the same civil rights?
The fact that bloggers are allowed to do this is worrying.
there's really only one relevant question in my mind. Is the regular press allowed to publish personal information on regular people? (I don't care if they actually do or not, are they allowed to?) If the regular press has that right, then so should any blogger.
If it were, then why is Ahenakew being charged under the hate speech laws? He didn't incite action. He simply went off on an anti-semitic rant. He's a jerk and his views are terrible but they didn't contain an incitement to act. And he's being charged for hate speech.
The act itself (Look at Section 319) specifies 4 elements that are necessary for a charge.
To get charged you have to:
1) communicate statements,
2) in a public place,
3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, (not necessarily action)
4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
In other words you can be charged if your statement is likely to cause a breach of the peace even if you had no call to action in your statement.
The only problem with the act in regards to free speech that I can see is the odd distinction between public and private statements. If someone makes a bunch of statements in public that qualify as hate speech as they're likely to cause a breach of the peace, that's a crime. But if they make the same statements at a private invitation only dinner event and the statements a breach of the peace is still the likely result that's okay? Doesn't make a lot of sense at first glance.
I don't think were discussing anyone shoving their ideas down your throat. Neither the print shop guy or Dr. Kempler were imposing their views on anyone. Dr. Kempler was expressing his in a public forum and the other guy was simply refusing to promote someone else's views. He notably was not refusing service to people because they were gay, merely because of the content of their message. I see no reason why Xtra West
In regards to Chris Kempler why do the content of his views matter? So they're "scary". Why does that make any difference as to whether or not he should be allowed to express his views in a newspaper? As I said before, it would have been different if he'd been expressing them in school because in that context he's charged with educating minors and has a position of authority as a teacher. But he did not abuse his position or promote his views in the classroom. If a teacher wrote a letter to the editor saying that God doesn't exist and religious people are blind stupid fools or that Mohammed was the last true prophet and that non-Muslims should be subject to Islamic law that teacher should not be sanctioned by his school. I strongly disagree with those views, but people should be allowed to express them publicly.
hey at least the editors don't seem to be using the not using the bitchslap tool anymore. I got caught in the most famous incident of that. I'm paroled now though.:P
I think you also have to include local monopolies in your exception. The situation is different if by refusing your service you effectively denied any service to a person. For example if you were the only printer available in the area or if you were a monopoly.
I'm not sure I agree with letting people refuse service because of who a person is. For example I'd say that not letting gay people visit your theatre just because they're gay is wrong. Refusing to print an advertisement for a pro-life group in your newspaper seems legitimate though. (As long as you're doing it because you don't want to support any non pro-choice position not because the group is a religious group).
Slashdot Mirror
Well my wireless Network card came with some software that does exactly that. It connects right away without any intervention. That's how I found out I had neighbours with wifi. I went to disconnect and connect in with a wired connection (to do my banking), and I noticed I wasn't connected to my own network. And I'd say that more than a few people run the install CD that comes with their hardware.
At no point in my post was I arguing the merits of gay marriage, merely addressing the terms the debate had been cast in.
No I do NOT think the anti-miscegenation were acceptable. They were NOT an equal rights issue, because white people were banned from marrying outside their race as much as black people. Recognizing this fact, does not in ANY way suggest that anti-miscegenation laws are okay.
GAH!!
must... preview... tags....
Now this is something I really don't get. Why some people honestly seem to believe that the whole thing is a question of equal rights. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to start a thread on the rights or wrongs of gay marriage, I'm merely questioning the way in which the terms of debate have been cast.
Frankly, I don't see it as a question of equal rights because the right to marry someone under current law is not based on sexual orientation, but on gender.
For instance, fighting a law that says "black people can't vote in federal elections" is an equal rights thing because there's a clear parallel. A white man has a right to vote in federal elections and a black person does not.
By contrast we do not have any law that says "gays can't marry their partners". What we have is a law that says that all people of the age of majority can marry a person of the opposite sex as long as they are not related or a minor, or already married.
The sexual orientation of a person is not part of the law. I'm heterosexual, and it is against the law for me to marry another man. A gay man has the right to marry a woman. Of course what the gay man wants is the right to marry his male partner, but that doesn't make it an issue of equal rights.
I think the mistake is in thinking of the law in terms of if you're heterosexual, you can marry who you want to. But that isn't what the law is.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it irritates me when people try to phrase everything as a "rights" issue. Some things are just laws we want to have passed. Just because it's not a "right", doesn't it mean it shouldn't be legal.
It's a nice idea, and I tried it. My experience may not be typical, but it didn't go over well. I suspect my experience is typical. The boss was fully aware of the costs, and made the decision to stick with MS. Basically, to an executive, nothing is more valuable than his time, and nothing is as easy to use (and therefore efficient with his time) that something he already knows how to use. Actually, I think that's true of a lot of people.
The only rational for your complaint appears to be "I don't like paying that much" in different words.
sorry man. I misunderstood you.
oh, and we read Narnia when we're young, because it's written for children. Just like Harry Potter. Like Harry Potter, it's well written enough that adults enjoy it as well despite the fact that it wasn't written for them.
and it was funny. :)
Newsflash: You lost a couple of elections. Get over it. That's what happens with elections. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. There will be another election, you might win that one. You might not. But it is safe to say that the Republicans will eventually lose. Fears about theocracies are just silly.
Speaking as a non-American, you really need to get over your "the sky is falling" attitude just because you're not winning everything.
Sure, but it's not "okay". Hating others is very much not "okay" for Christians. Plenty of Christians cheat on their spouses, but it's not okay either.
That said, I don't think it's generally considered okay in our society to hate Christians. It may be considered socially acceptable to be rude about Christians, but that's a far cry from hate. It's socially okay to be rude about white males, but I don't think most people think that hating white males is okay.
But back to your post...
they have a lock on that market
Right... Only Christians have that particular flaw...
Well The Magician's Nephew is easy because it features different characters than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Jardis and the white witch are the same person, but she's an adult.
Not all flamebait is rude and offensive. Well written flamebait starts the flamewar without using cheap tactics.
It may not even be intended as flamebait. Maybe unintended troll would be a good classification. Forget about the slashdot moderation system anyway. It's useless. Same with that whole friends-foes thing...
No they would not. This would only restrict the speech of a corporation not a citizen. The CEO of the company can still do all the expressing he likes. Corporations do not have the same rights as citizens. When was the last time you saw "Proctor & Gamble" on the voter registration list?
The only thing the poster missed is that you have to outlaw contributions from unions and professional organizations as well. Donations from actual living, breathing citizens only. And while you're at it, take away any tax benefits for doing so. You want to donate to a political party? Fine. But it's not feeding the homeless so do it on your own dime, don't expect a tax receipt for it.
It's sort of like attaching a measure to penalize pre-releasers to an unrelated bill addressing auto-filtering DVD players.
I don't really see a solution though. Hate is an awfully slippery thing to pin down in law so anytime you try to make hate illegal you're going to end up with a clumsy law. The problem comes in because they were trying to make it explicit that religious freedoms weren't being altered when the section was introduced. It's a sloppy piece of law in my opinion.
now that is a good troll. You almost had me. I actually got a sentence or two into your bit on Chomsky before I realized I'd been suckered. I must be slipping in my old age...
The policy which I had a hand in writing at the school I work at is that we won't publish photos of a student without the written consent of a parent and we never post the photo and name on the same page or on two pages linked in a way that makes the connection obvious. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
there's really only one relevant question in my mind. Is the regular press allowed to publish personal information on regular people? (I don't care if they actually do or not, are they allowed to?) If the regular press has that right, then so should any blogger.
If it were, then why is Ahenakew being charged under the hate speech laws? He didn't incite action. He simply went off on an anti-semitic rant. He's a jerk and his views are terrible but they didn't contain an incitement to act. And he's being charged for hate speech.
The act itself (Look at Section 319) specifies 4 elements that are necessary for a charge.
To get charged you have to:
1) communicate statements, 2) in a public place, 3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, (not necessarily action) 4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
In other words you can be charged if your statement is likely to cause a breach of the peace even if you had no call to action in your statement.
The only problem with the act in regards to free speech that I can see is the odd distinction between public and private statements. If someone makes a bunch of statements in public that qualify as hate speech as they're likely to cause a breach of the peace, that's a crime. But if they make the same statements at a private invitation only dinner event and the statements a breach of the peace is still the likely result that's okay? Doesn't make a lot of sense at first glance.
I don't think were discussing anyone shoving their ideas down your throat. Neither the print shop guy or Dr. Kempler were imposing their views on anyone. Dr. Kempler was expressing his in a public forum and the other guy was simply refusing to promote someone else's views. He notably was not refusing service to people because they were gay, merely because of the content of their message. I see no reason why Xtra West
In regards to Chris Kempler why do the content of his views matter? So they're "scary". Why does that make any difference as to whether or not he should be allowed to express his views in a newspaper? As I said before, it would have been different if he'd been expressing them in school because in that context he's charged with educating minors and has a position of authority as a teacher. But he did not abuse his position or promote his views in the classroom. If a teacher wrote a letter to the editor saying that God doesn't exist and religious people are blind stupid fools or that Mohammed was the last true prophet and that non-Muslims should be subject to Islamic law that teacher should not be sanctioned by his school. I strongly disagree with those views, but people should be allowed to express them publicly.
Do you really not agree?
the comment moderation has vanished on that bitchslapped post. At some point I think it had a few hundred moderations.
I think you also have to include local monopolies in your exception. The situation is different if by refusing your service you effectively denied any service to a person. For example if you were the only printer available in the area or if you were a monopoly.
I'm not sure I agree with letting people refuse service because of who a person is. For example I'd say that not letting gay people visit your theatre just because they're gay is wrong. Refusing to print an advertisement for a pro-life group in your newspaper seems legitimate though. (As long as you're doing it because you don't want to support any non pro-choice position not because the group is a religious group).