Because threatening a person is not an expression of opinion, it is a verbal attack. Where you draw the line between an expressed opinion and a threat depends on the court, the circumstances and the exact wording of the threat.
An expressed opinion is such a thing as "I hate X" (a shallow opinion in itself, but an opinion philosophically covered by freedom of speech). Saying you "hate christians" or "hate muslims" is an opinion. Saying you would "kill the next christian I see!" is not an expressed opinion, but a statement of implied future action - which can be illegal depending on the context and most certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is a threat. Saying you "think all muslims should be killed" is an opinion, but implies a threat so it could potentially be viewed as criminal speech - not for the opinion, but because of the implied threat.
Likewise telling somebody that you "own a stable firm with promising returns" and "just needs some venture investment" when in fact you're planning to con somebody out of their money and do not plan to return any money is deceit and illegal and has nothing to do with expressing opinions.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression covers ideas, opinions and the like. It does not cover threats, lies , etc. And no, the "idea of wanting to kill somebody" or "the idea to steal money by lying" is not "opinions".
What exactly are we disagreeing upon?:) I was merely working to elaborate upon the meaning of the term. I don't wish to discuss the exact implementation of a select nation, unless we are to change the topic to such?
Oh and the last thing was a bait: It is called freedom of expression and is used more or less as being synonymous to freedom of speech. Rarely do you talk about freedom of speech strictly in the vocal sense, although the literal meaning would imply such.
You seem to have little concept about the difference between need and greed. Excess and starvation. These are extremes, but valid variations exist. In short: you're greedy when you exploit others for advantages beyond your basic need, or more commonly above the need of those your exploit. Most people (sadly) is guilty of this to differing degrees, indeed I think no-one completely devoid of this particular survival strategy, but that does not make me blind to or undisgusted with how the economy of resources works today ie. capitalism.
You would be surprised how unsupervised the nightsky is, taking the whole of the Earth into consideration. Also, anyone who manages to pull off such an operation most likely have the brains to benefit from the gold without being obvious. Like for instance setting up various production centers and selling gold-based products (for instance: electronics) cheap but not stupid cheap. Just enough to compete and make a solid profit over a longer term.
That's using the wrong semantics. Is the written word speech? Technically it is the vocalized from of human communication, thus applying the wrong set of semantics could mean to imply that freedom of speech doesn't cover things in writing or paintings. However that is a misapplication of semantics and it is generally held that freedom of speech covers those two forms of expression as well.
Freedom of speech is, roughly speaking, the freedom to express your opinions without fear of retribution or censor. This does not inherently include "freedom to deceive" or "freedom to threaten". You can use your freedom of speech to advocate more freedom to threaten people or scare them, but good luck convincing society at large to implement it. You cannot use your freedom of speech to threaten people, that will land you in jail or with a fine.
Nations implement freedom of speech to varying degrees. For example, some would consider freedom of speech to include freedom to blasphemer and provocate. Indeed, if you think some guy is a huge dickwat, isn't that an opinion you're allowed to voice often and openly? Others view this as an attack and therefore outlaw it. Most often in cases where you offend somebody, the line is drawn depending on how well founded your opinion is. Well founded criticism is therefore not viewed as an attack, even if the end result is calling somebody an embezzling incompetent.
Ad hominem can be a valid (but not sound) cause for why the opponent argues like he does, but it is not a valid nor sound counter-argument to the logic by itself.
You cannot argue simply by saying "yeah but you might be working for x, so therefore y is invalid".
It doesn't matter that Microsoft is not a person, the essence of ad hominem remains the same even if the translation means "to the man". It remains to be a classical fallacy attacking the opponent instead of his premise.
I agree and think it a wise gesture. I know not the margins with which such a launcher can carry "extra baggage", but by all means allow students to benefit from it and learn something in the process. It nurtures further interest which, in my mind, is the best source of learning:)
I've learned to, very effectively, bring my eyes out of focus before clicking a link from an untrusted source. The result is a heavily lessened impact should the link be, ah, "visually malicious" while I can still recognize patterns without getting the details burned onto my retina.
It is amazing how one can learn to defend themselves mentally while browsing the internet.
I never really understood emacs. I mean, it is a really nice operating system and all, but it simply lacks some very basic functionality, like for example a proper text editor.
Exactly this. While I agree that what the students did was both an achievement and a valuable educational process, much of the cost of sending stuff into orbit is, not surprisingly, sending stuff into orbit. They got to do that for free*.
*Hidden costs 101: get somebody else to pay for it and say you did everything amazingly cheap.
He is not saying that 100% of music is crap or uninteresting. He is saying that most music right now utterly suck and I agree with him in the sense that most mainstream music, the current "trends" of music, sucks and is uninteresting.
I find it interesting that you say that somebody who takes music samples and remix it is a non-musician, especially since that statement is utter bullshit. Do you like Daft Punk? Well, if you do I have a newsflash for you: by your definition, they're not real musicians! Ohgawd! (hint: most if not all of their songs are samples of sounds from other songs. Didn't know that, did you?) Many musicians use samples, do covers and remix stuff - not just their own. Some of it is crap, some of it is not, but it is still music produced by a creative mind creating something new. Originality is a sliding scale.
Yeah, it is a pretty stupid non-story. Basically saying that after a network shut down, which amounted to x number of downloads they were able to track, they saw a fall of x downloads. OMGWTFBBQ shutting down a network removes the downloads occuring on it! Who would've thought.
In other news, pirates are moving to other less trackable networks or methods.
If the next earthquake is going to be mag 13 and the entire facility is built to withstand that, I want to move in and live there NOW. The scale is not linear, a mag 12 earthquake (> mag 13) would be part of a potential planetary extinction scenario. The most powerful "quake" measured is a magnitude 21 quake, also called a "starquake" because it happened on the surface of a neutron star (specifically a magnatar star), some 50.000 light years away. It was so powerful that the aftereffects could be measured in our atmosphere (gamma rays). If it had been less than 10.000 light years away, it would have fried us and wiped out all life on Earth.
So yeah, the people doing the hindsight fandango saying 8.2 was a conservative criterion for the design brought about by evil capitalist corner-cutter needs to get stuffed. There is always going to be an upper limit to what a design can take and personally I think the Fukushima facilities are doing quite well considering how much they got fucked over by mother earth.
I agree that this is cause for designing even more safe reactors. But I also think that everything is being handled rather stellar considering that they're in the middle of the aftermath of the seventh strongest earthquake in memory and a tsunami. The reactors WERE built with the active fault-line in mind, but this is a very extraordinary circumstance. The situation is also very much unlike Chernobyl despite what some media outlets and anti-nuclear activists want us to believe - that was a direct consequence of bad design added with circumvention of procedures.
Regardless, I'm just hoping for quicker development in fusion reactors. Less to worry about then.
The reactors were built to withstand a mighty 8-8.2 earthquake without issue. It was hit with a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequently hit by a tsunami that flooded the plant. Stand back and think about just exactly how much the reactors has withstood at this point. Try to fathom it. Then realize that much of what is being spewed by the media currently is anti-nuclear propaganda and that the reactors at this point has survived for a number of days without catastrophic incident after the earthquake and that a powerline is currently being drawn to the powerplant to bring back online all the safety systems, at which point the whole thing will deescalate rapidly.
What is basically going on now is manual coolant and damage control until the systems are back online. Meanwhile the media is getting days worth of "OH GOD IT AINT FIXED YET WE'RE GONNA DIEEEEEEE!". Imagine how happy they are at that, I mean can you ask for more profit? Sensationalism at its best. Meanwhile the actual emergency, the effect of the tsunami on the civilians, is getting less and less air time. The world is more interested in the action flick currently being played then they are of the relief efforts and tragedies.
Return to the point about just how much the reactors has withstood. The seventh strongest earthquake in our memory, a 9.0 earthquake on a logarithmic scale when it was built to withstand a (mighty) 8.2 earthquake and subsequently being hit and flooded by a tsunami. If you can fathom that, I think you should be agreeing that it is pretty damn well built for 50 year old obsolete tech.
The very first thought I had was "hmm... website with LOTS of text that I despise and want to roll over and demolish with glee..." Didn't take me long to go to timecube.com
In a completely naive and idealistic sense, I actually agree with you completely. However, this is reality and the accuser is partly responsible for the actions of the believers, because in essence the accuser fully expects and counts on that reaction. Yes, it is the believers' fault for believing him, but that does not absolve the liar. Especially if the lie is a good one, rhetorically.
I disagree. Yes, you can make a story out of "certain person A" and publish what information you have, in redacted form. When it then turns out that you're actually right, no problem. When it turns out you're wrong, you can safely shut up or even better make a story out of how you were wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Because threatening a person is not an expression of opinion, it is a verbal attack. Where you draw the line between an expressed opinion and a threat depends on the court, the circumstances and the exact wording of the threat.
An expressed opinion is such a thing as "I hate X" (a shallow opinion in itself, but an opinion philosophically covered by freedom of speech). Saying you "hate christians" or "hate muslims" is an opinion. Saying you would "kill the next christian I see!" is not an expressed opinion, but a statement of implied future action - which can be illegal depending on the context and most certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is a threat. Saying you "think all muslims should be killed" is an opinion, but implies a threat so it could potentially be viewed as criminal speech - not for the opinion, but because of the implied threat.
Likewise telling somebody that you "own a stable firm with promising returns" and "just needs some venture investment" when in fact you're planning to con somebody out of their money and do not plan to return any money is deceit and illegal and has nothing to do with expressing opinions.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression covers ideas, opinions and the like. It does not cover threats, lies , etc. And no, the "idea of wanting to kill somebody" or "the idea to steal money by lying" is not "opinions".
What exactly are we disagreeing upon? :)
I was merely working to elaborate upon the meaning of the term. I don't wish to discuss the exact implementation of a select nation, unless we are to change the topic to such?
Oh and the last thing was a bait: It is called freedom of expression and is used more or less as being synonymous to freedom of speech. Rarely do you talk about freedom of speech strictly in the vocal sense, although the literal meaning would imply such.
You seem to have little concept about the difference between need and greed. Excess and starvation. These are extremes, but valid variations exist.
In short: you're greedy when you exploit others for advantages beyond your basic need, or more commonly above the need of those your exploit. Most people (sadly) is guilty of this to differing degrees, indeed I think no-one completely devoid of this particular survival strategy, but that does not make me blind to or undisgusted with how the economy of resources works today ie. capitalism.
You would be surprised how unsupervised the nightsky is, taking the whole of the Earth into consideration. Also, anyone who manages to pull off such an operation most likely have the brains to benefit from the gold without being obvious. Like for instance setting up various production centers and selling gold-based products (for instance: electronics) cheap but not stupid cheap. Just enough to compete and make a solid profit over a longer term.
Anyway, the gold was a hypothetical example.
Who exploits the work of others most in the world? Greedy people. Who sells the productivity and work of others most in the world? Greedy people.
That's using the wrong semantics. Is the written word speech? Technically it is the vocalized from of human communication, thus applying the wrong set of semantics could mean to imply that freedom of speech doesn't cover things in writing or paintings. However that is a misapplication of semantics and it is generally held that freedom of speech covers those two forms of expression as well.
Freedom of speech is, roughly speaking, the freedom to express your opinions without fear of retribution or censor. This does not inherently include "freedom to deceive" or "freedom to threaten". You can use your freedom of speech to advocate more freedom to threaten people or scare them, but good luck convincing society at large to implement it. You cannot use your freedom of speech to threaten people, that will land you in jail or with a fine.
Nations implement freedom of speech to varying degrees. For example, some would consider freedom of speech to include freedom to blasphemer and provocate. Indeed, if you think some guy is a huge dickwat, isn't that an opinion you're allowed to voice often and openly? Others view this as an attack and therefore outlaw it. Most often in cases where you offend somebody, the line is drawn depending on how well founded your opinion is. Well founded criticism is therefore not viewed as an attack, even if the end result is calling somebody an embezzling incompetent.
Hope it makes sense.
I'm sorry, but Mythbusters != Science. Mythbusters == staged entertainment.
Ad hominem can be a valid (but not sound) cause for why the opponent argues like he does, but it is not a valid nor sound counter-argument to the logic by itself.
You cannot argue simply by saying "yeah but you might be working for x, so therefore y is invalid".
It doesn't matter that Microsoft is not a person, the essence of ad hominem remains the same even if the translation means "to the man". It remains to be a classical fallacy attacking the opponent instead of his premise.
I agree and think it a wise gesture. I know not the margins with which such a launcher can carry "extra baggage", but by all means allow students to benefit from it and learn something in the process. It nurtures further interest which, in my mind, is the best source of learning :)
I've learned to, very effectively, bring my eyes out of focus before clicking a link from an untrusted source. The result is a heavily lessened impact should the link be, ah, "visually malicious" while I can still recognize patterns without getting the details burned onto my retina.
It is amazing how one can learn to defend themselves mentally while browsing the internet.
I never really understood emacs. I mean, it is a really nice operating system and all, but it simply lacks some very basic functionality, like for example a proper text editor.
*ducks*
Exactly this. While I agree that what the students did was both an achievement and a valuable educational process, much of the cost of sending stuff into orbit is, not surprisingly, sending stuff into orbit. They got to do that for free*.
*Hidden costs 101: get somebody else to pay for it and say you did everything amazingly cheap.
He is not saying that 100% of music is crap or uninteresting. He is saying that most music right now utterly suck and I agree with him in the sense that most mainstream music, the current "trends" of music, sucks and is uninteresting.
I find it interesting that you say that somebody who takes music samples and remix it is a non-musician, especially since that statement is utter bullshit. Do you like Daft Punk? Well, if you do I have a newsflash for you: by your definition, they're not real musicians! Ohgawd! (hint: most if not all of their songs are samples of sounds from other songs. Didn't know that, did you?) Many musicians use samples, do covers and remix stuff - not just their own. Some of it is crap, some of it is not, but it is still music produced by a creative mind creating something new. Originality is a sliding scale.
Have you even tried to listen to proper mashups? Do you know who, for example, Dan Mei is? Try listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLC8ndUbMKI
Yeah, it is a pretty stupid non-story. Basically saying that after a network shut down, which amounted to x number of downloads they were able to track, they saw a fall of x downloads. OMGWTFBBQ shutting down a network removes the downloads occuring on it! Who would've thought.
In other news, pirates are moving to other less trackable networks or methods.
If the next earthquake is going to be mag 13 and the entire facility is built to withstand that, I want to move in and live there NOW. The scale is not linear, a mag 12 earthquake (> mag 13) would be part of a potential planetary extinction scenario. The most powerful "quake" measured is a magnitude 21 quake, also called a "starquake" because it happened on the surface of a neutron star (specifically a magnatar star), some 50.000 light years away. It was so powerful that the aftereffects could be measured in our atmosphere (gamma rays). If it had been less than 10.000 light years away, it would have fried us and wiped out all life on Earth.
So yeah, the people doing the hindsight fandango saying 8.2 was a conservative criterion for the design brought about by evil capitalist corner-cutter needs to get stuffed. There is always going to be an upper limit to what a design can take and personally I think the Fukushima facilities are doing quite well considering how much they got fucked over by mother earth.
I agree that this is cause for designing even more safe reactors. But I also think that everything is being handled rather stellar considering that they're in the middle of the aftermath of the seventh strongest earthquake in memory and a tsunami. The reactors WERE built with the active fault-line in mind, but this is a very extraordinary circumstance. The situation is also very much unlike Chernobyl despite what some media outlets and anti-nuclear activists want us to believe - that was a direct consequence of bad design added with circumvention of procedures.
Regardless, I'm just hoping for quicker development in fusion reactors. Less to worry about then.
The reactors were built to withstand a mighty 8-8.2 earthquake without issue. It was hit with a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequently hit by a tsunami that flooded the plant. Stand back and think about just exactly how much the reactors has withstood at this point. Try to fathom it. Then realize that much of what is being spewed by the media currently is anti-nuclear propaganda and that the reactors at this point has survived for a number of days without catastrophic incident after the earthquake and that a powerline is currently being drawn to the powerplant to bring back online all the safety systems, at which point the whole thing will deescalate rapidly.
What is basically going on now is manual coolant and damage control until the systems are back online. Meanwhile the media is getting days worth of "OH GOD IT AINT FIXED YET WE'RE GONNA DIEEEEEEE!". Imagine how happy they are at that, I mean can you ask for more profit? Sensationalism at its best. Meanwhile the actual emergency, the effect of the tsunami on the civilians, is getting less and less air time. The world is more interested in the action flick currently being played then they are of the relief efforts and tragedies.
Return to the point about just how much the reactors has withstood. The seventh strongest earthquake in our memory, a 9.0 earthquake on a logarithmic scale when it was built to withstand a (mighty) 8.2 earthquake and subsequently being hit and flooded by a tsunami. If you can fathom that, I think you should be agreeing that it is pretty damn well built for 50 year old obsolete tech.
The very first thought I had was "hmm... website with LOTS of text that I despise and want to roll over and demolish with glee..." Didn't take me long to go to timecube.com
I'm in your timecube REFUTING YOUR STUPIDITY!
Uh, yes, you have a moral obligation to let the police handle legal matters and especially to report it to them.
In a completely naive and idealistic sense, I actually agree with you completely. However, this is reality and the accuser is partly responsible for the actions of the believers, because in essence the accuser fully expects and counts on that reaction. Yes, it is the believers' fault for believing him, but that does not absolve the liar. Especially if the lie is a good one, rhetorically.
Sure, if the police or whatever relevant authority failed to do their job, then it would essentially be whistleblowing and I would be fine with that.
I disagree. Yes, you can make a story out of "certain person A" and publish what information you have, in redacted form. When it then turns out that you're actually right, no problem. When it turns out you're wrong, you can safely shut up or even better make a story out of how you were wrong.
Because I already addressed that strawman? It is not the same kind of case by a long shot.