There is a difference between censorship and accountability. The intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth is already a well documented crime. There is a reason society has determined this to be necessary -- it is harmful to civil society. As proscriptions against slander and liable have emerged over time to address wrongs in society, we need a new element in the law that combats intentional, harmful, or negligent deceit.
We must confront the reality that the intentional or negligent act of creating or advancing untruth (and/or selective truth) in the guise of reporting whole truth is also harmful to civil society.
Fake news is a sticky hairball that transforms even the most intelligent, well-intentioned people into deceitful reprobates. Fake news is short term individual gain at the expense of long term social pain. Every untruth that is contrived and/or propagated diminishes us as a whole. The sooner we (collectively) reach a tipping point of understanding that untruth in all its forms is a net negative, the sooner we can stop bitching about specific rotten trees and start practicing good forestry.
Of what kind of society do we wish to be a part?
I want a society where I don't feel the need to advantage myself with untruths. I want a society where all untruth is shunned and even the "little white lie" is heart-wrenching and demoralizing.
I want a society where "news" is differentiated from "opinion." I want a society where "news" is the whole truth; not a sensational sound-bite.
I believe that fake news is a crime against civilization and society. I believe those who use fake news to harm individuals, groups, or society as a whole should be punished and/or rehabilitated.
Let us be clear... This is not an American problem nor a Russian problem nor a Chinese problem nor an Indian problem. This is not a Christian problem nor a Muslim problem nor a Jewish problem nor a problem of non-Abrahamic systems of faith or practice. This is not a Liberal problem nor a Conservative problem nor a problem for the rich or poor. This is not a problem for academics, laborers, financiers nor hard working house-spouses. This is a problem for all humanity... it is a test of our humanity.
We as global citizens must demand better in a global information age, lest we suffer the consequences of our unwillingness to stand up against a tyranny of deceit. We must demand better from the Platonian Philosopher Kings that reign over technology and media and, if necessary, hold them accountable as purveyors of deceit. We are living Toffler's FutureShock. We must be as determined to die for the truth that we find discomforting as we are that which comforts us -- because deceit is the mothers milk of tyranny and suffering -- because the fight for truth is noble, righteous, and just.
Perhaps some cultures may need to cut out the tongues of those convicted of speaking falsehood. Perhaps some cultures need to cut off fingers and hands of those convicted of writing falsehoods. For my culture, the sooner we can try and punish criminal deceit and litigate tortious deceit for compensatory and punitive damages -- the sooner we will rediscover news with integrity and journalism that uplifts society. Any crime against society must be met with a level of barbarity such that none in that society dare transgress. We stop being civilized if we abdicate truth.
For any generic hypothetical, it is entirely possible to unleash the hounds of hypothetical challenge. Such, neither demolishes the original hypothetical nor emboldens the credibility of the challenge. Both are weighed on their own contributory merits. Principles over personality.
Education is a broad category... geek-ish is equally broad depending on application.
Prime Directive... LOCAL...LOCAL...LOCAL. Your operative or key word is impact. You want to insure that as much as your dollar achieves its intended objective and that you have the ability to (if you choose) to verify the impact. Avoid a national or international blunderbuss -- such an approach scatters your money, creates too much dilution and generally includes excessive overhead.
Out-of-the-Box Brainstorm Suggestions:
Crisis Hotline, Woman's Center (or an similar support system for domestic abuse), Big Brothers Big Sisters, Homeless Shelters, Addiction and Rehabilitation Groups
You can also use Charity Navigator
to assist you in researching specific organizations.
Each of these can be geeked-up to provide uplift and outreach were normal "geek enablement" or "geek opportunity" might otherwise simply be unavailable due to lack of funding. KEEP IN MIND -- Educational opportunities and technical services are very low priority when safety, food, and shelter are priority one!
My warmest congratulations. Clearly, you've out leveled this zone. You have enjoyed a long and productive career of which you can justly be proud. The experience, skill, and capabilities you can share with social institutions is rare and badly needed. Good on you. Game on...
Given that particles and anti-particles are continually being "produced" by quantum effects out of (seemingly) nothingness and disappearing only moments later, and given that we understand that we observe an enormous gap in measurable (luminous vs. non-luminous matter) mass in the universe, and add to this the potential category of supersymmetric particles, a powerful argument could be made that space is quite cluttered, if not densely packed.
INAS - perhaps an wizard from Fermilab or Hogwarts can flesh out a better answer.
New to the internets or just drunk?.be is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Belgium.
The short bus version -- On the website YouTube, a shortener for YouTube videos is youtu.be, for example www.youtube.com/watch?v=CODE become youtu.be/CODE.
I believe there is a delicate balance between having and holding values and imposing them upon others. I don't deny that the violent reaction is itself an imposition of values; however, I posit that traditions of free speech can withstand the assault and our culture is unharmed by demonstration of respect. Where as, I am not confident that opposition cultures with outspoken and violent counter-mainstream elements -- unsteeped in and intollerant of traditions of free speech -- are capable of withstanding the intense pressures of cultural imperialism.
I think it is entirely appropriate, for regional stability, diplomatic relations, and national security to consider being judicious in how we share our culture, how we respect minority voices (while at the same time reserving the right to disagree), and how we permit individual members of our society to cause harm through negligent speech or action.
Within the boundaries of our civil society remedy can be sought for harms; however, when the reach of members of our society extend beyond our sphere of influence with ramifications and consequences (blowback) that cause harm or create disruption (directly or indirectly) for our society...it is the duty of governments -- as representatives of the people and charged with the safety and security of the people (and society) to take action.
In this case Google is taking action, but whether it is taking action of its own accord or at the insistance of governments...it is action all the same. I can understand how this would make the EFF and/or the ACLU twitchy... but when it comes to human life, there IS a price that is too high to pay for free speech relative to the time value received in return (or time cost extracted from humanity as a whole).
The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that the human population was reduced to 15,000, however, a paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution (15 Sep 99) intimates that the human population may have dropped to as low as 2,000 prior to the Late Stone Age.
I've seen numbers for a viable gene pool for humans that range from 80/80 distinct, unrelated males/females to 660 with a ratio of 1 male to every 2 females. Biologists I've spoken to seem to agree that the 80/80 mix that seems to be popular on the net is simply non-viable in except perhaps in a laboratory with eugenic sanctions and cleansing of (suggestive) non-viable breeding stock which is a nasty moral/ethical rabbit hole this thread doesn't need to pursue.
Regardless, cultural norms (and quasi-taboos) that we broadly hold today would be challenged. Sustaining a village of 300-800 mixed age individuals in frontier conditions is vastly different than growing an outpost for a couple dozen adult professional pioneers from a modular deployment.
Fundamental values... the essence of law itself would be unlike anything we know in civil society today.
It is an old dilemma... do philosopher kings use the carrot, the stick, or some combination incentive. Very often possibility is better expressed as probability. Put another way, how well is a destination communicated to a mob, how well is a mob moved to action, and the persistence (and consistency) with which the mob continues to be shepherded.
This when said mob consists of a minimum N+1 political fractures (population samples) with a minimum N^N^X+1 combinations of orthogonal, parallel, and skewed agenda.
In short, possibility is not the limiting factor... charisma, communication, and the shepherd's crook controls what can be achieved. Just because something is perceived as right when looking through a prism just so...while holding the tongue just thusly -- doesn't mean that everyone in everyplace having walked in every shoes also perceives the same to hold true. Perception is reality. Making reality (measuring what can be or has been achieved) is one of the hallmarks of exceptional leadership. Historians have the luxury of analvision. Their visual acuity doesn't necessarily mean revisionist hypothesis have or hold any value except for philosophers. That is, unless they can alter perception!
INAM - But, I'm confident my finger-in-the-wind is measuring the right direction.
Don't get confused on labor unions either, they are not the same as trade unions which was active since the building of pyramids or before. The free masons are one of these unions.
One of the first international labor unions was actually a political group of socialists that included Marx
Your lexographic taffy-pull is an abomination. An abomination that may as well include the ufologists and vikings.
Seriously...? Red Scare is so last century. We have mobile computing now...and something called... the internets. They even have an app for that.
In an effort to further your myopic (and I dare say, subtly bigotted) vision of western civil society, your argument has gone from strawman to strawman-on-fire.
Free Masons? What's next, Scientologists? Heaven's Gate? Perhaps you would like to cite the disappearance of the the entire Mayan Civilization or the genocide of the Native American peoples into your cause against civil society?
Personally, I think your argument would be more credible if you cited Hagar the Horrible or Starfleet regulations...
[/reductio ad absurdum]
Any modern economic or social discussion on the internet can and will eventually make a (sloppy, casual) comparison or reference to Marx... Reductio ad Marxium -- whether or not the citation to Marx is appropriate, such a discussion has achieved a nader. The abuse of out-of-context Marx references dilute and distort the legacy and the learnings from the body of knowledge. Because the reference may be appropriate contextually, casual use of Marx should be avoided.
I believe your own distorted presentation of history is misleading. The eight-hour workday was not an emergent property of depression era unemployment. The depression was simply fuel to an already existing fire. How legislation emerges is often as important as the emergence itself...
Carpenters in America went on strike in the early 1790's for a 10-hour work day.
This had become a general public sentiment and by the mid 1830's Philadelphia
workers staged a general strike -- organized and lead by Irish workers in the
coal industry. The American eight-hour workday found its initial foothold
in Boston in the early 1840's and by the 1860's it was being demanded in
Chicago. Baltimore 1866, the National Labor Union made it the first and
most pressing issue to normalize on an eight-hour workday. The Illinois
legislature passed a (largely ineffective) eight-hour workday law in 1867.
The ineffectiveness of the leglislation resulted in a city-wide strike in
Chicago that lasted a week before crumbling. Later, in 1868, a similarly
impotent eight-hour workday law for federal employees was passed by Congress.
In 1869, Grant signed the National Eight Hour Law Proclamation. The movement
persisted through out the 1870's and in the 1890's labor strikes of 10's and
hundreds of thousands of peoples in Milwaukee, Chicago, Cincinnati, New York,
and other cities and townships throughout America -- organized labor standing
united for that which civilized management and government were unwilling (or
unable) to deliver.
The fight was not just in the north... in San Fancisco, the eight-hour
workday was implemented at a mill at the turn of the century -- following
arbitration and in the face of boycotts and strikes.
Most notably in history, in 1914 Henry Ford called for the doubling of wages
and the cutting of work hours from nine to eight. Many sibling companies, while
unhappy with Ford's move could not argue with the productivity increase he
demonstrated...and they soon followed with similar moves. In 1915, a
series of strikes motivated toward the eight-hour work day swept the
northeast...successfully.
The Adamson Act of 1916 (signed by Woodrow Wilson) solidified the eight-hour
day in the United States for railroad workers. It was the first time in
American history that the private industry workhours were regulated by federal
authority. The law was challenged and upheld in Wilson v. New, 249 U.S.
332 (1917).
The Adamson Act blazed the trail for all the related legislation in America that followed...
Similarities around the world (timeframes) --
Australia, 1855-1956
Spain, 1873-1919
Portugal, 1919
Germany, 1899
France, 1936 (Matignon)
Russia, 1917
Iran, 1919-1946
Mexico, 1910-1920
New Zealand, 1840-1899
Puerto Rico, 1899
Puru, 1919-?
Uruguay, 1914-1915
Chili, 1924
The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech.
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919))
The propriety of imposing civil liability for negligent speech has been the subject of judicial review since before the First Amendment’s incorporation. Most courts have adopted the Brandenburg incitement test as an evidentiary predicate for intent and causation in cases alleging that dangerous speech caused dangerous behavior and public harm.
That said, the Brandenburg test (which requires intent and temporal imminence) does not specifically address the aspects of fault or causation in negligent media cases. As a result, Brandenburg has operated to immunize negligent vectors of negligent speech from responsibility.
There is significant case law and research into tort liability for unreasonably dangerous speech. The history of speech tort jurisprudence (negligent speech in particular) is fairly well documented. Contemporary negligent speech cases typically assert that dangerous or violent media negligently influence dangerous behavior, desensitize society to violence, and can cause others to adopt violent behaviors, in turn causing serious harm or death to themselves or others.
Importantly, there is supporting case law concerning actions that result in (1 to N-degree) distress in others. Recent research on brain activity reveals vulnerability to media influences and (IMHO) warrants review of the existing jurisprudence.
INAL - but victims would do well to investigate action against both the source of the speech as well as vectors.
I'm not sure what amazes me more. That someone thought enough of Super Mario Bros to invest time and energy to porting it... or that someone holds the Atari 2600 in such high esteem that porting anything to it satisfies the definition of "impressive." With absolutely no evidence, I'd venture that there are more billionaire conservatives struck by lightning while fighting soviet foreign agents on donkey-back in the Grand Canyon, than their are people with Atari 2600s joyfully anticipating the release of this hot new title.
But, stranger thangs have happened...
Pekka Himanen (The Hacker Ethic) articulates how hackers represent a new, opposing ethos for the information age. That there are values underneath their actions and creations that challenge us all. They share a spirit that they can discover and create great things in imaginative ways. They questions cultural "norms" in a society that is often overly focused on outcomes at the expense of privacy and equality.
The cost and potential profit motives of such adventures (and lack of universal access) seem to be very oxymoronic given the audience and ideals. I question the motives of the sponsors. I also worry that the sensational aspects overwhelm or drown out the very real risks in young, impressionable minds. Additionally, there is the potential "Big Brother" list generating opportunity for government [shudder].
On the whole, I think this is a wonderful idea. It is something I would have enjoyed. But in the absence of any guiding principles or philosophical grounding, I am concerned that we are nurturing western-style martyrs. Every action has consequences...
Re:Would you read a cartoon version of Slashdot?
on
And Now, the Cartoon News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If this were about uplifting kids or bringing news to the english-language
disadvantaged OR SATIRE, I believe this concept may have merit. Unfortunately, I'm
convinced this is nothing but a
contributor to the dumbing down
of culture/society. This is an appeal to the lowest common denominator and
it should be soundly rejected as mainstream messaging.
Diluting and distilling the message creates
more opportunity for message corruption and/or misinterpretation. But the
problem extends beyond miscommunicating the facts. Skew and color (a.k.a.
bias) is a natural byproduct of dilution and distillation. This is where
journalism ends and marketing begins. When the vehicle of a message
becomes as important as the message itself... this is not journalism. It
is entertainment and/or advertising.
Cartoons are not new in the journalistic space. The political cartoon first appeared in 16th-century Germany during the
Reformation, the first time such art became an active propaganda weapon with
social implications. By the mid-19th cent. editorial cartoons had become
regular features in American newspapers, and were soon followed by sports
cartoons and humorous cartoons. England (1843); a series of drawings
appeared in a publication called Punch that parodied the fresco cartoons submitted in a
competition for the decoration of the new Houses of Parliament. Nonpolitical cartoons,
typically humorous, became popular with the development of the color press,
and in 1893 the first color cartoon appeared in the New York World. The
New
Yorker and the Saturday Evening Post were among the most notable American
magazines to use outstanding single cartoon drawings. In this way cartoon, in
journalistic parlance, came to mean any single humorous or satirical drawing
employing distortion for emphasis, often accompanied by a caption or a legend.
As a society, we must be clear on what quality journalism is... and what
defines news. When Fox News Channel and Christian Broadcasting Network can
present tabloid, yellow journalism or fantastic, mythical distortions of
reality and characterizing their products as "Fair and Balanced" or "Good News",
something has gone horribly wrong with the general understanding of journalism.
Society must demand quality journalism and if they do not understand what
quality journalism, philosopher kings must be ever vigilent against the
intrusion of pretenders. Society must be uplifted by journalism.
Journalism should not cater to the lowest common denominator. Cartoons that do not confine
their scope to children, special language needs audiences, or satire present a
slippery slope and usher the decent of journalism into a hell of misinformation.
The premise presents a genuine moral/ethical dilemma. We are asked to examine very sensitive beliefs in a potentially caustic environment that pits the academic against the ecclesiastical.
Unlike my many of my peers, I do not believe that life begins at conception or even (in some circumstances) birth. I do not believe that ALL life is precious. I do not believe that a God endowed all life with equal rights. I do not believe that eugenics is qualitatively good or bad – only that eugenics can be approached either from a moral/ethical perspective or from an immoral/unethical perspective. Applied eugenics can be a blessing and a curse (and perhaps both simultaneously). This is not a boolean challenge -- we must acknowledge the continuum of benefits and banes. I do not believe that the individual or society is supreme – each must argue and champion their benefits. Sheer existance is not enough.
I believe that we are gifted with judgment. We are mastering the power of life and death. We can both nurture and destroy both individuals and entire civilizations. I believe that with this power comes the responsibility to embrace knowledge, to practice wisdom, and to incorporate learning from mistakes into a continued exchange of ideas and experience.
I stand in opposition to your blanket suggestion that a life of diminished capacity is better than no life at all. I advocate the position that a rising tide raises all boats; therefore, where it is possible to improve the circumstances of the many (“raise the tide”) humanity must be willing to consider the sacrifice of the few – even if that means that I am one of the few.
Given the supernatural assumption (that one could choose a particular life prior to existence) and assuming that I am not projecting my feelings upon others (blind people broadly or people of diminished capacity in general), I cannot boldly venture that I would rather be born blind than not be born at all. I reject the assumption that any life is better than no life even if that life is my own.
Therefore, I wholly support selective birthing choice as a right and privilege of potential parents charged with the care and wellfare of the new life.
US Supreme Court precedent still holds that patents are invalid where they reiterate the 'laws of nature". This lower court ruling simply found, in another hearing of the case, that the two patents held by Myriad fail to meet the reiteration test. The lower court was directed to consider this rule as a guiding principle. They have done so. This does not preclude further appeal; however, given the very narrow nature of the ruling it is unlikely to have "major implications for cancer researchers, patients and drug makers."
Certainly, it contributes to the body of common law; however, I don't believe there is deep policy significance in this latest ruling. The beauty of law is its ambiguity.
Given how you express "the point of education," I don't believe you are entirely in outer space. That said, (and at great karmic peril)...
Your provocative "stake in the sand" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The peg that you hang your hat on and the headline of your opinion is just dreadful. First, you expect the audience to accept your assumption that those who do not maximize their potential do so because they do not value education -- there are no facts in evidence that support your argument. Second, you mistake Populism for Liberalism. Third, you fallaciously munge conflicting ideas of "equal opportunity" with "different rules for different classes" -- monsterous logic. It is distracting, divisive, deceptive, and a flagrant derail of the topic.
1. There is nothing to support a generalization or the causal relationship that people who do not take advantage of education do not value it. Of the many potential alternative challenges, awareness of educational opportunity and access to educational opportunity are key influences on behavior. One simply can not responsibly leap to the conclusion that education is not valued because of the results or outcomes don't meet expectations.
2. You're understanding of "liberal" and "Liberalism" is distorted, ill-formed, and harmful in the echo chamber. With respect, I believe you are either ignorant in the terminology or ignorant in the application of the terminology.
3. Let's be clear about one thing, while there may be philosophical, economic/classical, and social liberals; each with orthodox and progressive advocates -- the foundation of all Liberalism is centered on Enlightenment values put forward by Hobbes, Locke, and Hume who ventured that the fundimental freedom of human beings and the legitimacy of government stems from the consent of the governed.
Put more succinctly, Thomas Jefferson codified core Liberalism into the Declaration of Independence (of the United States): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed..."
The post hoc argument is vaccuous and vapid... and does nothing to either explain Plagiarism (in the context of this article) or to uplift the dialog about social capacity for intellectual or trade education. I have little doubt that the use of the word "liberal" in this thread is nothing short of literary abomination... much as religious, racial, and orientation labels have been distorted by one faction to be used as hate words for another faction... your madlib rhetoric could just as easily substitute "Catholic" or "Gay" or "Negro" or "Hacker" and been no more (or less) offensive to a marginally representative audience. The argumentation technique is just wrong and has no relevance to the discussion.
Art and science constantly seem to follow and build upon the advances of each other. Great ideas... the results of imagineering or "the big, fantastic think," seem to emerge in one to support or catalyze forward motion in the other.
While I'm not eager to incorporate bioengineering into my person, I also am not a position where my quality of life would be marginally improved by such. I'm confident that my perspective is colored by my current capabilities and would necessarily change if my capabilities were different. This is the stuff of science fiction... and science.
When and where humans gather, their waste accumulates. If this waste is not appropriately (safely) disposed of the health and general wellfare of society suffers. According to WHO/UNICEF, water and waste-related diseases are killing millions of people each year and preventing millions more from contributing to society through reduced health and productivity.
2.5 billion people live without the "minimum necessary" sanitation services. Access to safe, clean and effective human urine and feces disposal facilities is the most basic definition of sanitation. Improvements sanitation and hygiene has demonstrated positive effects on health. Unfortunately, many people are denied access to sanitation technology and/or infrastructure and thus lack the means of disposing of their waste. The challenge scales with population and can reach critical mass of non-functionality in areas of high population density in developing countries.
There is no single solution. The answer to the challenge requires management of fresh water and access to sanitation technology that mitigates today's risks while scaling with a determined uplift of infrastructure. This kind of massive-scale civil and social architecture requires great resources (fiscal, intellectual, and moral) directed in a continual and strategic ways. I believe Bill, Warren, and others are well positioned to drive success in this area...
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between censorship and accountability. The intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth is already a well documented crime. There is a reason society has determined this to be necessary -- it is harmful to civil society. As proscriptions against slander and liable have emerged over time to address wrongs in society, we need a new element in the law that combats intentional, harmful, or negligent deceit.
We must confront the reality that the intentional or negligent act of creating or advancing untruth (and/or selective truth) in the guise of reporting whole truth is also harmful to civil society.
Fake news is a sticky hairball that transforms even the most intelligent, well-intentioned people into deceitful reprobates. Fake news is short term individual gain at the expense of long term social pain. Every untruth that is contrived and/or propagated diminishes us as a whole. The sooner we (collectively) reach a tipping point of understanding that untruth in all its forms is a net negative, the sooner we can stop bitching about specific rotten trees and start practicing good forestry.
Of what kind of society do we wish to be a part?
I believe that fake news is a crime against civilization and society. I believe those who use fake news to harm individuals, groups, or society as a whole should be punished and/or rehabilitated.
Let us be clear... This is not an American problem nor a Russian problem nor a Chinese problem nor an Indian problem. This is not a Christian problem nor a Muslim problem nor a Jewish problem nor a problem of non-Abrahamic systems of faith or practice. This is not a Liberal problem nor a Conservative problem nor a problem for the rich or poor. This is not a problem for academics, laborers, financiers nor hard working house-spouses. This is a problem for all humanity... it is a test of our humanity.
We as global citizens must demand better in a global information age, lest we suffer the consequences of our unwillingness to stand up against a tyranny of deceit. We must demand better from the Platonian Philosopher Kings that reign over technology and media and, if necessary, hold them accountable as purveyors of deceit. We are living Toffler's FutureShock. We must be as determined to die for the truth that we find discomforting as we are that which comforts us -- because deceit is the mothers milk of tyranny and suffering -- because the fight for truth is noble, righteous, and just.
Perhaps some cultures may need to cut out the tongues of those convicted of speaking falsehood. Perhaps some cultures need to cut off fingers and hands of those convicted of writing falsehoods. For my culture, the sooner we can try and punish criminal deceit and litigate tortious deceit for compensatory and punitive damages -- the sooner we will rediscover news with integrity and journalism that uplifts society. Any crime against society must be met with a level of barbarity such that none in that society dare transgress. We stop being civilized if we abdicate truth.
Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. (pali)
For any generic hypothetical, it is entirely possible to unleash the hounds of hypothetical challenge. Such, neither demolishes the original hypothetical nor emboldens the credibility of the challenge. Both are weighed on their own contributory merits. Principles over personality.
Education is a broad category... geek-ish is equally broad depending on application.
Prime Directive... LOCAL...LOCAL...LOCAL. Your operative or key word is impact. You want to insure that as much as your dollar achieves its intended objective and that you have the ability to (if you choose) to verify the impact. Avoid a national or international blunderbuss -- such an approach scatters your money, creates too much dilution and generally includes excessive overhead.
Out-of-the-Box Brainstorm Suggestions:
Crisis Hotline, Woman's Center (or an similar support system for domestic abuse), Big Brothers Big Sisters, Homeless Shelters, Addiction and Rehabilitation Groups
You can also use Charity Navigator to assist you in researching specific organizations.
Each of these can be geeked-up to provide uplift and outreach were normal "geek enablement" or "geek opportunity" might otherwise simply be unavailable due to lack of funding. KEEP IN MIND -- Educational opportunities and technical services are very low priority when safety, food, and shelter are priority one!
Just a thought...
My warmest congratulations. Clearly, you've out leveled this zone. You have enjoyed a long and productive career of which you can justly be proud. The experience, skill, and capabilities you can share with social institutions is rare and badly needed. Good on you. Game on...
Clearly, you've been sleeping with VMWare. That's one vote.
LOL.. that speaks to a very select audience. [clap] Well played.
[mumbles something about a house falling on grumpy bear] ... gravity!
Statistically speaking, isn't the universe empty?
Given that particles and anti-particles are continually being "produced" by quantum effects out of (seemingly) nothingness and disappearing only moments later, and given that we understand that we observe an enormous gap in measurable (luminous vs. non-luminous matter) mass in the universe, and add to this the potential category of supersymmetric particles, a powerful argument could be made that space is quite cluttered, if not densely packed.
INAS - perhaps an wizard from Fermilab or Hogwarts can flesh out a better answer.
...an argument often made right here on Earth.
New to the internets or just drunk? .be is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Belgium.
The short bus version -- On the website YouTube, a shortener for YouTube videos is youtu.be, for example www.youtube.com/watch?v=CODE become youtu.be/CODE.
youtu.be and youtube.be are both YouTube Belgium.
I believe there is a delicate balance between having and holding values and imposing them upon others. I don't deny that the violent reaction is itself an imposition of values; however, I posit that traditions of free speech can withstand the assault and our culture is unharmed by demonstration of respect. Where as, I am not confident that opposition cultures with outspoken and violent counter-mainstream elements -- unsteeped in and intollerant of traditions of free speech -- are capable of withstanding the intense pressures of cultural imperialism.
I think it is entirely appropriate, for regional stability, diplomatic relations, and national security to consider being judicious in how we share our culture, how we respect minority voices (while at the same time reserving the right to disagree), and how we permit individual members of our society to cause harm through negligent speech or action.
Within the boundaries of our civil society remedy can be sought for harms; however, when the reach of members of our society extend beyond our sphere of influence with ramifications and consequences (blowback) that cause harm or create disruption (directly or indirectly) for our society...it is the duty of governments -- as representatives of the people and charged with the safety and security of the people (and society) to take action.
In this case Google is taking action, but whether it is taking action of its own accord or at the insistance of governments...it is action all the same. I can understand how this would make the EFF and/or the ACLU twitchy... but when it comes to human life, there IS a price that is too high to pay for free speech relative to the time value received in return (or time cost extracted from humanity as a whole).
are you trolling or stupid?
Subject line irony... survey says -- Yes!
Although, I bet he chooses Stupid for 100, Alex.
The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that the human population was reduced to 15,000, however, a paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution (15 Sep 99) intimates that the human population may have dropped to as low as 2,000 prior to the Late Stone Age.
I've seen numbers for a viable gene pool for humans that range from 80/80 distinct, unrelated males/females to 660 with a ratio of 1 male to every 2 females. Biologists I've spoken to seem to agree that the 80/80 mix that seems to be popular on the net is simply non-viable in except perhaps in a laboratory with eugenic sanctions and cleansing of (suggestive) non-viable breeding stock which is a nasty moral/ethical rabbit hole this thread doesn't need to pursue.
Regardless, cultural norms (and quasi-taboos) that we broadly hold today would be challenged. Sustaining a village of 300-800 mixed age individuals in frontier conditions is vastly different than growing an outpost for a couple dozen adult professional pioneers from a modular deployment.
Fundamental values... the essence of law itself would be unlike anything we know in civil society today.
It is an old dilemma... do philosopher kings use the carrot, the stick, or some combination incentive. Very often possibility is better expressed as probability. Put another way, how well is a destination communicated to a mob, how well is a mob moved to action, and the persistence (and consistency) with which the mob continues to be shepherded.
This when said mob consists of a minimum N+1 political fractures (population samples) with a minimum N^N^X+1 combinations of orthogonal, parallel, and skewed agenda.
In short, possibility is not the limiting factor... charisma, communication, and the shepherd's crook controls what can be achieved. Just because something is perceived as right when looking through a prism just so...while holding the tongue just thusly -- doesn't mean that everyone in everyplace having walked in every shoes also perceives the same to hold true. Perception is reality. Making reality (measuring what can be or has been achieved) is one of the hallmarks of exceptional leadership. Historians have the luxury of analvision. Their visual acuity doesn't necessarily mean revisionist hypothesis have or hold any value except for philosophers. That is, unless they can alter perception!
INAM - But, I'm confident my finger-in-the-wind is measuring the right direction.
Don't get confused on labor unions either, they are not the same as trade unions which was active since the building of pyramids or before. The free masons are one of these unions.
One of the first international labor unions was actually a political group of socialists that included Marx
Your lexographic taffy-pull is an abomination. An abomination that may as well include the ufologists and vikings.
Seriously...? Red Scare is so last century. We have mobile computing now...and something called... the internets. They even have an app for that.
In an effort to further your myopic (and I dare say, subtly bigotted) vision of western civil society, your argument has gone from strawman to strawman-on-fire. Free Masons? What's next, Scientologists? Heaven's Gate? Perhaps you would like to cite the disappearance of the the entire Mayan Civilization or the genocide of the Native American peoples into your cause against civil society?
Personally, I think your argument would be more credible if you cited Hagar the Horrible or Starfleet regulations...
[/reductio ad absurdum]
Any modern economic or social discussion on the internet can and will eventually make a (sloppy, casual) comparison or reference to Marx... Reductio ad Marxium -- whether or not the citation to Marx is appropriate, such a discussion has achieved a nader. The abuse of out-of-context Marx references dilute and distort the legacy and the learnings from the body of knowledge. Because the reference may be appropriate contextually, casual use of Marx should be avoided.
You have a very distorted view of history.
I believe your own distorted presentation of history is misleading. The eight-hour workday was not an emergent property of depression era unemployment. The depression was simply fuel to an already existing fire. How legislation emerges is often as important as the emergence itself...
Carpenters in America went on strike in the early 1790's for a 10-hour work day. This had become a general public sentiment and by the mid 1830's Philadelphia workers staged a general strike -- organized and lead by Irish workers in the coal industry. The American eight-hour workday found its initial foothold in Boston in the early 1840's and by the 1860's it was being demanded in Chicago. Baltimore 1866, the National Labor Union made it the first and most pressing issue to normalize on an eight-hour workday. The Illinois legislature passed a (largely ineffective) eight-hour workday law in 1867. The ineffectiveness of the leglislation resulted in a city-wide strike in Chicago that lasted a week before crumbling. Later, in 1868, a similarly impotent eight-hour workday law for federal employees was passed by Congress. In 1869, Grant signed the National Eight Hour Law Proclamation. The movement persisted through out the 1870's and in the 1890's labor strikes of 10's and hundreds of thousands of peoples in Milwaukee, Chicago, Cincinnati, New York, and other cities and townships throughout America -- organized labor standing united for that which civilized management and government were unwilling (or unable) to deliver.
The fight was not just in the north... in San Fancisco, the eight-hour workday was implemented at a mill at the turn of the century -- following arbitration and in the face of boycotts and strikes.
Most notably in history, in 1914 Henry Ford called for the doubling of wages and the cutting of work hours from nine to eight. Many sibling companies, while unhappy with Ford's move could not argue with the productivity increase he demonstrated...and they soon followed with similar moves. In 1915, a series of strikes motivated toward the eight-hour work day swept the northeast...successfully.
The Adamson Act of 1916 (signed by Woodrow Wilson) solidified the eight-hour day in the United States for railroad workers. It was the first time in American history that the private industry workhours were regulated by federal authority. The law was challenged and upheld in Wilson v. New, 249 U.S. 332 (1917).
The Adamson Act blazed the trail for all the related legislation in America that followed...
Similarities around the world (timeframes) --
Australia, 1855-1956
Spain, 1873-1919
Portugal, 1919
Germany, 1899
France, 1936 (Matignon)
Russia, 1917
Iran, 1919-1946
Mexico, 1910-1920
New Zealand, 1840-1899
Puerto Rico, 1899
Puru, 1919-?
Uruguay, 1914-1915
Chili, 1924
The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech.
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919))
The propriety of imposing civil liability for negligent speech has been the subject of judicial review since before the First Amendment’s incorporation. Most courts have adopted the Brandenburg incitement test as an evidentiary predicate for intent and causation in cases alleging that dangerous speech caused dangerous behavior and public harm.
That said, the Brandenburg test (which requires intent and temporal imminence) does not specifically address the aspects of fault or causation in negligent media cases. As a result, Brandenburg has operated to immunize negligent vectors of negligent speech from responsibility.
There is significant case law and research into tort liability for unreasonably dangerous speech. The history of speech tort jurisprudence (negligent speech in particular) is fairly well documented. Contemporary negligent speech cases typically assert that dangerous or violent media negligently influence dangerous behavior, desensitize society to violence, and can cause others to adopt violent behaviors, in turn causing serious harm or death to themselves or others.
Importantly, there is supporting case law concerning actions that result in (1 to N-degree) distress in others. Recent research on brain activity reveals vulnerability to media influences and (IMHO) warrants review of the existing jurisprudence.
INAL - but victims would do well to investigate action against both the source of the speech as well as vectors.
I'm not sure what amazes me more. That someone thought enough of Super Mario Bros to invest time and energy to porting it... or that someone holds the Atari 2600 in such high esteem that porting anything to it satisfies the definition of "impressive." With absolutely no evidence, I'd venture that there are more billionaire conservatives struck by lightning while fighting soviet foreign agents on donkey-back in the Grand Canyon, than their are people with Atari 2600s joyfully anticipating the release of this hot new title. But, stranger thangs have happened...
Pekka Himanen (The Hacker Ethic) articulates how hackers represent a new, opposing ethos for the information age. That there are values underneath their actions and creations that challenge us all. They share a spirit that they can discover and create great things in imaginative ways. They questions cultural "norms" in a society that is often overly focused on outcomes at the expense of privacy and equality.
The cost and potential profit motives of such adventures (and lack of universal access) seem to be very oxymoronic given the audience and ideals. I question the motives of the sponsors. I also worry that the sensational aspects overwhelm or drown out the very real risks in young, impressionable minds. Additionally, there is the potential "Big Brother" list generating opportunity for government [shudder].
On the whole, I think this is a wonderful idea. It is something I would have enjoyed. But in the absence of any guiding principles or philosophical grounding, I am concerned that we are nurturing western-style martyrs. Every action has consequences...
If this were about uplifting kids or bringing news to the english-language disadvantaged OR SATIRE, I believe this concept may have merit. Unfortunately, I'm convinced this is nothing but a contributor to the dumbing down of culture/society. This is an appeal to the lowest common denominator and it should be soundly rejected as mainstream messaging.
Diluting and distilling the message creates more opportunity for message corruption and/or misinterpretation. But the problem extends beyond miscommunicating the facts. Skew and color (a.k.a. bias) is a natural byproduct of dilution and distillation. This is where journalism ends and marketing begins. When the vehicle of a message becomes as important as the message itself... this is not journalism. It is entertainment and/or advertising.
Cartoons are not new in the journalistic space. The political cartoon first appeared in 16th-century Germany during the Reformation, the first time such art became an active propaganda weapon with social implications. By the mid-19th cent. editorial cartoons had become regular features in American newspapers, and were soon followed by sports cartoons and humorous cartoons. England (1843); a series of drawings appeared in a publication called Punch that parodied the fresco cartoons submitted in a competition for the decoration of the new Houses of Parliament. Nonpolitical cartoons, typically humorous, became popular with the development of the color press, and in 1893 the first color cartoon appeared in the New York World. The New Yorker and the Saturday Evening Post were among the most notable American magazines to use outstanding single cartoon drawings. In this way cartoon, in journalistic parlance, came to mean any single humorous or satirical drawing employing distortion for emphasis, often accompanied by a caption or a legend.
As a society, we must be clear on what quality journalism is... and what defines news. When Fox News Channel and Christian Broadcasting Network can present tabloid, yellow journalism or fantastic, mythical distortions of reality and characterizing their products as "Fair and Balanced" or "Good News", something has gone horribly wrong with the general understanding of journalism.
What's Dumbing Down Journalism
Dumbing Down - Implications
Is online media dumbing down journalism?
Dumbing Down Journalism - The Rise of American Propoganda
Society must demand quality journalism and if they do not understand what quality journalism, philosopher kings must be ever vigilent against the intrusion of pretenders. Society must be uplifted by journalism. Journalism should not cater to the lowest common denominator. Cartoons that do not confine their scope to children, special language needs audiences, or satire present a slippery slope and usher the decent of journalism into a hell of misinformation.
The premise presents a genuine moral/ethical dilemma. We are asked to examine very sensitive beliefs in a potentially caustic environment that pits the academic against the ecclesiastical.
Unlike my many of my peers, I do not believe that life begins at conception or even (in some circumstances) birth. I do not believe that ALL life is precious. I do not believe that a God endowed all life with equal rights. I do not believe that eugenics is qualitatively good or bad – only that eugenics can be approached either from a moral/ethical perspective or from an immoral/unethical perspective. Applied eugenics can be a blessing and a curse (and perhaps both simultaneously). This is not a boolean challenge -- we must acknowledge the continuum of benefits and banes. I do not believe that the individual or society is supreme – each must argue and champion their benefits. Sheer existance is not enough.
I believe that we are gifted with judgment. We are mastering the power of life and death. We can both nurture and destroy both individuals and entire civilizations. I believe that with this power comes the responsibility to embrace knowledge, to practice wisdom, and to incorporate learning from mistakes into a continued exchange of ideas and experience.
I stand in opposition to your blanket suggestion that a life of diminished capacity is better than no life at all. I advocate the position that a rising tide raises all boats; therefore, where it is possible to improve the circumstances of the many (“raise the tide”) humanity must be willing to consider the sacrifice of the few – even if that means that I am one of the few.
Given the supernatural assumption (that one could choose a particular life prior to existence) and assuming that I am not projecting my feelings upon others (blind people broadly or people of diminished capacity in general), I cannot boldly venture that I would rather be born blind than not be born at all. I reject the assumption that any life is better than no life even if that life is my own.
Therefore, I wholly support selective birthing choice as a right and privilege of potential parents charged with the care and wellfare of the new life.
US Supreme Court precedent still holds that patents are invalid where they reiterate the 'laws of nature". This lower court ruling simply found, in another hearing of the case, that the two patents held by Myriad fail to meet the reiteration test. The lower court was directed to consider this rule as a guiding principle. They have done so. This does not preclude further appeal; however, given the very narrow nature of the ruling it is unlikely to have "major implications for cancer researchers, patients and drug makers."
Certainly, it contributes to the body of common law; however, I don't believe there is deep policy significance in this latest ruling. The beauty of law is its ambiguity.
Given how you express "the point of education," I don't believe you are entirely in outer space. That said, (and at great karmic peril)...
Your provocative "stake in the sand" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The peg that you hang your hat on and the headline of your opinion is just dreadful. First, you expect the audience to accept your assumption that those who do not maximize their potential do so because they do not value education -- there are no facts in evidence that support your argument. Second, you mistake Populism for Liberalism. Third, you fallaciously munge conflicting ideas of "equal opportunity" with "different rules for different classes" -- monsterous logic. It is distracting, divisive, deceptive, and a flagrant derail of the topic.
1. There is nothing to support a generalization or the causal relationship that people who do not take advantage of education do not value it. Of the many potential alternative challenges, awareness of educational opportunity and access to educational opportunity are key influences on behavior. One simply can not responsibly leap to the conclusion that education is not valued because of the results or outcomes don't meet expectations.
2. You're understanding of "liberal" and "Liberalism" is distorted, ill-formed, and harmful in the echo chamber. With respect, I believe you are either ignorant in the terminology or ignorant in the application of the terminology.
3. Let's be clear about one thing, while there may be philosophical, economic/classical, and social liberals; each with orthodox and progressive advocates -- the foundation of all Liberalism is centered on Enlightenment values put forward by Hobbes, Locke, and Hume who ventured that the fundimental freedom of human beings and the legitimacy of government stems from the consent of the governed.
Put more succinctly, Thomas Jefferson codified core Liberalism into the Declaration of Independence (of the United States): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed..."
The post hoc argument is vaccuous and vapid... and does nothing to either explain Plagiarism (in the context of this article) or to uplift the dialog about social capacity for intellectual or trade education. I have little doubt that the use of the word "liberal" in this thread is nothing short of literary abomination... much as religious, racial, and orientation labels have been distorted by one faction to be used as hate words for another faction... your madlib rhetoric could just as easily substitute "Catholic" or "Gay" or "Negro" or "Hacker" and been no more (or less) offensive to a marginally representative audience. The argumentation technique is just wrong and has no relevance to the discussion.
Art and science constantly seem to follow and build upon the advances of each other. Great ideas... the results of imagineering or "the big, fantastic think," seem to emerge in one to support or catalyze forward motion in the other.
While I'm not eager to incorporate bioengineering into my person, I also am not a position where my quality of life would be marginally improved by such. I'm confident that my perspective is colored by my current capabilities and would necessarily change if my capabilities were different. This is the stuff of science fiction... and science.
2.5 billion people live without the "minimum necessary" sanitation services. Access to safe, clean and effective human urine and feces disposal facilities is the most basic definition of sanitation. Improvements sanitation and hygiene has demonstrated positive effects on health. Unfortunately, many people are denied access to sanitation technology and/or infrastructure and thus lack the means of disposing of their waste. The challenge scales with population and can reach critical mass of non-functionality in areas of high population density in developing countries.
There is no single solution. The answer to the challenge requires management of fresh water and access to sanitation technology that mitigates today's risks while scaling with a determined uplift of infrastructure. This kind of massive-scale civil and social architecture requires great resources (fiscal, intellectual, and moral) directed in a continual and strategic ways. I believe Bill, Warren, and others are well positioned to drive success in this area...