Don't blame them for taking advantage of a free taxpayer provided lunch
Why would I not blame them for that? Is it not possible to blame the people who do nothing about it and the people who abuse their power at the very same time? It is possible, and that's what I do.
you need to compare versus the number of deaths caused by our reaction to decide of this reaction was prudent.
You don't even need to do that. You just need to ask yourself something to the effect of, "Do these policies the government implemented/is planning to implement violate essential individual liberties?" If the answer to that question is yes, must be scrapped/forbidden from ever becoming law.
I feel stalking laws are silly. If you know of any harassment laws that deal with things other than mere speech, then I may take that into consideration.
Problem with your position is that limbs heal, bruises go away, The mental trauma of harrassment-induced stress usuallly means saying good-bye to having a good night's rest even after escaping one's tormentors.
Not always. And this seems to imply that physically harming someone won't also harm them mentally; that, as far as I'm concerned, is often false.
In my opinion, mental trauma is simply too variable and subjective, and freedom of speech trumps safety.
That's exactly why it's the artist's problem; they wanted money and they initiated the entire process of their own volition. It is no one's problem but theirs, and the mere fact that they weren't able to make as much money as they would have liked in a certain period of time doesn't mean they're entitled to monopolies over ideas that, to an individual, may as well last an infinite amount of time.
And telling people "you didn't profit in X-months, so you don't deserve to profit at all"?
But that's true even under your scheme, as a work may never become profitable. Also, no one ever said they don't "deserve" to profit; just that they aren't entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas for ridiculous periods of time. If they can't earn a profit after so long, then too bad for them.
Because, at times, the immediate worth of a product or a work isn't apparent.
That's the artist's problem, not society's. I can't see how life + 20 is a reasonable amount of time, even from the viewpoint of someone who supports copyright.
I don't understand why they should be able to have a monopoly over an idea for the entirety of their life; copyright supposedly exists to encourage innovation, not ensure that artists can profit off of something for their entire lives. I noticed lots of people who claim they want "reasonable" copyright lengths claimed that 7 or 14 years would be enough, but I've rarely heard something as high as the entire creator's lifetime plus 20 years.
However, if we didn't have security measures, or some 'whistle-blower' leaked all of them, do you think that the people who don't like us wouldn't have continued to blow up or hijack plane after plane...
I believe the only worthwhile and moral safety measure that has been added since 9/11 is that cockpit doors are now reinforced; that's pretty much it. Everything else they've done violates people's fundamental liberties, and since I'm someone who cares far more about freedom than safety, I'd rather go without such security theater (the TSA is garbage and most likely doesn't do anything).
I don't know what you're talking about. You seem to be assuming that I am opposed to all forms of memorizing, but that is not the case. What I'm opposed to is handing out tests that only test for memorization. If you understand the material, I believe there is a very likely chance that you'll have retained facts surrounding it to begin with.
Well, a great deal about surviving as an adult is having the right answers and having a job.
But it's not what education is about.
A large majority of students produced by an education system will not only remember facts taught, but at least be able to regurgitate the official explanation as to why these facts occurre
Will they, now? Is that actually true? Is knowing certain material unrelated to your job without understanding it beneficial? What of the fact that they likely won't be able to do anything innovative with the knowledge, or even know how to use it in complicated situations where not everything is given to them on a piece of paper?
Your 'reasoning' was hardly reasonable.
My reasoning?
is a poorly researched opinion.
Is it? They don't seem to be doing a very good job of measuring understanding of the material.
The fact is that book learning is very well correlated to the performance on a test, and if nationally or at least within a school district, we agree on a curriculum to teach, then a paper test that is standardized properly should work very well for that curriculum.
If you're just memorizing patterns and "understanding," then chances are, you don't understand anything. These tests do not test for an understanding of the material, and I view that as a problem. I never said that no one should ever memorize anything, just that I believe people should... actually understand the material.
I believe getting the right answer is important, but getting the right answer is not all that is important. What's puzzling to me is that I actually said something to that effect in the first place, and yet your reply makes it seem as if I didn't.
I firmly believe that having an actual understanding of a subject allows you to be more innovative and precise than a rote memorization drone.
Yes, if you want your kids to be both ignorant and socially retarded, then please homeschool them.
Ignorant? Many of them seem more competent than a grand majority of the products of the public education system. Socially retarded? Locking people up in an obviously artificial environment with others their own age isn't the only way to get kids to socialize, you know. This is a non-problem.
And yes, social interaction is a lot more important in the long run than IQ.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Racially profile? How about we save all of that tax money and not harass people at airports (or anywhere else) at all?
Don't blame them for taking advantage of a free taxpayer provided lunch
Why would I not blame them for that? Is it not possible to blame the people who do nothing about it and the people who abuse their power at the very same time? It is possible, and that's what I do.
you need to compare versus the number of deaths caused by our reaction to decide of this reaction was prudent.
You don't even need to do that. You just need to ask yourself something to the effect of, "Do these policies the government implemented/is planning to implement violate essential individual liberties?" If the answer to that question is yes, must be scrapped/forbidden from ever becoming law.
Stalking laws are silly?
In cases like this, I definitely think so.
I feel stalking laws are silly. If you know of any harassment laws that deal with things other than mere speech, then I may take that into consideration.
What do you think qualifies legally as harassment/stalking?
If the law disagrees with me, then I believe it is morally wrong.
Because you can't just use speech as your method of harassment/stalking to earn a get out of jail free card.
That might be the case, and if it is, then I disagree with the law.
Heard it before. Terrorists are largely little more than bogeymen as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think it's an issue of being censored.
Censored? No. The problem is that the government is trying to punish them.
But when you turn that into a repetitive action and use it for emotional abuse on a daily basis, why is that still a speech issue?
Because, at that point, you're punishing them for saying certain things more than you'd like.
It could have been calling her phone and hanging up all day long
It could have been any number of things, but as far as I know, it wasn't. What matters to me is what actually happened.
I said the harassment didn't have to be.
Well, I agree with that.
And that speech being involved doesn't automatically make it a speech issue.
I suppose the mere fact that speech was involved doesn't necessarily mean it's a free speech issue; it depends on what they're after these people for.
But we're discussing this case, and I very much believe it's an issue of free speech.
That you think an argument with nuance is somehow a twisting of words means you're already not willing to think hard enough to "get it."
"get it"? What, intent? If so, intent is utterly irrelevant to me in cases such as these.
He's blown a whole lot of trust as it is, by stabbing his country in the back so spectacularly.
Precisely. Nonsensical things such as freedom and the constitution are overshadowed by the threat of the bogeymen who are out to get us.
Problem with your position is that limbs heal, bruises go away, The mental trauma of harrassment-induced stress usuallly means saying good-bye to having a good night's rest even after escaping one's tormentors.
Not always. And this seems to imply that physically harming someone won't also harm them mentally; that, as far as I'm concerned, is often false.
In my opinion, mental trauma is simply too variable and subjective, and freedom of speech trumps safety.
it just puts the tell on you.
That makes no sense to me.
If those 2 girls did not exist then the other girl would still be alive.
And if this girl didn't commit suicide, she would still be alive.
I feel it's very much about free speech, and no newspeak-esque nonsense about how the harassment wasn't speech will make me believe otherwise.
But "society" didn't create the work.
That's exactly why it's the artist's problem; they wanted money and they initiated the entire process of their own volition. It is no one's problem but theirs, and the mere fact that they weren't able to make as much money as they would have liked in a certain period of time doesn't mean they're entitled to monopolies over ideas that, to an individual, may as well last an infinite amount of time.
And telling people "you didn't profit in X-months, so you don't deserve to profit at all"?
But that's true even under your scheme, as a work may never become profitable. Also, no one ever said they don't "deserve" to profit; just that they aren't entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas for ridiculous periods of time. If they can't earn a profit after so long, then too bad for them.
Because, at times, the immediate worth of a product or a work isn't apparent.
That's the artist's problem, not society's. I can't see how life + 20 is a reasonable amount of time, even from the viewpoint of someone who supports copyright.
I don't understand why they should be able to have a monopoly over an idea for the entirety of their life; copyright supposedly exists to encourage innovation, not ensure that artists can profit off of something for their entire lives. I noticed lots of people who claim they want "reasonable" copyright lengths claimed that 7 or 14 years would be enough, but I've rarely heard something as high as the entire creator's lifetime plus 20 years.
What? Why life of the creator + 20 years? Even if I supported copyright at all, I would think that would be too long.
However, if we didn't have security measures, or some 'whistle-blower' leaked all of them, do you think that the people who don't like us wouldn't have continued to blow up or hijack plane after plane...
I believe the only worthwhile and moral safety measure that has been added since 9/11 is that cockpit doors are now reinforced; that's pretty much it. Everything else they've done violates people's fundamental liberties, and since I'm someone who cares far more about freedom than safety, I'd rather go without such security theater (the TSA is garbage and most likely doesn't do anything).
I don't know what you're talking about. You seem to be assuming that I am opposed to all forms of memorizing, but that is not the case. What I'm opposed to is handing out tests that only test for memorization. If you understand the material, I believe there is a very likely chance that you'll have retained facts surrounding it to begin with.
Well, a great deal about surviving as an adult is having the right answers and having a job.
But it's not what education is about.
A large majority of students produced by an education system will not only remember facts taught, but at least be able to regurgitate the official explanation as to why these facts occurre
Will they, now? Is that actually true? Is knowing certain material unrelated to your job without understanding it beneficial? What of the fact that they likely won't be able to do anything innovative with the knowledge, or even know how to use it in complicated situations where not everything is given to them on a piece of paper?
Your 'reasoning' was hardly reasonable.
My reasoning?
is a poorly researched opinion.
Is it? They don't seem to be doing a very good job of measuring understanding of the material.
The fact is that book learning is very well correlated to the performance on a test, and if nationally or at least within a school district, we agree on a curriculum to teach, then a paper test that is standardized properly should work very well for that curriculum.
Okay.
If you're just memorizing patterns and "understanding," then chances are, you don't understand anything. These tests do not test for an understanding of the material, and I view that as a problem. I never said that no one should ever memorize anything, just that I believe people should... actually understand the material.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and I have no idea how it relates to my comments.
I believe getting the right answer is important, but getting the right answer is not all that is important. What's puzzling to me is that I actually said something to that effect in the first place, and yet your reply makes it seem as if I didn't.
I firmly believe that having an actual understanding of a subject allows you to be more innovative and precise than a rote memorization drone.
Yes, if you want your kids to be both ignorant and socially retarded, then please homeschool them.
Ignorant? Many of them seem more competent than a grand majority of the products of the public education system. Socially retarded? Locking people up in an obviously artificial environment with others their own age isn't the only way to get kids to socialize, you know. This is a non-problem.
And yes, social interaction is a lot more important in the long run than IQ.
Subjective.
I'd say that's only true if you go to a good college. Unfortunately, there are colleges that are basically glorified high schools...