Naivete. Unless you think that the government is composed of perfect beings who can do no wrong, I suggest you drop the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude.
The problem is that the accumulated incompetence, greediness, and general disregard for ethics among politicians creates a situation where rights are stripped away.
I would say that and an illogical, fearful populace is creating this mess.
My idea of censorship is when somebody makes it impossible for you to express your ideas in any way shape or form.
So nothing is censorship, then? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a situation where it is impossible to express an idea in any way, shape, or form.
The problem is that you appear to go so far as to require private individuals who are paying for their own web server to allow random people to use those web servers in a manner that the server owner doesn't like. So anybody with a server should be required to let anybody use it, or they are committing censorship?
The problem that you appear to have is that you believe I believe that all censorship is wrong and should never be done. I believe government censorship is wrong, but I have no problem with, say, a forum administrator deleting a message.
So now preventing vandalism is censorship?!
"it is still censorship; it just isn't unconstitutional or even necessarily bad." Go ahead and put out the fire, then. It wasn't even your property to begin with.
Crazyness, I say.
I think it is equally crazy to say that only the government can censor information.
So, free speech may have actually degraded to the point of tirades and nonsensical babbling because of anonymity.
"free speech" has not degraded. Free speech simply means you can speak freely without being punished. Anonymity cannot hurt that.
Do I care if people know my opinions?
I don't know. Do you enjoy not getting hired for a job or getting fired from a job for mysterious reasons, by chance? If so, I can see why you wouldn't care.
But what this is is censorship. Removing posts because they're anonymous? Censorship.
It tries to stop you from being anonymous, at least. In situations like this, I consider that a right that people should have.
Furthermore, this would stifle freedom of speech. You're not likely to receive much honesty if everyone's scared to say anything. After all, a statement that one person considers innocuous may be considered to be grossly offensive by another person.
What? Nonsense, college students are adults, not elementary school kids. They should be able to learn without teacher wasting time motivating them.
I believe it's partly on both. Lecturers who don't even try to make the class somewhat entertaining are part of the problem, and so are students who don't even try to learn.
If what they want is to test people's understanding of the math, then perhaps they shouldn't be expecting that students simply memorize formulas and procedures without understanding them. If their students can answer the questions on the test merely by having something ready to solve it on the calculator, then I'd say the test itself is flawed.
Solving tedious problems is not the same as understanding the underlying logic behind why the math works.
Is it really cheating, or are their tests simply flawed? It sounds like their tests ask you to answer poorly-thought-out questions that don't actually test a student's critical thinking abilities. Probably the typical, "Here's an equation right in front of your face. Now mindlessly repeat those steps you should have memorized in class to solve the equation."
just because you THINK you are well-adjusted doesn't mean that you ARE.
Well, to begin with, whether you're 'well-adjusted' or not is rather subjective. But I think what they usually mean is that they're not murderers and such.
Regardless, I think that argument is rather weak; it's just anecdotal evidence.
It's the same shit as the anti gun people.
Funnily enough, some of the anti-violent video game people are also anti-gun control. It's like when the NRA tried to blame video games for that shooting.
I can say the exact same thing about people who pay thousands of dollars for metal sticks and special shoes to hit a little ball around a grassy field. Or people who pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege to slide down a snow-capped mountain with two expensive sticks strapped to their feet for a day.
I'm sure you could say something similar, and I'd even agree with you.
Entertainment is entertainment.
And sometimes the entertainers want to strip away your ownership and ability to do various things with the product. Continuing to give money to them is what I call insane.
If it takes me six months to a year to write it why am I expected to work for free and the readers expect to be paid for their time?
You're not expected to work for free. Produce the novels or don't; it's entirely your decision and your decision alone. The readers may expect to be paid for their time when someone asks them to complete a job, but that situation is simply not the same as someone deciding to produce a novel and people later deciding to copy it and distribute it without interacting with the one who wrote it at all.
but how do the readers benefit when writers fear publishing their work?
For that matter, how are you benefiting from all that unpublished work?
but what's wrong with letting the market decide?
Indeed, but what does that have to do with government-enforced monopolies like copyright? Almost nothing, in my opinion.
The problem with high school math classes is that they focus on rote memorization, not actual understanding of the material. And looking at the math questions on that test... a lot of them seem to test for the same thing. "Do this, this, and this, and then you'll get the right answer. Why does it work? Who cares!"
and make the kids actually learn something before going to the next grade.
Thanks to all the tests that kids have to take, I don't think that's working out very well. I mean, yes, if you consider memorizing material without actually understanding it to be learning, then I suppose it's doing rather well...
I find it rather unlikely that Facebook could find out your real name if you didn't give it to them and also didn't provide any ways for them to find it. They have virtually no chance of finding out your real ip address unless you seriously give it to them.
I am not skeptical there are people that call themselves poor - why would I say it if I did not think it to be true?
I meant to say that it seems as if you were skeptical that they're truly poor.
I am skeptical that there are people that are actually poor, when compared to what the rest of the world considers poor.
This is what I suspected from the beginning. I just don't care for it and don't see the point of making such comparisons. In my experience, when someone says something like that, what they're really saying is, "It could be worse, so shut up." Apparently you weren't, but that's just what I've seen.
Why should you not pay for the enhanced features of Monsanto's seed if you use them?
Because they're seeds, and presumably Monsanto sold them to you at some point or at least sold them to someone else? I'm not really seeing why Montanto should be able to extract money from people merely because they're making use of seeds.
So... a government-enforced monopoly on someone's image/name. Right. That screams "free market" to me as much as copyright and patents do.
Well, I guess he would benefit from having ownership over the website, but I still don't see how this is not hypocrisy (not that that alone makes his position wrong).
Slashdot Mirror
In particular, you seem consumed with some emotional anger yourself
He disagreed; therefore, he's consumed with some emotional anger. You seem consumed with some emotional anger yourself...
Naivete. Unless you think that the government is composed of perfect beings who can do no wrong, I suggest you drop the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude.
Yes, they're invading people's privacy, but they do target Foreign calls.
It doesn't stop there.
There are risks and I'm fine with the US saying "Hey, we'll be watching your international calls."
Because, after all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?
The problem is that the accumulated incompetence, greediness, and general disregard for ethics among politicians creates a situation where rights are stripped away.
I would say that and an illogical, fearful populace is creating this mess.
While "strengthening" the IP protections of artists may prevent some people from pirating media
I actually think that would just anger even more people.
My idea of censorship is when somebody makes it impossible for you to express your ideas in any way shape or form.
So nothing is censorship, then? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a situation where it is impossible to express an idea in any way, shape, or form.
The problem is that you appear to go so far as to require private individuals who are paying for their own web server to allow random people to use those web servers in a manner that the server owner doesn't like. So anybody with a server should be required to let anybody use it, or they are committing censorship?
The problem that you appear to have is that you believe I believe that all censorship is wrong and should never be done. I believe government censorship is wrong, but I have no problem with, say, a forum administrator deleting a message.
So now preventing vandalism is censorship?!
"it is still censorship; it just isn't unconstitutional or even necessarily bad." Go ahead and put out the fire, then. It wasn't even your property to begin with.
Crazyness, I say.
I think it is equally crazy to say that only the government can censor information.
Removing posts because the government tells you, is censorship, and is unconstitutional.
Which is what I was referring to, and what the article is referring to.
But even if it's the site owner that decides to remove the content, it is still censorship; it just isn't unconstitutional or even necessarily bad.
So, free speech may have actually degraded to the point of tirades and nonsensical babbling because of anonymity.
"free speech" has not degraded. Free speech simply means you can speak freely without being punished. Anonymity cannot hurt that.
Do I care if people know my opinions?
I don't know. Do you enjoy not getting hired for a job or getting fired from a job for mysterious reasons, by chance? If so, I can see why you wouldn't care.
But what this is is censorship. Removing posts because they're anonymous? Censorship.
how is this taking away our rights?
It tries to stop you from being anonymous, at least. In situations like this, I consider that a right that people should have.
Furthermore, this would stifle freedom of speech. You're not likely to receive much honesty if everyone's scared to say anything. After all, a statement that one person considers innocuous may be considered to be grossly offensive by another person.
What? Nonsense, college students are adults, not elementary school kids. They should be able to learn without teacher wasting time motivating them.
I believe it's partly on both. Lecturers who don't even try to make the class somewhat entertaining are part of the problem, and so are students who don't even try to learn.
There is no way you can trust that a degree means a person knows their stuff.
So it's the same as normal college, then?
If what they want is to test people's understanding of the math, then perhaps they shouldn't be expecting that students simply memorize formulas and procedures without understanding them. If their students can answer the questions on the test merely by having something ready to solve it on the calculator, then I'd say the test itself is flawed.
Solving tedious problems is not the same as understanding the underlying logic behind why the math works.
Is it really cheating, or are their tests simply flawed? It sounds like their tests ask you to answer poorly-thought-out questions that don't actually test a student's critical thinking abilities. Probably the typical, "Here's an equation right in front of your face. Now mindlessly repeat those steps you should have memorized in class to solve the equation."
just because you THINK you are well-adjusted doesn't mean that you ARE.
Well, to begin with, whether you're 'well-adjusted' or not is rather subjective. But I think what they usually mean is that they're not murderers and such.
Regardless, I think that argument is rather weak; it's just anecdotal evidence.
It's the same shit as the anti gun people.
Funnily enough, some of the anti-violent video game people are also anti-gun control. It's like when the NRA tried to blame video games for that shooting.
I can say the exact same thing about people who pay thousands of dollars for metal sticks and special shoes to hit a little ball around a grassy field. Or people who pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege to slide down a snow-capped mountain with two expensive sticks strapped to their feet for a day.
I'm sure you could say something similar, and I'd even agree with you.
Entertainment is entertainment.
And sometimes the entertainers want to strip away your ownership and ability to do various things with the product. Continuing to give money to them is what I call insane.
If it takes me six months to a year to write it why am I expected to work for free and the readers expect to be paid for their time?
You're not expected to work for free. Produce the novels or don't; it's entirely your decision and your decision alone. The readers may expect to be paid for their time when someone asks them to complete a job, but that situation is simply not the same as someone deciding to produce a novel and people later deciding to copy it and distribute it without interacting with the one who wrote it at all.
but how do the readers benefit when writers fear publishing their work?
For that matter, how are you benefiting from all that unpublished work?
but what's wrong with letting the market decide?
Indeed, but what does that have to do with government-enforced monopolies like copyright? Almost nothing, in my opinion.
The problem with high school math classes is that they focus on rote memorization, not actual understanding of the material. And looking at the math questions on that test... a lot of them seem to test for the same thing. "Do this, this, and this, and then you'll get the right answer. Why does it work? Who cares!"
and make the kids actually learn something before going to the next grade.
Thanks to all the tests that kids have to take, I don't think that's working out very well. I mean, yes, if you consider memorizing material without actually understanding it to be learning, then I suppose it's doing rather well...
If you can't write well, you don't think well.
I'm not seeing it. I've seen people that are very good at certain subjects (math, for example) but seem to be terrible at writing.
I find it rather unlikely that Facebook could find out your real name if you didn't give it to them and also didn't provide any ways for them to find it. They have virtually no chance of finding out your real ip address unless you seriously give it to them.
get rid of long sentences for minor drug possession
Actually, just get rid of sentences for drug possession period.
And plea bargains...
What do we lose, if porn is banned?
What would we lose if you were arrested for making that comment? I find it rather disgusting, and I don't find it very useful.
I am not skeptical there are people that call themselves poor - why would I say it if I did not think it to be true?
I meant to say that it seems as if you were skeptical that they're truly poor.
I am skeptical that there are people that are actually poor, when compared to what the rest of the world considers poor.
This is what I suspected from the beginning. I just don't care for it and don't see the point of making such comparisons. In my experience, when someone says something like that, what they're really saying is, "It could be worse, so shut up." Apparently you weren't, but that's just what I've seen.
Why should you not pay for the enhanced features of Monsanto's seed if you use them?
Because they're seeds, and presumably Monsanto sold them to you at some point or at least sold them to someone else? I'm not really seeing why Montanto should be able to extract money from people merely because they're making use of seeds.
So... a government-enforced monopoly on someone's image/name. Right. That screams "free market" to me as much as copyright and patents do.
Well, I guess he would benefit from having ownership over the website, but I still don't see how this is not hypocrisy (not that that alone makes his position wrong).