Yes, I asked for citations. Which you attempted to provide.
How about Steven Harper suppressing science
No such thing has ever happened. The people mentioned are government employees — Donald Trump is their new manager. Nothing to do with the First Amendment. (Hint: your mom telling you to stop cursing is not violating the Amendment either.)
What about Trump's banning the use of certain terms [...]
Again, the "ban" applies only to government employees — the people, we just elected Trump to manage.
banning a group of people from actively serving their country
Nothing to do with the First Amendment at all.
It took me longer to write this post than it did to google those terms
Maybe, because you posted nothing relevant to the accusations made? None of the "outrages" you cited constitute a violation of the First Amendment — contrary to arth1's bombastic claims.
The Constitution explicitly has that copyrights exist for a limited time.
Well, yeah, 95 years is quite limiting. My grandma is older than that, whatever her father could have willed to her, would have expired already.
But my having a copy of a book doesn't reduce the amount of gain someone else gets from the book.
Of course, it does. Even the Slashdot's collectivists agree, as long as the victim is an identifiable human being rather than a "KKKorporation".
But almost no one says "I was going to patent this or was going to write this book, but because my grandkids might not have 100% rights to it, I won't."
Because my children (not even grandkids) will not derive any income from my writing, I'll have to shelve my idea of this book and go do "real work". That's the line of thinking I was alluding to. The creator — or his wife — would certainly think/say such a thing.
But I do not wish to argue, which way is more effective. Even if my way was less conducive to development of art, it is still the only right way. Creators ought to be able to control their creations — they must be able to sell, rent, give away, or even destroy them however they see fit. It is not yours, it is not mine, it is theirs.
My way does not prevent anyone from giving away his work — immediately or after whatever time period. Your way prevents "hoarders" from doing what they please with their property — and that's why your way is wrong.
Did you pay a royalty for the idea of using a roof and walls, or did you steal those?
Of course, I paid a variety of royalties for all the wonderful materials invented by smart people to make the houses more comfortable and easier to build — the payments are conveniently part of the price of each item.
Yes, I would've paid the inventor of the roof and the walls — if a valid claim of ownership were presented.
If I build a house, I can will it to my ancestors, it will remain ours in perpetuity unless sold at some point.
If, on the other hand, I write a tune or a book, or develop a drug, or create a painting — well, then I will only be rewarded for a brief period. Or so the article's author would like things to be.
In the United States, well, we get nothing
Bullshit. You get everything — just not for free. You can buy royalty-free stock photography and music — rewarding the creators for those of the creations you like. This is a much better system than the proposed collective ownership of art because the flip side of the wonderful free availability is the artists either starving or needing tax subsidies.
if you have a decent amount of technical know how you can make yourself pretty difficult to track down
Well, he's been found and arrested already — so much for the "pretty difficult". Police should've shown the same vigor before his actions resulted in a death.
I don't believe I've seen anyone react to that bomb threat with anything other than disapproval.
In denial much? Open any article on the subject and browse the comments. For example, from here:
Sounds like someone called in an anonymous bomb threat. Cute.
Got me all excited there for a second, bummer.
Not the most productive thing for sure. But what's the alternative?
Considering Pai's complete disregard of the public's opinion on the matter, or the many accusations of fraud on the comment period, I think at this point it's a moment of "desperate times call for desperate measures."
I'd say, the ratio of approval to disapproval there is 1:1...
Since someone got killed, I'd guess this could fall into the felony category
It really is sad, that the punishment depends on the outcome of the crime, rather than the intent of the criminal... I understand, why — because discerning intent is often too difficult to be reliable — but sad nonetheless.
This guy should do serious time for this and the earlier "pranks" and — together with the trigger-happy pig — owe the family of the victim some serious money.
Of course — but why didn't they pursue him and other fookers like him?
This kids fucked.
Whether he is a "kid" or not, he should've been screwed with a splintered broomstick sideways after his very first attempt.
And now the same cruel and unusual procedure is calling for the murderous cop of the most recent incident, as well as for all those responsible for not investigating this prick's earlier crimes.
And then, of course, comes the question of why SWAT-operations are so deadly in the first place.
Those tweets indicate that Swautistic is a serial swatter
Well, score another one for police — why was not the fake caller prosecuted after his very first crime?
false report of a bomb threat at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that disrupted a high-profile public meeting on the net neutrality debate
Ah, well, that changes everything. If a crime is committed for a noble cause, the criminal becomes a hero...
It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.
No, I don't. As I explained to you before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those, who want to compel me — on pain of higher taxes, loss of freedoms, and even actual criminal prosecutions — to change my way of life.
The IPCC made falsifiable predictions based on scientific models and data. The predictions came true.
You aren't citing any — which is especially curious because you blasted me for not providing accurate citations before... And, of course, even if some such predictions did come true, it is not proof. Unless this guy's predictions make him a scientist too. California did get the punishment, you know, a rather obvious one, which is much more than one can say about IPCC's results.
And yet you claim the field is not falsifiable
Actually, this time around I didn't have to make such a claim of my own. I simply cited claims made by others. You have nothing to say about that, you keep coming back with "IPCC" and personal insults. I think, I'm done here.
You put in a link that made it looked like you had a citation for how they admit that
It is quite obvious, I simply screwed up the link. This is, what I meant to include, separately from the link explaining, what falsifiability is, and why it is a requirement for real science:
1. Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable
Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.
Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable. [emphasis mine]
And she is not alone in admitting, there is no — and there can not be — any proof. Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore the other link, which I did cite correctly, where a a DailyKos article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier).
Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.
If for example the IPCC's pridictions of what was to happen in the future did not come to pass, that would be some falsifying evidence
Our whole argument in this thread is that, by the purported scientists' own admission — now properly cited — their very discipline is not falsifiable. Your babbling about IPCC is not much different from the Bible-thumpers' predictions about His wrath.
"Proven"? Talk about false or misleading claims! Not only has it not been proven, its adherents admit that their theories are unfalsifiable — which means, the entire "climate science" is not, actually, science.
Are hospitals having problems because of that policy? Why, yes! It costs money to go after people
Ok, so you admit, the problem exists.
[...] who can't pay
"Can not" or "would not"?
Real universal healthcare. Make sure everyone who turns up at the ER has paid, through taxes or premiums
How do you "make sure"? Ah, "through taxes" — yes, collect money at gunpoint to be spent later as the government decides proper and, likely, to treat someone else. The typical Illiberal approach to everything...
should you be kicked out of the hospital?
Not "should". But most certainly "could". No one is obligated to work for free — indeed, we denounce such arrangements as slavery. But hospitals and doctors, in the vision you share with the harebrained lawmakers from 1986, can be compelled to treat people who wouldn't pay — and you jeer at any suggestion, that something may be wrong about it, as "huffing and puffing". Sheer stupidity...
what you're proposing is death by bureaucrat.
That's rich, coming from someone, who wants government to further extend its control over subjects...
Some time ago we made it legal for people to not pay. With other businesses, a non-paying customer quickly finds himself barred from the establishment. But Emergency Rooms can not turn anyone away for the dirty reasons like "money" — since 1987. And that's just the Federal Law. Various States, no doubt, have their own feel-good legislation, that allows deadbeats to get free evaluation/treatment and continue to not pay the bill.
Whether these laws were passed out of sheer stupidity or with a hidden plan to get us a step closer to the Collectivists' wet dream of "single payer healthcare" is unclear.
One can easily find behavior by people upset and angry over either version of this
"Easily found"? Well, you aren't citing any. Please, link to a report of somebody getting not merely "angry", but criminally violent over being greeted "Happy Holidays" instead of "Marry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukah".
Then you should not engage in US-centric discussions — certainly not with Americans. Topics like "FCC", the Constitution, and, indeed, the "Fairness Doctrine" are of no concern of yours. We tolerate you here, on American web-sites like Slashdot, but only while you behave politely...
Is there some part of billionaires using money to influence the media in a way the common man cannot
I'm unaware of any limitations in place for anyone to "influence media". Indeed, "billionaire" is not a legal term — not in our country, not sure about your particular hell hole.
We have this much-cherished concept of Freedom of Speech: whoever you are, the government can not regulate your speech. It seems like you, poor thing, are envious of the "billionaires" and wish them be robbed of certain rights. Nope, not happening here...
The world, where the benign and omniscient government officials know better, what you should eat. They have such a good track-record. Most of the toiling masses accept this guidance voluntarily. The few cantankerous ones, who do not, need to be:
Slashdot Mirror
I can make 6 different predictions about a dice falling. One of them will always be "spot on".
Nothing disproves it. Because it is not falsifiable.
And therefor not science — Trump is a heretic.
Yes, I asked for citations. Which you attempted to provide.
No such thing has ever happened. The people mentioned are government employees — Donald Trump is their new manager. Nothing to do with the First Amendment. (Hint: your mom telling you to stop cursing is not violating the Amendment either.)
Again, the "ban" applies only to government employees — the people, we just elected Trump to manage.
Nothing to do with the First Amendment at all.
Maybe, because you posted nothing relevant to the accusations made? None of the "outrages" you cited constitute a violation of the First Amendment — contrary to arth1's bombastic claims.
Well, yeah, 95 years is quite limiting. My grandma is older than that, whatever her father could have willed to her, would have expired already.
Of course, it does. Even the Slashdot's collectivists agree, as long as the victim is an identifiable human being rather than a "KKKorporation".
Because my children (not even grandkids) will not derive any income from my writing, I'll have to shelve my idea of this book and go do "real work". That's the line of thinking I was alluding to. The creator — or his wife — would certainly think/say such a thing.
But I do not wish to argue, which way is more effective. Even if my way was less conducive to development of art, it is still the only right way. Creators ought to be able to control their creations — they must be able to sell, rent, give away, or even destroy them however they see fit. It is not yours, it is not mine, it is theirs.
My way does not prevent anyone from giving away his work — immediately or after whatever time period. Your way prevents "hoarders" from doing what they please with their property — and that's why your way is wrong.
Point is, they should not have to.
Of course, I paid a variety of royalties for all the wonderful materials invented by smart people to make the houses more comfortable and easier to build — the payments are conveniently part of the price of each item.
Yes, I would've paid the inventor of the roof and the walls — if a valid claim of ownership were presented.
If I build a house, I can will it to my ancestors, it will remain ours in perpetuity unless sold at some point.
If, on the other hand, I write a tune or a book, or develop a drug, or create a painting — well, then I will only be rewarded for a brief period. Or so the article's author would like things to be.
Bullshit. You get everything — just not for free. You can buy royalty-free stock photography and music — rewarding the creators for those of the creations you like. This is a much better system than the proposed collective ownership of art because the flip side of the wonderful free availability is the artists either starving or needing tax subsidies.
He and Stalin were also big fans of censorship — are you sure, you are after the right thing?
Maybe, you ought to outlaw mustache, aquarelle painting, and vegetarianism — because Hitler was into all three — just to cover all the bases?
Yes, because Hitler was such a big fan of Free Speech, that the dangerous concept must be suppressed. For the Greater Good[tm].
Without citations, this is all meaningless FUD.
Please, cite the part of the First Amendment, which makes an exception for "hate speech" — however defined.
Somehow, there are no lamentations today about the unwashed Americans being insufficiently similar to the enlightened Europeans...
Well, he's been found and arrested already — so much for the "pretty difficult". Police should've shown the same vigor before his actions resulted in a death.
In denial much? Open any article on the subject and browse the comments. For example, from here:
I'd say, the ratio of approval to disapproval there is 1:1...
It really is sad, that the punishment depends on the outcome of the crime, rather than the intent of the criminal... I understand, why — because discerning intent is often too difficult to be reliable — but sad nonetheless.
This guy should do serious time for this and the earlier "pranks" and — together with the trigger-happy pig — owe the family of the victim some serious money.
Of course — but why didn't they pursue him and other fookers like him?
Whether he is a "kid" or not, he should've been screwed with a splintered broomstick sideways after his very first attempt.
And now the same cruel and unusual procedure is calling for the murderous cop of the most recent incident, as well as for all those responsible for not investigating this prick's earlier crimes.
And then, of course, comes the question of why SWAT-operations are so deadly in the first place.
Well, score another one for police — why was not the fake caller prosecuted after his very first crime?
Ah, well, that changes everything. If a crime is committed for a noble cause, the criminal becomes a hero...
You mean, when this is "ever finished"?
No, does not seem like jails are in use...
Is it? Not according to this climate-scientist from Australia, nor according to this professor concurring with this blogger (both of them hilariously repeating in earnest this earlier satire).
No, I don't. As I explained to you before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those, who want to compel me — on pain of higher taxes, loss of freedoms, and even actual criminal prosecutions — to change my way of life.
You aren't citing any — which is especially curious because you blasted me for not providing accurate citations before... And, of course, even if some such predictions did come true, it is not proof. Unless this guy's predictions make him a scientist too. California did get the punishment, you know, a rather obvious one, which is much more than one can say about IPCC's results.
Actually, this time around I didn't have to make such a claim of my own. I simply cited claims made by others. You have nothing to say about that, you keep coming back with "IPCC" and personal insults. I think, I'm done here.
It being warm does not prove the need to ban incandescent light bulbs either.
It is quite obvious, I simply screwed up the link. This is, what I meant to include, separately from the link explaining, what falsifiability is, and why it is a requirement for real science:
And she is not alone in admitting, there is no — and there can not be — any proof. Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore the other link, which I did cite correctly, where a a DailyKos article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier).
Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.
Our whole argument in this thread is that, by the purported scientists' own admission — now properly cited — their very discipline is not falsifiable. Your babbling about IPCC is not much different from the Bible-thumpers' predictions about His wrath.
"Proven"? Talk about false or misleading claims! Not only has it not been proven, its adherents admit that their theories are unfalsifiable — which means, the entire "climate science" is not, actually, science .
Indeed, we are asked to treat the supposed threat as Blaise Pascal proposed to treat the existence of God.
You, ignorant toad, may believe it, but it certainly has not been proven...
Ok, so you admit, the problem exists.
"Can not" or "would not"?
How do you "make sure"? Ah, "through taxes" — yes, collect money at gunpoint to be spent later as the government decides proper and, likely, to treat someone else. The typical Illiberal approach to everything...
Not "should". But most certainly "could". No one is obligated to work for free — indeed, we denounce such arrangements as slavery. But hospitals and doctors, in the vision you share with the harebrained lawmakers from 1986, can be compelled to treat people who wouldn't pay — and you jeer at any suggestion, that something may be wrong about it, as "huffing and puffing". Sheer stupidity...
That's rich, coming from someone, who wants government to further extend its control over subjects...
Some time ago we made it legal for people to not pay. With other businesses, a non-paying customer quickly finds himself barred from the establishment. But Emergency Rooms can not turn anyone away for the dirty reasons like "money" — since 1987. And that's just the Federal Law. Various States, no doubt, have their own feel-good legislation, that allows deadbeats to get free evaluation/treatment and continue to not pay the bill.
Whether these laws were passed out of sheer stupidity or with a hidden plan to get us a step closer to the Collectivists' wet dream of "single payer healthcare" is unclear.
"Easily found"? Well, you aren't citing any. Please, link to a report of somebody getting not merely "angry", but criminally violent over being greeted "Happy Holidays" instead of "Marry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukah".
The "both sides" shtick is getting tiresome...
But the minority is willing to use violence , so we are all stuck with the neutered version.
Then you should not engage in US-centric discussions — certainly not with Americans. Topics like "FCC", the Constitution, and, indeed, the "Fairness Doctrine" are of no concern of yours. We tolerate you here, on American web-sites like Slashdot, but only while you behave politely...
I'm unaware of any limitations in place for anyone to "influence media". Indeed, "billionaire" is not a legal term — not in our country, not sure about your particular hell hole.
We have this much-cherished concept of Freedom of Speech: whoever you are, the government can not regulate your speech. It seems like you, poor thing, are envious of the "billionaires" and wish them be robbed of certain rights. Nope, not happening here...
The world, where the benign and omniscient government officials know better, what you should eat. They have such a good track-record. Most of the toiling masses accept this guidance voluntarily. The few cantankerous ones, who do not, need to be:
into compliance. It is mandatory, comrade...