The same could be said of Trump who promises to sue the media for negative stories about him
No, it can not be. Trump is not (yet) a government official, so his efforts to fight other people's speech are not against the First Amendment.
There can be a fine line with hate speech [...] a good way to get on the police or FBI's radar
Thank you for providing this good example of an authoritarian calling for and implicitly approving of police persecuting other people's speech. Like I said, the real danger is from the supposed "Liberals" like yourself.
Trolling is when you say controversial, annoying, and/or inflammatory shit just to get a response from people.
I, actually, agree with you on the original meaning of "trolling". And yet, TFA talks about that "other" trolling and this subthread of ours is purely "semantics" now.
After all, there is a war on... and all this freedom stuff is only making total victory more elusive.
The bill of Rights and the Constitution in general are threatened not by the obvious authoritarians you have in mind, but rather by the self-identified "Liberals" seeking to ban "Hate Speech" and "intolerance".
As she was being confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role.
Norway and Sweden are quite successful [...] Denmark is way up there too
Are they? Compared to what? Unlike most of the rest of Europe, the three Scandinavian countries suffered no destruction in the two world wars. And yet, their per capita GDP is barely on par with Germany's — which was a total ruin in 1945. With the exception of Norway, which exports oil.
But, hey, Germany may be different — climate, culture, etc. Fortunately, history furnishes us no fewer than three clean experiments, three pairs of near-identical populations living under Capitalism and Socialism:
Soviet Estonia vs. Finland;
Eastern vs. Western Germany;
South vs. North Korea.
It does not even have to be a Democracy — you can add:
Cuba vs. Chile
to the list. The fourth pair were/are both run by dictators, but Chile's "dear leader" chose Capitalism and turned his country into Latin America's top economy, while the worker's paradise remains a basket case.
Nope, there are no success stories for Socialism — life in Scandinavia is decent despite it, not thanks to it. Oh, and they can't defend themselves against Russia either &mdash because maintaining a capable military is expensive and would've eaten into what meager GDP they have...
Sixty-five percent of adults in the United States said they had read a printed book in the past year, the same percentage that said so in 2012
Headline:
Most People Still Prefer Them
A person, who read one paper book in 2016, but 10 such books in 2012 would not make a difference to the cited survey. And, of course, there is no evidence as to what people's preference is — are we reading paper-books, because we prefer it, or for other reasons?
My family brought a substantial library with us, when we immigrated. Our bookcases hold the cherished old friends.
But I would not expect my children to share the sentimental attachment. Because I myself would not be persuaded to go to bed with a papyrus or a box of clay tablets.
Kaby Lake will not run on anything older than Windows 10
Just how do you disable older versions of the OS without also disabling older applications?
Maybe, there is code buried into Windows XP/Vista/7/8, that will prevent them from running on some future CPUs. I can believe that. But for a CPU to reject an older OS on its own? I do not know, how this can happen even in theory — not without disabling a whole lot of other already existing binaries...
Maybe, it is not the CPUs, but the chipsets using some hackery that confuses older OSes — in which case, open source kernels will have a problem too... If so the computer-manufacturers will, likely, introduce BIOS/firmware knobs to allow customers to maintain compatibility.
Closed source, open source, half-way open source - they all have holes the size of the Titanic, and are casing our privacy to sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Are you trying to say, governments haven't spied on and persecuted opponents before these modern-day conveniences appeared?
The problem is our dependence on these "conveniences" we can now not live without.
We can live without them, but the life will be, wait for it, less convenient.
They make living more comfortable. For everyone — including the spies.
No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?
And there is a big difference in falsifiability
You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."
If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world
I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.
Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:
The first link in each pair shall be to the prediction.
The second link each pair shall be to confirmation of the prediction materializing within, say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.
The link-targets in each pair must be several years apart — predicting tomorow's weather, for example, would not count.
The prediction must be somewhat meaningful: a promise, that it will get hotter or colder, is not acceptable.
Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?
Which means the winning side runs up legal fees until the loser goes right out of business.
My proposal explicitly included the vetting of the winner's expenses by the judge... He can trim them, if he suspects abuse or some such.
The point is, currently, the winner needs to file a separate lawsuit seeking legal expenses compensation. This is too costly and time consuming in itself — the award should be an automatic part of the conclusions.
And then you're back to the problem of wealthy companies/individuals who can afford expensive legal teams, intimidating poorer, lesser funded individuals who can't afford good legal support
My way, the poor side can reclaim its expenses upon winning.
The current way, the poor side will be bankrupt even if it wins, which is exactly, what allows for the intimidation you denounce.
Why not? If you are so sure of your case and/or can find a deep-pocketed sponsor (such as described in TFA). But, if you aren't sure, you would not file your stupid suit — thus lowering the legal insurance fees for the corporations and lower prices for their products/services for the rest of us.
because if they lost they would be broke after paying the legal fees of the corporate lawyers
I did allow for the judge to review the expenses claimed by the winner — to prevent abuses.
The solution to frivolous lawsuits is the loser pays system. If you lose a suit, you have to pay the winner's legal expenses (vetted by the judge). Automatically...
And, yes, the rule ought to cover criminal proceedings too with wrongfully accused compensated by the prosecutor's office.
Because the real predictions are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it
Will that ever happen? You say, it will. But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.
Something tells me, you'd dismiss as a fool (or worse) anyone telling you to repent before it is too late and you died before absolution. And yet, you are telling me the same thing about climate: believe in it, before it is too late.
Maybe, I'd be willing to listen to the authorities, to which you appeal — if they were authorities. But they aren't scientists either — no meaningful falsifiable statement has been made by them, that has not been falsified in due time... Off, off with you — 21st century shamans...
They can explain everything, but are able to predict nothing. Internet is full of compilations of failed predictions, but the only "successful" ones are the useless statements like "it may get hotter, or colder". Yeah, right...
If you want to get "technical" the web (aka http/html) was first (1990 vs 1991 for gopher)
I would say, Lee's web was indistinguishable from Gopher back then. Certainly not until Mosaic offered graphical browsing.
email was the killer app, inter-domain mail (via unix mail via rmail/UUCP) was probably the real killer app, not ARPANET
But that too existed already in the 1970-80ies... The actual interconnections remained scarce, but software and protocols for distinct computers to exchange "emails" appeared much earlier than the celebrated 1991.
I'd also add, that Sir Lee's affable personality — and the fact, that he is not an American — contribute to the "cult".
The write-up and TFA conflate the Internet and (what became known as web). Maybe, the slines don't know any better, but Slashdot users ought to... The hyperlinked documents weren't the first "killer application" — e-mail was. The first systems weren't even using the Internet, but, according to Wikipedia:
And Sir Lee's was not even the first system for linking documents/files across the networks — Gopher was. And Gopher was not merely proposed in 1991, that's when an actual system became available (though protocol was codified in an RFC only in 1993).
So you'd like to believe. You'd REALLY like to believe it.
Back at you.
But then we look, and we see that failure rates for those loans were not any higher
This was a good opportunity to offer a citation, but, for some reason, you didn't do it... Maybe, that's because you are just lazy. Maybe, you knew to be posting an untruth and hoped, I would not call your lie. Fail. Here is a 2010 paper citing the following mortgage-failure numbers for 2007-2009: 790 per 10000 loans for Blacks, 769 for Latinos, 452 for Non-Hispanic Whites. The minorities, whom the Democratic demagogues, supposedly, tried to help, suffered the most from the "help". As usual.
It was blatantly stupid too. Racist or not, banks want to make money. Issuing loans is how banks make money. It would take a David Duke-like hard-core racism for a loan officer to lower his own bonus/commissions and reject a qualified loan-application on the basis of race. No one would do it — and none of the allegations of this happening en masse has ever been substantiated.
Now, don't be an asshole, and reply under your own name to undo the cowardly downmoderations...
If we all had smart-phones 100 years ago, today's taxi regulations (and the various boards enforcing them) would not have been created. Which means, it is time for them to be abolished.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it can not be. Trump is not (yet) a government official, so his efforts to fight other people's speech are not against the First Amendment.
Thank you for providing this good example of an authoritarian calling for and implicitly approving of police persecuting other people's speech. Like I said, the real danger is from the supposed "Liberals" like yourself.
I, actually, agree with you on the original meaning of "trolling". And yet, TFA talks about that "other" trolling and this subthread of ours is purely "semantics" now.
Certainly. Any statement about elements of an empty set is true...
The bill of Rights and the Constitution in general are threatened not by the obvious authoritarians you have in mind, but rather by the self-identified "Liberals" seeking to ban "Hate Speech" and "intolerance".
Except for that little state on the other side of the globe, which is called Russia.
So, it is all a Black man's fault?.. Right...
Are they? Compared to what? Unlike most of the rest of Europe, the three Scandinavian countries suffered no destruction in the two world wars. And yet, their per capita GDP is barely on par with Germany's — which was a total ruin in 1945. With the exception of Norway, which exports oil.
But, hey, Germany may be different — climate, culture, etc. Fortunately, history furnishes us no fewer than three clean experiments, three pairs of near-identical populations living under Capitalism and Socialism:
It does not even have to be a Democracy — you can add:
to the list. The fourth pair were/are both run by dictators, but Chile's "dear leader" chose Capitalism and turned his country into Latin America's top economy, while the worker's paradise remains a basket case.
Nope, there are no success stories for Socialism — life in Scandinavia is decent despite it, not thanks to it. Oh, and they can't defend themselves against Russia either &mdash because maintaining a capable military is expensive and would've eaten into what meager GDP they have...
Towards Venezuela? Oh, wait, no, towards Cuba? No, sorry, towards North Korea?
What are the Left's success-stories exactly, again?
So, either
What a pickle... An entire jar of pickles!
Headline:
A person, who read one paper book in 2016, but 10 such books in 2012 would not make a difference to the cited survey. And, of course, there is no evidence as to what people's preference is — are we reading paper-books, because we prefer it, or for other reasons?
My family brought a substantial library with us, when we immigrated. Our bookcases hold the cherished old friends.
But I would not expect my children to share the sentimental attachment. Because I myself would not be persuaded to go to bed with a papyrus or a box of clay tablets.
Just how do you disable older versions of the OS without also disabling older applications?
Maybe, there is code buried into Windows XP/Vista/7/8, that will prevent them from running on some future CPUs. I can believe that. But for a CPU to reject an older OS on its own? I do not know, how this can happen even in theory — not without disabling a whole lot of other already existing binaries...
Maybe, it is not the CPUs, but the chipsets using some hackery that confuses older OSes — in which case, open source kernels will have a problem too... If so the computer-manufacturers will, likely, introduce BIOS/firmware knobs to allow customers to maintain compatibility.
And that shall be the Year of Linux on Desktop (YOLOD).
Are you trying to say, governments haven't spied on and persecuted opponents before these modern-day conveniences appeared?
We can live without them, but the life will be, wait for it, less convenient.
They make living more comfortable. For everyone — including the spies.
No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?
You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."
I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.
Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:
Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?
My proposal explicitly included the vetting of the winner's expenses by the judge... He can trim them, if he suspects abuse or some such.
The point is, currently, the winner needs to file a separate lawsuit seeking legal expenses compensation. This is too costly and time consuming in itself — the award should be an automatic part of the conclusions.
My way, the poor side can reclaim its expenses upon winning.
The current way, the poor side will be bankrupt even if it wins, which is exactly, what allows for the intimidation you denounce.
Why not? If you are so sure of your case and/or can find a deep-pocketed sponsor (such as described in TFA). But, if you aren't sure, you would not file your stupid suit — thus lowering the legal insurance fees for the corporations and lower prices for their products/services for the rest of us.
I did allow for the judge to review the expenses claimed by the winner — to prevent abuses.
The solution to frivolous lawsuits is the loser pays system. If you lose a suit, you have to pay the winner's legal expenses (vetted by the judge). Automatically...
And, yes, the rule ought to cover criminal proceedings too with wrongfully accused compensated by the prosecutor's office.
Will that ever happen? You say, it will. But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.
Something tells me, you'd dismiss as a fool (or worse) anyone telling you to repent before it is too late and you died before absolution. And yet, you are telling me the same thing about climate: believe in it, before it is too late.
Maybe, I'd be willing to listen to the authorities, to which you appeal — if they were authorities. But they aren't scientists either — no meaningful falsifiable statement has been made by them, that has not been falsified in due time... Off, off with you — 21st century shamans...
They can explain everything, but are able to predict nothing. Internet is full of compilations of failed predictions, but the only "successful" ones are the useless statements like "it may get hotter, or colder". Yeah, right...
Tar-and-feathers beckon...
I would say, Lee's web was indistinguishable from Gopher back then. Certainly not until Mosaic offered graphical browsing.
But that too existed already in the 1970-80ies... The actual interconnections remained scarce, but software and protocols for distinct computers to exchange "emails" appeared much earlier than the celebrated 1991.
I'd also add, that Sir Lee's affable personality — and the fact, that he is not an American — contribute to the "cult".
And Sir Lee's was not even the first system for linking documents/files across the networks — Gopher was. And Gopher was not merely proposed in 1991, that's when an actual system became available (though protocol was codified in an RFC only in 1993).
Back at you.
This was a good opportunity to offer a citation, but, for some reason, you didn't do it... Maybe, that's because you are just lazy. Maybe, you knew to be posting an untruth and hoped, I would not call your lie. Fail. Here is a 2010 paper citing the following mortgage-failure numbers for 2007-2009: 790 per 10000 loans for Blacks, 769 for Latinos, 452 for Non-Hispanic Whites. The minorities, whom the Democratic demagogues, supposedly, tried to help, suffered the most from the "help". As usual.
It was blatantly stupid too. Racist or not, banks want to make money. Issuing loans is how banks make money. It would take a David Duke-like hard-core racism for a loan officer to lower his own bonus/commissions and reject a qualified loan-application on the basis of race. No one would do it — and none of the allegations of this happening en masse has ever been substantiated.
Now, don't be an asshole, and reply under your own name to undo the cowardly downmoderations...
Hobbling a horse will also prevent the rider from hitting anything too hard. Too bad, it also prevents most of the travel...
Except the crisis was caused by a completely different problem.
Except it was not Uber, who created those hoops. The taxis have suffered from the usual Big Government approach to business:
If we all had smart-phones 100 years ago, today's taxi regulations (and the various boards enforcing them) would not have been created. Which means, it is time for them to be abolished.