You're saying that in one case (the holocaust) that it is clear and irrefutable while in the other one it's a "current event" and there isn't any "clear and irrefutable" evidence. Good point.
The problem is in what is clear and irrefutable. I think the path to an Orwellian future is clear and direct with this thinking.
What defines hateful?
The holocaust example is clear and direct and straightforward but many others are not - and where does it end? Why not say that those who defame religious leaders are spreading hateful speech and ought to be punished. (Yeah, bring back blasphemy laws.) It prevents atheists from bringing up inconvenient arguments.
And, which facts are incontrovertible to all people at all times? Holocaust may be clear but most things are not. How about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for one? How about almost anything that people talk about. We shouldn't have to go to court (or fear the government) for saying what you want to say.
Yes. Political speech is legitimate even if wrong, vile, hateful and racist.
Again. Would you imprison NOI members (Farakan and others) for saying that white people were created by an evil scientist named yakub and are, by their very nature, degenerate and evil?
Would you arrest BLM members for their hateful speech against white people?
Who the hell cares? This is legitimate speech. It's disgusting, absolutely revolting to me that this is a law and that it's defended.
Would you arrest and convict women for saying that "all men are rapists?" Or that heterosexual sex (even consensual) is a form of male dominance?
All political speech, irrespective of truth or hurt feelings, is legitimate.
Should you go to jail for saying that the Koran / Bible is contradictory, irrational and foolish just because some may find the words to be The Truth and find your statements to be hurtful or "hateful"?
Each of those statements are valid statements (as regards political speech).
Saying white people are created by an evil scientist named Yakub. Is valid political speech. (Are you going to criminalize the NOI - Nation of Islam)?
Saying Muslims / Jews / Whites / Blacks / Asians / whatever are evil and should leave is valid political speech and ought not be criminalized.
Vile, hateful, incorrect statements are valid political statements because the alternative tyranny and thought police are worse. Far worse.
Add to the fact that statements will most probably be applied to political opponents as opposed to political friends just exacerbates the issue. Just look at US campuses. Riots when Milo shows up.
Free speech needs to be defended. If you don't defend speech you disagree with you are not a defender of free speech.
I respectfully disagree. Expressing yourself; expressing your beliefs should not be illegal in free society.
What your proposing would only lead to tyranny. Whistleblowers, skeptics of all sorts would be criminalized.
Imagine bringing up objections to Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. What sort of proof would you need to bring forward?
How about Rachel Maddow and Trump returns. Should she be sued?
No. There ought not be a limit on freedom of thought, freedom of speech.
Are the positions of your adversaries wrong? Argue against the wrongfully stated position. Take it on in full daylight.
As a side note right now there are people who say there are different facts for different races and genders. How would you deal with those arguments? You needn't have to.
Everything you say should be legal.
Now, if you falsely, and knowingly create a panic (crying fire in a crowded theater) then being prosecuted for directly ensuing panic *may* make sense.
But what do you do to people who
1. say that the economy is in bad condition.
2. declare that the existing president is not being helpful.
3. when a new president is elected (and before he comes to office) declare the economy is making a comeback and call it the "new_president recovery"
Should those obvious falsehood be a prosecutable offense?
In 1945 Germany wasn't a free country. They were a defeated country occupied by 4 foreign forces (US, USSR, England, France).
But this is 2017. Germany, supposedly, is a free country standing on it's own. If it is a free country then these laws should not exist; and most importantly they ought not be defended.
I was a NeverTrump. I didn't support him because I disagreed with many of his positions and his public demeanor.
But I don't see the man as stupid. You probably think that Ben Carson is stupid because you disagree with him.
And, if you don't consider him to be stupid, what would you say to the people that do. Whatever you may think of Carson's political and philosophical positions a Director of Surgery at John Hopkins is not stupid.
What? Are you in favor of blasphemy laws?
Can't defame the government?
Are you f**ked up stupid? There should be no laws against political speech; no laws regarding expressing your thoughts (even if they are vile).
Why? Because who decides what is, and what is not vile? We certainly can't use a majority vote for this? Who then? Which f**king gov't officials would you give that power to?
Laws against advocating violence against a particular person or organization or property is the only thing that *maybe* acceptable.
I hate Obama / Trump. Is OK.
Obama / Trump should be killed. Is morally horrible but should not be illegal.
Kill Obama / Trump now. Is morally horrible and I can compromise on making that statement illegal.
But political statements should always be illegal. Government tyranny and oppression is far worse than the vile statements.
No. He didn't blow his money. He had to pay taxes on fights when he was in the military. He then fought something like 14 times and could never pay back the tax bill because he was taxed at 91%.
It wasn't that he spent the money. It's that he never received HIS money in the first place.
You miss the point about coal. It's not coal per se. It's about blue collar jobs. It's about the contempt that city folk have for country folk; that all they need is to be retrained; that if they, too, become hipster sophisticates then all would be good.
This foolishness opposing the pipelines is a clear example of this bs.
I guess you forgot about all the loop holes. And forgot the difference between earned income and investment income. And forgot about stories like Joe Louis who was taxed at 91% on earnings for his fights and thus could never get out of debt.
It is well known that the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate among the 35 industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[1] However, it is less well known how the United States stacks up against countries throughout the entire world. Expanding the sample of countries and tax jurisdictions to 188, the U.S.’s corporate tax rate of almost 39 percent is the third highest in the world, lower only than the United Arab Emirates’ rate of 55 percent and Puerto Rico’s rate of 39 percent. The U.S. tax rate is 16.4 percentage points higher than the worldwide average of 22.5 percent and a little more than 9 percentage points higher than the worldwide GDP-weighted average of 29.5 percent. Over the past ten years, the average worldwide tax rate has been declining, pushing the United States farther from the norm.
https://taxfoundation.org/corp...
To his credit he's been talking about reducing some of the ridiculous tax laws that makes it extremely foolish to repatriate monies back to the US. Remove these regulations and companies will stop sitting on cash and invest. Don't blame this specifically on Obama but the entire Democratic Party's approach to business.
US corporate tax rates are extremely uncompetitive.
Take a look at the primaries and you'll see that wasn't so.
They voted for him over Hillary but not over other Republicans. And the religious right is less than 20% of the Republican Party. It doesn't represent the party as a whole.
Global warming. I mean Climate Change isn't the only topic that relates to science. I, for one, am far more concerned with dioxins and other pollutants than I am about released CO2. Especially since carbon as an energy source is going to be greatly reduced over the next 20-40 years.
You do realize that the religious right (social conservatives) were not supportive of Trump. Trump was losing Utah up until the last 2 wks (not to Hillary but to Evan McMullin).
Wanting legal (as opposed to anything-goes) immigration is not equal to anti-science and anti-technology.
Being for free markets and capitalism as opposed to a government directed economy is not equal to anti-science and anti-technology.
Being for individualism as opposed to SJW group-identity politics is not equal to anti-science and anti-technology.
I love your answer but disagree with a small part of it. Passwords need not be 100% random to be effective.
Let's say you made a variation on a passphrase.( I am super secret + site) so Iamsupersecretsd (for slashdot)
Let's say the attacker (in one of his many iterations) has a brute force for limiting letters to the 18 most commonly used [1]
the above password would have an entropy of 20^20 which is approximately 1x10^26
A brute force attack of a billion / second = 8.6x10^13 / day = 1x10^12 days
I think we're confident that the above human generated password defeats any brute force attack.
What about dictionary attacks?
There are 6000 words in a basic English dictionary. The above example are all in the basic dictionary. (Less if you exclude words with z,q,x,j,k,v)
6000^4 == 10^15
Which means that the above password would be cracked in about 11 days.
However ou can randomize your password to a point that it becomes useful and yet remain
Example use "z" for the spaces
izamzsuperzsecretzsd
You're now at 24 characters and it will combat the dictionary attack (to a minor extent)
replace some letters with a number. Let's be obvious and substitute all "e" with a 3.
after all we're all super cool script kiddies here.
mind you we just doubled the effort of the dictionary attack. Substitute e for 3 and that 6000 word dictionary became 12000.- it will now take 22 days.
A few more changes and your password will be secure for all but the NSA, FBI type folks.
Belgium has amazing beers. The Belgium Gueuze beers and Holy Ales are awesome.
But I love me that West Coast IPA; the USA has evened the gap as far as beer and coffee is concerned. Still behind as far as cheese is concerned but now in the same league with France and Italy.
Beer on parity with Belgium and Germany
Coffee very close to Italy
Cheese - same league as France and Italy but still behind
Bread - still in the minors but catching up fast (Double A and Triple A in some areas)
Cured meats - still Amateurs, not even A ball.
For those not familiar with Baseball there are the "Major Leagues" the top professional level. And their are lower levels going from A, to AA to AAA.
You do realize that Putin is not a Marxist or Communist.
You do realize that the USSR has been dead and buried for over 25 years,
For years US Conservatives were saying that they had no issue with the Russian people - they had a problem with a philosophy that negated individual rights and promoted group values instead.
1950s Republicans (and Democrats) would be appalled at the contempt that the progressive left has for individual liberty.
Russia is just another country acting in what they think is their best interest. No different than France, Argentina or China (yup China ain't Maoist any more).
I work with Order Management and Warehouse Management Systems.
The automation taking place is tremendous. The need for people is dropping fast. I would not be surprised to see a 90%+ drop in human labor. I'm aware of new warehouses opening with 60 people whereas the warehouses they replaced had 180 workers and handled half the inventory and half the volume.
Conversations I've had leave me thinking that in a few years, when the warehouse expands (to more than twice the current size) they will not need to add more workers.
In the immediate future (the 3-5 year range) we're seeing warehouses handling 4x the volume with 1/3 the human labor).
So the warehouses of yesteryear would have needed 180(4) = 720 workers now only need 60 people.
Slashdot Mirror
OK.
You're saying that in one case (the holocaust) that it is clear and irrefutable while in the other one it's a "current event" and there isn't any "clear and irrefutable" evidence. Good point.
The problem is in what is clear and irrefutable. I think the path to an Orwellian future is clear and direct with this thinking.
What defines hateful?
The holocaust example is clear and direct and straightforward but many others are not - and where does it end? Why not say that those who defame religious leaders are spreading hateful speech and ought to be punished. (Yeah, bring back blasphemy laws.) It prevents atheists from bringing up inconvenient arguments.
And, which facts are incontrovertible to all people at all times? Holocaust may be clear but most things are not. How about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for one? How about almost anything that people talk about. We shouldn't have to go to court (or fear the government) for saying what you want to say.
Define lies?
go back in time and see whistleblowers:
You: "Tuskegee Medical Facility is infecting black men with syphilis"
Govt: "Prove your point in court room."
You don't prove it therefore you lied and are punished. Hmmm. What a wonderful policy. (If you're a dictator or part of the powers that be.)
Yes. Political speech is legitimate even if wrong, vile, hateful and racist.
Again. Would you imprison NOI members (Farakan and others) for saying that white people were created by an evil scientist named yakub and are, by their very nature, degenerate and evil?
Would you arrest BLM members for their hateful speech against white people?
So what!?
So f**king what?
Who the hell cares? This is legitimate speech. It's disgusting, absolutely revolting to me that this is a law and that it's defended.
Would you arrest and convict women for saying that "all men are rapists?" Or that heterosexual sex (even consensual) is a form of male dominance?
All political speech, irrespective of truth or hurt feelings, is legitimate.
Should you go to jail for saying that the Koran / Bible is contradictory, irrational and foolish just because some may find the words to be The Truth and find your statements to be hurtful or "hateful"?
Anytime the law or force is used to prevent political speech is wrong.
As per your statements Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and others have been brought up on charges. All these laws are BS.
Does it make sense to you that you can be brought up on blasphemy charges?
Keep pretending mate. Keep pretending.
And that's what I disagree with.
Each of those statements are valid statements (as regards political speech).
Saying white people are created by an evil scientist named Yakub. Is valid political speech. (Are you going to criminalize the NOI - Nation of Islam)?
Saying Muslims / Jews / Whites / Blacks / Asians / whatever are evil and should leave is valid political speech and ought not be criminalized.
Vile, hateful, incorrect statements are valid political statements because the alternative tyranny and thought police are worse. Far worse. Add to the fact that statements will most probably be applied to political opponents as opposed to political friends just exacerbates the issue. Just look at US campuses. Riots when Milo shows up.
Free speech needs to be defended. If you don't defend speech you disagree with you are not a defender of free speech.
I respectfully disagree. Expressing yourself; expressing your beliefs should not be illegal in free society.
...
What your proposing would only lead to tyranny. Whistleblowers, skeptics of all sorts would be criminalized.
Imagine bringing up objections to Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. What sort of proof would you need to bring forward?
How about Rachel Maddow and Trump returns. Should she be sued?
No. There ought not be a limit on freedom of thought, freedom of speech.
Are the positions of your adversaries wrong? Argue against the wrongfully stated position. Take it on in full daylight.
As a side note right now there are people who say there are different facts for different races and genders. How would you deal with those arguments? You needn't have to.
Everything you say should be legal.
Now, if you falsely, and knowingly create a panic (crying fire in a crowded theater) then being prosecuted for directly ensuing panic *may* make sense. But what do you do to people who
1. say that the economy is in bad condition.
2. declare that the existing president is not being helpful.
3. when a new president is elected (and before he comes to office) declare the economy is making a comeback and call it the "new_president recovery"
Should those obvious falsehood be a prosecutable offense?
Signals of the Clinton Recovery - Rebound Is Seen, but a Slow One
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11...
In 1945 Germany wasn't a free country. They were a defeated country occupied by 4 foreign forces (US, USSR, England, France).
But this is 2017. Germany, supposedly, is a free country standing on it's own. If it is a free country then these laws should not exist; and most importantly they ought not be defended.
On what grounds is Trump stupid?
I was a NeverTrump. I didn't support him because I disagreed with many of his positions and his public demeanor.
But I don't see the man as stupid. You probably think that Ben Carson is stupid because you disagree with him.
And, if you don't consider him to be stupid, what would you say to the people that do. Whatever you may think of Carson's political and philosophical positions a Director of Surgery at John Hopkins is not stupid.
Disgusting. Just f**king disgusting.
Free speech comes before anything else.
What? Are you in favor of blasphemy laws?
Can't defame the government?
Are you f**ked up stupid? There should be no laws against political speech; no laws regarding expressing your thoughts (even if they are vile).
Why? Because who decides what is, and what is not vile? We certainly can't use a majority vote for this? Who then? Which f**king gov't officials would you give that power to?
Laws against advocating violence against a particular person or organization or property is the only thing that *maybe* acceptable.
I hate Obama / Trump. Is OK.
Obama / Trump should be killed. Is morally horrible but should not be illegal.
Kill Obama / Trump now. Is morally horrible and I can compromise on making that statement illegal.
But political statements should always be illegal. Government tyranny and oppression is far worse than the vile statements.
Actually I do look at economic statistics. US Corporations are not repatriating their money,
Foreign companies and individuals come here because it's safer than leaving their money at home. The two are not mutually exclusive.
No. He didn't blow his money. He had to pay taxes on fights when he was in the military. He then fought something like 14 times and could never pay back the tax bill because he was taxed at 91%.
It wasn't that he spent the money. It's that he never received HIS money in the first place.
You miss the point about coal. It's not coal per se. It's about blue collar jobs. It's about the contempt that city folk have for country folk; that all they need is to be retrained; that if they, too, become hipster sophisticates then all would be good.
This foolishness opposing the pipelines is a clear example of this bs.
I guess you forgot about all the loop holes. And forgot the difference between earned income and investment income. And forgot about stories like Joe Louis who was taxed at 91% on earnings for his fights and thus could never get out of debt.
Yeah.
It is well known that the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate among the 35 industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[1] However, it is less well known how the United States stacks up against countries throughout the entire world. Expanding the sample of countries and tax jurisdictions to 188, the U.S.’s corporate tax rate of almost 39 percent is the third highest in the world, lower only than the United Arab Emirates’ rate of 55 percent and Puerto Rico’s rate of 39 percent. The U.S. tax rate is 16.4 percentage points higher than the worldwide average of 22.5 percent and a little more than 9 percentage points higher than the worldwide GDP-weighted average of 29.5 percent. Over the past ten years, the average worldwide tax rate has been declining, pushing the United States farther from the norm. https://taxfoundation.org/corp...
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
To his credit he's been talking about reducing some of the ridiculous tax laws that makes it extremely foolish to repatriate monies back to the US. Remove these regulations and companies will stop sitting on cash and invest. Don't blame this specifically on Obama but the entire Democratic Party's approach to business. US corporate tax rates are extremely uncompetitive.
Take a look at the primaries and you'll see that wasn't so. They voted for him over Hillary but not over other Republicans. And the religious right is less than 20% of the Republican Party. It doesn't represent the party as a whole.
Global warming. I mean Climate Change isn't the only topic that relates to science. I, for one, am far more concerned with dioxins and other pollutants than I am about released CO2. Especially since carbon as an energy source is going to be greatly reduced over the next 20-40 years.
Aren't you the pedantic one.
MAGA hat != anti-science.
Time to start thinking for yourself.
You do realize that the religious right (social conservatives) were not supportive of Trump. Trump was losing Utah up until the last 2 wks (not to Hillary but to Evan McMullin).
Wanting legal (as opposed to anything-goes) immigration is not equal to anti-science and anti-technology.
Being for free markets and capitalism as opposed to a government directed economy is not equal to anti-science and anti-technology.
Being for individualism as opposed to SJW group-identity politics is not equal to anti-science and anti-technology.
I love your answer but disagree with a small part of it. Passwords need not be 100% random to be effective.
Let's say you made a variation on a passphrase.( I am super secret + site) so Iamsupersecretsd (for slashdot)
Let's say the attacker (in one of his many iterations) has a brute force for limiting letters to the 18 most commonly used [1]
the above password would have an entropy of 20^20 which is approximately 1x10^26
A brute force attack of a billion / second = 8.6x10^13 / day = 1x10^12 days
I think we're confident that the above human generated password defeats any brute force attack.
What about dictionary attacks?
There are 6000 words in a basic English dictionary. The above example are all in the basic dictionary. (Less if you exclude words with z,q,x,j,k,v)
6000^4 == 10^15
Which means that the above password would be cracked in about 11 days.
However ou can randomize your password to a point that it becomes useful and yet remain
Example use "z" for the spaces
izamzsuperzsecretzsd
You're now at 24 characters and it will combat the dictionary attack (to a minor extent)
replace some letters with a number. Let's be obvious and substitute all "e" with a 3.
after all we're all super cool script kiddies here.
mind you we just doubled the effort of the dictionary attack. Substitute e for 3 and that 6000 word dictionary became 12000.- it will now take 22 days.
A few more changes and your password will be secure for all but the NSA, FBI type folks.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
[2] https://lotsofwords.com/-z-q-j...
Belgium has amazing beers. The Belgium Gueuze beers and Holy Ales are awesome.
But I love me that West Coast IPA; the USA has evened the gap as far as beer and coffee is concerned. Still behind as far as cheese is concerned but now in the same league with France and Italy.
Beer on parity with Belgium and Germany
Coffee very close to Italy
Cheese - same league as France and Italy but still behind
Bread - still in the minors but catching up fast (Double A and Triple A in some areas)
Cured meats - still Amateurs, not even A ball.
For those not familiar with Baseball there are the "Major Leagues" the top professional level. And their are lower levels going from A, to AA to AAA.
You do realize that Putin is not a Marxist or Communist.
You do realize that the USSR has been dead and buried for over 25 years,
For years US Conservatives were saying that they had no issue with the Russian people - they had a problem with a philosophy that negated individual rights and promoted group values instead.
1950s Republicans (and Democrats) would be appalled at the contempt that the progressive left has for individual liberty.
Russia is just another country acting in what they think is their best interest. No different than France, Argentina or China (yup China ain't Maoist any more).
Do all you cowardly f**ks who modded me "troll" understand the difference between disagreeing with someone - and shutting them down?
Pathetic.
I work with Order Management and Warehouse Management Systems.
The automation taking place is tremendous. The need for people is dropping fast. I would not be surprised to see a 90%+ drop in human labor. I'm aware of new warehouses opening with 60 people whereas the warehouses they replaced had 180 workers and handled half the inventory and half the volume.
Conversations I've had leave me thinking that in a few years, when the warehouse expands (to more than twice the current size) they will not need to add more workers.
In the immediate future (the 3-5 year range) we're seeing warehouses handling 4x the volume with 1/3 the human labor).
So the warehouses of yesteryear would have needed 180(4) = 720 workers now only need 60 people.