I bet a human has even better accuracy at forecasting this. I don't think anyone needs an assistance from a computer to tell them what they are already seeing.
That's why they should do away with laws against libel, slander, death threats, harassment,
Yes, they should.
copyright infringement, trade secrets
Free speech is not an unalienable right. By signing an NDA, or accepting the licensing terms of a copyrighted material, you accept those limits on your speech..
false advertising
Now this is a hard one, I admit, but I still think it would be possible to rewrite false advertising laws to be compatible with free speech. Instead of blacklisting false advertisers, authorities could allow advertisements found to be honest to display a 'badge' or logo on them, something like "certified honest advertisement".
The problem is, convicting executives of service providers (mind you, they didn't sue the company) can make these kind of services disappear, thus preventing everyone from using them, and that would have a massive effect on free speech.
People define free speech differently, depending on their cultural and geopolitical background, and sometimes their agenda.
I would rather say that people redefine free speech differently so they don't have to face the fact that there isn't unlimited free speech in almost anywhere. Yes, it could be much worse, I agree with that, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. True, it varies between cultures and places, and Europe has a tradition of limiting free speech in certain occasions, which is one of the things I don't like in my home continent.
A video of an autistic kid being bullied, uploaded to Google Video by one of the offenders to further humiliate the kid, has nothing to do with free speech.
When you decide what is free speech based on content, it is not free speech anymore. I know how bad it is, I knew a kid in a similar situation, but I think in these cases the crime is not making a video but beating up the kid in the first place. In fact, the bullies can easily be dealt with now that they have been dumb enough to publish evidence against themselves. Getting rid of video sharing sites will not stop bullying, we are just putting our heads in the sand.
Even if you assign little value to human life, mosquitoes prey on any mammal. So on one hand, the frog and fish populations decrease, but on the other lots of mammals don't die because of malaria. I would say that the balance is definitely positive.
This thing will reduce their fertility, but won't kill them off unless deployed in mass. But yeah, we should take a gradual approach, like killing off half, observing the results, and if nothing bad happens then repeat.
I am always amused when Americans claim that filming policemen without their consent then putting it on the Internet for the whole world to see till the end of time is a civil right, but when a camera takes a picture of you that is viewed by at most one policeman (unless there is a warrant), and gets deleted after a few months it's 1984.
If things continue along this trend, one could expect a really bleak future for the Internet where major world governments and other well-financed organizations have virtually unlimited power to do what they like with any unsecured computerized system,
FTFY Also, I don't want to frighten you, but with an unsecured system it's not just incredibly powerful governments, but every 16 year old scriptkiddie can do what they like.
Threats only work if you have something to back it up with. After a while, you will encounter someone (for example a crazy dictator) who will call your bluff. Also, if physical retaliation is an option, some countries might start to fake attacks originating from other countries just to worsen relations with the US.
That said, I don't want the warmonger types making the calls on this, as I don't expect we could reasonably move beyond just threatening physical retaliation given the uncertainties involved.
So who do you want to decide? Would you trust your President, or your congress not to go beyond threats?
But as he still has +5, the reader won't even notice the difference. You have just proved that the moderation system can withstand 20% of rogue moderators.
Also, you definitely can get downmodded for a respectful and informative response, it's happened to me fairly often over time.
Could you provide some examples? My experience is quite the opposite, most moderators never mod down so you have to do some serious trolling to achieve that.
Yeah, sadly no moderation system can cure your stupidity. Seriously, what's the point of karma whoring, you can't get better than excellent. Also, you don't need to "get credit" for a post, having even one person to reply you and engaging in an intelligent debate is far more satisfying than simply getting modded up.
It sounds to me that you are just being a crybaby because someone has modded you down. If you think that karma-whoring is embarrasingly easy, than surely you can take the karma hit and then just whore back when you drop below excellent.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be a anarchist. You should accept that there are people who think otherwise.
I bet a human has even better accuracy at forecasting this. I don't think anyone needs an assistance from a computer to tell them what they are already seeing.
That's why they should do away with laws against libel, slander, death threats, harassment,
Yes, they should.
copyright infringement, trade secrets
Free speech is not an unalienable right. By signing an NDA, or accepting the licensing terms of a copyrighted material, you accept those limits on your speech..
false advertising
Now this is a hard one, I admit, but I still think it would be possible to rewrite false advertising laws to be compatible with free speech. Instead of blacklisting false advertisers, authorities could allow advertisements found to be honest to display a 'badge' or logo on them, something like "certified honest advertisement".
The problem is, convicting executives of service providers (mind you, they didn't sue the company) can make these kind of services disappear, thus preventing everyone from using them, and that would have a massive effect on free speech.
People define free speech differently, depending on their cultural and geopolitical background, and sometimes their agenda.
I would rather say that people redefine free speech differently so they don't have to face the fact that there isn't unlimited free speech in almost anywhere. Yes, it could be much worse, I agree with that, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. True, it varies between cultures and places, and Europe has a tradition of limiting free speech in certain occasions, which is one of the things I don't like in my home continent.
A video of an autistic kid being bullied, uploaded to Google Video by one of the offenders to further humiliate the kid, has nothing to do with free speech.
When you decide what is free speech based on content, it is not free speech anymore. I know how bad it is, I knew a kid in a similar situation, but I think in these cases the crime is not making a video but beating up the kid in the first place. In fact, the bullies can easily be dealt with now that they have been dumb enough to publish evidence against themselves. Getting rid of video sharing sites will not stop bullying, we are just putting our heads in the sand.
Here is a nice example.
Italy still has strict limitations on free speech, this victory is but a drop in the ocean.
They don't need to hack a bank to get the rquired information. Visa can be perfectly secure, if its customers are not.
There is no non-existent cash, and there is no free money, either.
Of course not, the bank's profit comes from weakening the currency they use.
If they are are true gamers their rigs will provide enough venting.
such as the Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo
He isn't a Nobel Prize winner, but a Nobel Peace Prize winner, which is a meaningless title.
Even if you assign little value to human life, mosquitoes prey on any mammal. So on one hand, the frog and fish populations decrease, but on the other lots of mammals don't die because of malaria. I would say that the balance is definitely positive.
Cows would also starve to death without humans.
This thing will reduce their fertility, but won't kill them off unless deployed in mass. But yeah, we should take a gradual approach, like killing off half, observing the results, and if nothing bad happens then repeat.
With killing mosquitoes? Nothing!
My friends know my phone number, twitter account and other contact information. They don't send me emails.
Quick, someone log in with all of them, and announce World Peace!
I am always amused when Americans claim that filming policemen without their consent then putting it on the Internet for the whole world to see till the end of time is a civil right, but when a camera takes a picture of you that is viewed by at most one policeman (unless there is a warrant), and gets deleted after a few months it's 1984.
It's a military attack xor a cyberattack. There is no such thing as "military cyberattack".
If things continue along this trend, one could expect a really bleak future for the Internet where major world governments and other well-financed organizations have virtually unlimited power to do what they like with any unsecured computerized system,
FTFY
Also, I don't want to frighten you, but with an unsecured system it's not just incredibly powerful governments, but every 16 year old scriptkiddie can do what they like.
Threats only work if you have something to back it up with. After a while, you will encounter someone (for example a crazy dictator) who will call your bluff. Also, if physical retaliation is an option, some countries might start to fake attacks originating from other countries just to worsen relations with the US.
That said, I don't want the warmonger types making the calls on this, as I don't expect we could reasonably move beyond just threatening physical retaliation given the uncertainties involved.
So who do you want to decide? Would you trust your President, or your congress not to go beyond threats?
But as he still has +5, the reader won't even notice the difference. You have just proved that the moderation system can withstand 20% of rogue moderators.
If a post's intent is unclear, then it deserves to be modded down.
Also, you definitely can get downmodded for a respectful and informative response, it's happened to me fairly often over time.
Could you provide some examples? My experience is quite the opposite, most moderators never mod down so you have to do some serious trolling to achieve that.
Yeah, sadly no moderation system can cure your stupidity. Seriously, what's the point of karma whoring, you can't get better than excellent. Also, you don't need to "get credit" for a post, having even one person to reply you and engaging in an intelligent debate is far more satisfying than simply getting modded up.
It sounds to me that you are just being a crybaby because someone has modded you down. If you think that karma-whoring is embarrasingly easy, than surely you can take the karma hit and then just whore back when you drop below excellent.