I don't think this would be the case. If smart children are rewarded, it will make them cool. Intelligence doesn't get respected by kids mostly because they don't see the point, the benefits of it. If the smart kid gets to cut the line in front of the others at lunch, it shows the others that he actually achieved something. I was lucky that in my second school intelligence was valued by the kids as well. It's not impossible.
In my country kids get measured in first or second grade and then the school gets payed based on the improvement from that. Still imperfect, but I think it's better then leaving the schools without any objective measurement of performance.
Managing that much people is risky, expensive and difficult. I wonder what's the advantage of this method instead of collecting credit card numbers online.
In most email clients you can redirect emails from certain addresses to a folder. And it's quicker to just click on that folder instead of having to type in the address in the search bar.
I'm not sure a school can legally take a fingerprint from a kid even the police can only do so if the person in question has committed a crime. Also, what about the kids who don't use the schoolbus?
In most developed countries the internet is very important to a person's daily life. People need it for work, they use it for shopping, for relaxation, for socialising or to order food. Disconnecting someone from the net for violations that should be settled with a minor fine is very disproportionate. Even if we accept the flawed shoplifting analogy, that would be like banning someone from all shops.
If you convert light to electricity that means it won't pass through the window, thus destroying it's original function. You will end up using the generated electricity to power the lightbulbs.
That excludes large categories of speech that even the Supreme Court recognizes are protected. It has been found that outlawing all unsolicited email is unconstitutional because legitimate political or religious messages would be made illegal.
Spam with good intentions is still spam in my opinion.
What if I create a page that automatically redirects you to the offending page?
First you could achieve the same effect by copying the contents of the other page, so redirection plays no role here. Of course, you won't be able to tell what a site contains before viewing it at least once, but this is the same for newspapers and TV channels. It's impossible to avoid viewing stuff you don't like at least once, but I don't see it as a big problem. It's not like information can harm you.
The problem is that free speech is not defined clearly anywhere and so it's easy for some to come up with a definition that would allow harm thus indirectly proving that free speech is bad.
My definition of free speech might not match most of the currewnt legal implemenations but i think the intuitive way would be this:
When two parties, each willingly, exchange information than that exchange is protected by free speech.
Wich means that the only basis that can make communication illegal is the lack of consent from a party, not the content of communication. So stalking and spamming is illegal, but simply writing bad things about someone is not, for by visiting the page with said comment the other party implied consent. They were in no way forced to view it.
And yes, I do think that libel and similar laws are stupid. And as a big supporter of free speech, I despise anyone attacking it. It's sad that Anonymous reverted back to trolling, they could be useful now.
Now even from the point of a car driver, the optimal number is not zero. If everyone used a car you couldn't move from the traffic jams. But if everyone used a bike you would have to drive 1m to the left then you would normally do . I think there exists a balance wich is the best, like Amsterdam.
I believe you misunderstood me. I was saying that there is no proof about AFACT forging evidence other than the word of an employee, who, at least as he claims, participated in all of these shady businesses before being fired. Not the most trustworthy source.
Slashdot Mirror
And did your school do anything to reward those who were doing good?
I don't think this would be the case. If smart children are rewarded, it will make them cool. Intelligence doesn't get respected by kids mostly because they don't see the point, the benefits of it. If the smart kid gets to cut the line in front of the others at lunch, it shows the others that he actually achieved something. I was lucky that in my second school intelligence was valued by the kids as well. It's not impossible.
In my country kids get measured in first or second grade and then the school gets payed based on the improvement from that. Still imperfect, but I think it's better then leaving the schools without any objective measurement of performance.
Managing that much people is risky, expensive and difficult. I wonder what's the advantage of this method instead of collecting credit card numbers online.
In most email clients you can redirect emails from certain addresses to a folder. And it's quicker to just click on that folder instead of having to type in the address in the search bar.
This story was already posted and it wasn't random even then.
This complete denial of reality and disregarding of facts clearly shows the incompetence of WIPO.
In fact, if you buy something from an online store you are probably using a third party browser.
for net neutrality!
I'm not sure a school can legally take a fingerprint from a kid even the police can only do so if the person in question has committed a crime. Also, what about the kids who don't use the schoolbus?
Even the autonomous ones require human confirmation.
Indeed. Magnets don't work that way. The claim is bullshit.
In most developed countries the internet is very important to a person's daily life. People need it for work, they use it for shopping, for relaxation, for socialising or to order food. Disconnecting someone from the net for violations that should be settled with a minor fine is very disproportionate. Even if we accept the flawed shoplifting analogy, that would be like banning someone from all shops.
Why waste a fortune on measuring internet speed by HARDWARE (seriously, what's the point of that?) instead of using something like these numbers ?
They will just put the memory card in a reader.
Those bulbs need 18W each, this panel generates max 7W/m^2 so maybe in a glass office building in summer it could work.
If you convert light to electricity that means it won't pass through the window, thus destroying it's original function. You will end up using the generated electricity to power the lightbulbs.
This video demonstrates why people use remotes instead of voice control. Might be useful for disabled people though.
That excludes large categories of speech that even the Supreme Court recognizes are protected. It has been found that outlawing all unsolicited email is unconstitutional because legitimate political or religious messages would be made illegal.
Spam with good intentions is still spam in my opinion.
What if I create a page that automatically redirects you to the offending page?
First you could achieve the same effect by copying the contents of the other page, so redirection plays no role here. Of course, you won't be able to tell what a site contains before viewing it at least once, but this is the same for newspapers and TV channels. It's impossible to avoid viewing stuff you don't like at least once, but I don't see it as a big problem. It's not like information can harm you.
Now that global warming is causing world peace, how will they know what to think?
The problem is that free speech is not defined clearly anywhere and so it's easy for some to come up with a definition that would allow harm thus indirectly proving that free speech is bad.
My definition of free speech might not match most of the currewnt legal implemenations but i think the intuitive way would be this:
When two parties, each willingly, exchange information than that exchange is protected by free speech.
Wich means that the only basis that can make communication illegal is the lack of consent from a party, not the content of communication. So stalking and spamming is illegal, but simply writing bad things about someone is not, for by visiting the page with said comment the other party implied consent. They were in no way forced to view it.
And yes, I do think that libel and similar laws are stupid. And as a big supporter of free speech, I despise anyone attacking it. It's sad that Anonymous reverted back to trolling, they could be useful now.
It's easy, just learn these steps and you are safe!
Now even from the point of a car driver, the optimal number is not zero. If everyone used a car you couldn't move from the traffic jams. But if everyone used a bike you would have to drive 1m to the left then you would normally do . I think there exists a balance wich is the best, like Amsterdam.
I believe you misunderstood me. I was saying that there is no proof about AFACT forging evidence other than the word of an employee, who, at least as he claims, participated in all of these shady businesses before being fired. Not the most trustworthy source.
One member blocking Internet traffic from another kinda goes against the spirit of a single market.