Just because you *think* your rules are arbitrary doesn't mean they *are* arbitrary. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand that.
Main Entry: arbitrary Pronunciation: 'är-b&-"trer-E Function: adjective Date: 15th century 1... 2... 3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
If you think the MPAA ratings are based on necessity or that it is the "intrinsic nature" of humanity that before midnight on one's seventeenth birthday watching a movie "intended" for adults will corrupt one, but after midnight that same day it is fine, you are wrong. The MPAA ratings are by definition arbitrary. It is my experience that arbitrary standards are generally bad standards.
Why shouldn't they be able to see restricted movies in a theatre? Because the movies that are restricted are intended for adults, and have adult themes.
This is all well and good in Theory, but, then again, EVERYTHING works in Theory. The problem is, who gets to decide what adult themes are, which movies have them, and who can and can't see them? The MPAA? Well, what if a parent disagrees with the MPAA's arbitrary ruling and thinks a particular movie would be fine for their child to see? That's fine, their child can see it, so long as the parent doesn't mind slapping down an ADDITIONAL $7 ticket fee AND devoting two hours to watch a movie that they may not want to see. Who gets screwed when the parent isn't willing to do that? The kid.
That's why kids are constantly trying to rebel, because they're constantly getting screwed by these arbitrary regulations.
Why should parents be required to stay with their children in an adult movie? Because if a parent intends to allow their child to be exposed to such material, he/she should be there to see exactly what the child is seeing, either to provide guidence after the film, or to remove the child from the film if the parent judges the experience too intense (Emphasis Added).
Excuse me, but when did it cease to be the parents responsibility to choose how he parents his child, and become the MPAA's responsibility. If a parent thinks his child should be able to watch a movie, that parent shouldn't be required to do anything. That ludicrous restriction is one of the main reasons why the whole system is a farse.
And this whole notion of "parental guidence" with regards to film watching is laughable. It may be a good thing for children, but teenagers can tell the difference between fiction and reality.
My only question to you after reading your post is can you tell the difference?
The problem I have in this arguement is pinning it down to specific individuals.
Granted: no one can do anything significant enough to influence the course of history by themselves, but it the one person that provides the impetus for revolution, the one individual that shapes and defines the way in which that revolution is to be carried out that has changed the world.
Sure, Hitler wouldn't have been able to initiate World War II without Billy Bob the Nazi or Fred or Ed, but take away Billy Bob, Fred, and Ed and you've got Han, Jack, and Joe that take their place. Take away Adolf and his demands for revenge against the Jews and you've got no war, no change.
Yes, Ford couldn't have done it without his fellow engineers designing the machinery that would carry out his vision. But that's the whole point: it was his vision.
No, Kennedy wasn't responsible for getting us to the moon. But it was his vision and his pledge that motivated hundreds of men and women to get the job done.
The point is this: Anyone can carry out a vision, it's comming up with it in the first place that's the hard part.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, and your argument for Ford is very good; I may have to go back and vote again. I also agree that Linus being in the ranking is ridiculous, he has done nothing to influence the course of history over the past 100 years, or the past 2 years for that matter.
However, I disagree with you on the point that Bill Gates has not done "squat" for influencing the course of history. Certainly he hasn't had an influence for as long a time as Ford or Hitler, but our culture is in the middle of a revolution and Gates is leading the way. Bill Gates didn't initiate the revolution, unlike Ford and Hitler, which is why I don't think he should win, but he has had a significant impact over the past decade. That is why I feel he should be much higher than 17th on the list.
In the area we're discussing, there is one huge big ZERO of cultural heritage to draw upon as a basis for value judgements that have any applicability.
I want to make sure I understand your argument: you have a problem with saying that human intercourse with a robot is perverted because we have no experience to use to make this judgement. The problem with this argument is that, although we have never had robots capable of sexually stimulating humans, we have plenty of experience with sexual acts other than human+human. Any of these acts could be called perverted, but the word "perverted" is a very subjective term.
We have invented an endless list of mechanical devices, the sole purpose of which is sexual stimulation. Porn shops litter the highway selling these devices as well as video tapes of sexual acts. We have an online army of porn peddlers that, combined, probably out gross many countries. You can even buy a life sized doll made out of silicon that has an artificial internal skeleton (Check it out). We have personally witnessed the way in which technology has evolved sexuality and now you say that we can not use that experience to judge what seems like the next step in its evolution, particulartly one that seems eminent?
As a species we do this all the time: use past experience to predict and judge the future. We are doing it right now in relation to the cloning debate. If we can not use history as a guide for the future, then we are lost. Note that I said use history as a guide. No one is saying sex with robots is perverted because sex with animals is perverted. We are using reason, logic, history, and personal experience to make a judgement on a scenario. The fact that we have never actually been in that scenario does not make the judgement wrong, it simply means we have to be more careful in making it.
With all of the hoopla that has been going on lately about MP3s, it seems like everyone wants to throw those "obsolete" cds out the window and download more MP3s.
I'm just as guilty about downloading tons of MP3s as the next guy, but let us not forget that the sound quality of an MP3 is nowhere near as good as a cd. Yes MP3s are easy and convenient and I love them, too. But they are not as good.
Sorry, that's not the kind of behavior I expect in a leader. Abusing my tax money to further an extremist moral crusade is just plain out of the question. It's utterly inappropriate.
It's going on as we speak to keep the drinking age at 21 and the DUI level at 0.08. Probably a host of other things, too, that I'm not even aware of.
First of all, the argument has nothing to do with porn. The argument is simply about Federal vs. Local control. Libraries should be able to control their own content, not have beaurocrats a thousand miles away threatening to revoke their funding if they don't comply. It's because of this same kind of crap that the drinking age is 21.
Secondly, why is everyone so afraid of children looking at porn? Are we as a people so afraid of the naked body that we have to pretend like it doesn't exist? Or are we afraid that if a child sees a naked woman it will turn him into a drug crazed rapist? I think everyone needs to relax. I love the scene in The People vs. Larry Flynt where Flynt asks which is obsene, a woman's body or a dead corpse (which nobody is too concerned about a child seeing).
Its one thing to keep people from seeing what they want, but if this happens to a child, then what?
Precisely. Then what? Does the kid go off and rape somebody? No. He masterbates to it in the privacy of his own home and nobody gets hurt.
Contrary to popular opinion, cloning isn't as simple as walking into a pod, some flashing lights, and wallah! a perfect copy of you in every way. A clone has to be born and grow up. They aren't conjured up magically as an adult. My point is that you can't just walk into a Clones 'R' Us and order a dozen coal miners, unless you're willing to wait about 18 years.
Also, according to a report I heard, clones aren't as good as regular people. Supposedly, there is something in DNA that gets shorter as you get older, and if you clone yourself, you create a baby that has 'old' DNA. They said "Dolly" was experiencing this problem. I'm not exactly sure what impact this has, but it's interresting.
Linux? Hell, I'd rather use anything than something produced by AOL. Are you sick and tired of hearing "You've got mail" in every movie you go see? Imagine hearing it every time you boot up your computer!!
I know this is just Microsoft's spin, but if it has any basis in truth whatsoever, I'm a little worried. I'd definitely rather have Microsoft take over the world than AOL.
I thought the movie was good, but there were problems. I loved a lot of the original jokes, but the COMMERCIALS gave away too many of them. Most of what the commercials didn't give away was stuff from the first movie.
I thought a lot of the "dated" jokes were funny, but they might hurt the movie's rewatchability in the long run. The movie was definitely entertaining and worth the money to go see if you enjoyed the first one. I just wish the commercials hadn't given so much away. I plan on seeing it again.
Do you happen to know why the courts ruled as they did? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Who sued? The cable companies or the local networks that were getting screwed by the dish owners.
I guess I can't speak for everyone else in this debate, but as far as I'm concerned the commotion isn't about the fact that the WB did anything *wrong* necessarily, but that we're all tired of this notion that the games we play, the movies we see, and the shows we watch make us killers.
I'm pissed because I can't watch Buffy just because it *might* offend twenty people in another state that don't even have to watch it.
I'm pissed because I can't eat delicious and fattening popcorn in movie theaters anymore because a bunch of health freaks bitched.
I'm also pissed because I can't get fried apple pies at McDonald's because of those same health freaks. WHY ARE YOU GOING TO MCDONALD'S IF YOU DON'T WANT TO EAT FAT?????
-
Re:Re:What do you think Littleton WAS?
on
Bootlegging Buffy
·
· Score: 1
It seems to me that religion has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion at all. We live in a secular society made up of spiritual (and non-spiritual) individuals. Public policy and political debate are driven by anything but religion. Religion may have an effect on why an individual feels the way he does, but one can not use religion to directly change public policy.
Case-in-point: "Pro-lifers" always try to use religion to argue that abortion is wrong, but public policy changes not.
Other examples: Sex before marriage (although I have yet to see someone show me where in the bible it says this is wrong), Adultery.
Counter Example: Sodomy.
But that's just public policy (which is what this discussion is about). I don't think this discussion is about morality any more than it is about religion, but morality has a place in this discussion, unlike religion (which can easily be seperated from morality). Religion teaches morality through stories, it does not say what morality is. If you notice, most of the themes you find in different religions are very similar. People's religions have affect their perspectives, but Morality is completely independent of religion. Murder is wrong no matter what you believe in.
No intelligent person here is going to deny that WB had every right to do what they did. Was it censorship? No. Was it justified? Perhaps. Should it have been done? Most definitely NOT.
I don't care what anyone says, the notion that what the WB did was done out of "good taste" is ludicrous. I don't know how many consecutive days of around the clock coverage of the Columbine HS incident we were subjected to by MSNBC, CNBC, FOX NEWS, and CNN, interrupted only by reports on the Kosovo bombings. Where were the crys for decency in the name of good taste then? In addition to reports on the weapons and strategy used in the shootings and talk of unknown accomplices, we heard detailed descriptions of the grusome deaths of many of the students and the teacher that died, yet I heard no pleas for compassion then. I don't give a flip about the show Buffy, but if this had happened to a show I did like, I'd be damned if I'm going to change my life because of two psycho Nazi f*cks.
Likewise, anyone who says that TV stations should excersize "good taste" more often is equally insane. Insane, not because all of this talk about "good taste" seems like a slippery slope to censorship, but because I'll decide for myself what I think is in good taste and watch it. No Suit is going to tell me what will emotionally disturb me; if something grosses me out or hits too close to home, guess what I do...I change the channel, just like all of the other big boys and girls out there. If you don't like something, don't watch it. The shows that people watch stay on the air, the shows that people don't watch get cancelled. This is capitalism; this is the way it should be.
If WB doesn't want to air an episode, fine. If they think they risk more by showing an episode than not showing it, fine-it's their right. I just think people need to grow up and take a little responsibility for themselves rather than crying any time something happens that they don't like.
Perhaps you know of a way to transmit data faster than the speed of light.:)
This is what confuses me about this theory:
1) Obviously they wouldn't do this to their own star, it would be too risky. They'd have to go to another solar system to do this.
2) They couldn't do it to a star that was too close for the same reason. They'd have to go a good distance, just in case they completely screwed up and caused a hypernova. They don't want to wipe out their civilization.
3) Why would they travel the many many light years it would take just to send a message no one is going to receive for centuries and probably won't understand, anyway, when they get it?
I suppose that if they have the capability of manipulating a star, they could conceivably have faster than light travel IF faster than light travel is possible, which wouldn't make the trip so bad.
Of course I'm also assuming that they can't manipulate the star from a great distance also, which isn't neccessarily so.
The question is not "Should a company be able to restrict the freedom of its customers?" because that is not the issue.
The issue is "Is it right for the government to hold an ISP accountable for the opinions of its customers?" and the answer is no if the government wants its people to be free.
When I read the link that Demon provides to the discussion of the case, one thing I thought was ridiculous was they made it look like the entire internet was going to collapse because of this:
The ruling, if not reversed on appeal, will have a widespread impact on the whole Internet industry and its users in all areas including freedom of expression and electronic trading. Complainants may be able to force ISPs to police and censor any item of information on their servers. The way is opened for scurrilous and unsubstantiated claims that would undoubtedly curb the freedom of speech by Internet users.
It seems to me that only ISPs unlucky enough to be stuck in a country without the freedom of speech will be affected by this. If this decision isn't reversed, the UK is in serious trouble.
First of all, a law, by definition, can not be "illegal," as you suggest. If an Act of Congress is repugnant to the Constitution, it is unconstitutional, not illegal.
Second, I assume you are refering to the second Amendment with respect to our "Constitutionally guaranteed rights". Unfortunately (or Fortunately, depending on your perspective), the second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does not, contrary to your claim, say "...the right of the people to keep, bear, and conceal Arms, shall not be infringed."
These "honest and good" people can carry their weapons wherever they wish, so long as they don't take them somewhere weapons are prohibited; they just can't conceal them.
I'll bet when they started putting in metal detectors at airports, or, better yet, those things that look at what's in your bags, everyone said "Wait until they put those in everywhere else."
Well, guess what? You don't see x-ray machines everywhere else, do you? So, why would you expect these things to pop up everywhere? Especially given that they are expensive as hell and basically do the same thing that metal detectors do.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take a look at "USA Inc." The most capital in the world, great branding generally, and the 'stock' is doing well.
It seems as though USA is a lot like Microsoft, because as you said both are rich, both have great stock, and both are hated by everyone else.
-
This has never happened to me before... :)
-
I'm tired of all of the Y2k panic. I hope no local media gets wind of this or we'll never hear the end of it.
-
Microsoft vs. AOL? Is it possible for them BOTH to lose?
-
Just because you *think* your rules are arbitrary doesn't mean they *are* arbitrary. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand that.
... ...
Main Entry: arbitrary
Pronunciation: 'är-b&-"trer-E
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1
2
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
If you think the MPAA ratings are based on necessity or that it is the "intrinsic nature" of humanity that before midnight on one's seventeenth birthday watching a movie "intended" for adults will corrupt one, but after midnight that same day it is fine, you are wrong. The MPAA ratings are by definition arbitrary. It is my experience that arbitrary standards are generally bad standards.
Why shouldn't they be able to see restricted movies in a theatre? Because the movies that are restricted are intended for adults, and have adult themes.
This is all well and good in Theory, but, then again, EVERYTHING works in Theory. The problem is, who gets to decide what adult themes are, which movies have them, and who can and can't see them? The MPAA? Well, what if a parent disagrees with the MPAA's arbitrary ruling and thinks a particular movie would be fine for their child to see? That's fine, their child can see it, so long as the parent doesn't mind slapping down an ADDITIONAL $7 ticket fee AND devoting two hours to watch a movie that they may not want to see. Who gets screwed when the parent isn't willing to do that? The kid.
That's why kids are constantly trying to rebel, because they're constantly getting screwed by these arbitrary regulations.
Why should parents be required to stay with their children in an adult movie? Because if a parent intends to allow their child to be exposed to such material, he/she should be there to see exactly what the child is seeing, either to provide guidence after the film, or to remove the child from the film if the parent judges the experience too intense (Emphasis Added).
Excuse me, but when did it cease to be the parents responsibility to choose how he parents his child, and become the MPAA's responsibility. If a parent thinks his child should be able to watch a movie, that parent shouldn't be required to do anything. That ludicrous restriction is one of the main reasons why the whole system is a farse.
And this whole notion of "parental guidence" with regards to film watching is laughable. It may be a good thing for children, but teenagers can tell the difference between fiction and reality.
My only question to you after reading your post is can you tell the difference?
-
The problem I have in this arguement is pinning it down to specific individuals.
Granted: no one can do anything significant enough to influence the course of history by themselves, but it the one person that provides the impetus for revolution, the one individual that shapes and defines the way in which that revolution is to be carried out that has changed the world.
Sure, Hitler wouldn't have been able to initiate World War II without Billy Bob the Nazi or Fred or Ed, but take away Billy Bob, Fred, and Ed and you've got Han, Jack, and Joe that take their place. Take away Adolf and his demands for revenge against the Jews and you've got no war, no change.
Yes, Ford couldn't have done it without his fellow engineers designing the machinery that would carry out his vision. But that's the whole point: it was his vision.
No, Kennedy wasn't responsible for getting us to the moon. But it was his vision and his pledge that motivated hundreds of men and women to get the job done.
The point is this: Anyone can carry out a vision, it's comming up with it in the first place that's the hard part.
-
I agree with pretty much everything you said, and your argument for Ford is very good; I may have to go back and vote again. I also agree that Linus being in the ranking is ridiculous, he has done nothing to influence the course of history over the past 100 years, or the past 2 years for that matter.
However, I disagree with you on the point that Bill Gates has not done "squat" for influencing the course of history. Certainly he hasn't had an influence for as long a time as Ford or Hitler, but our culture is in the middle of a revolution and Gates is leading the way. Bill Gates didn't initiate the revolution, unlike Ford and Hitler, which is why I don't think he should win, but he has had a significant impact over the past decade. That is why I feel he should be much higher than 17th on the list.
-
In the area we're discussing, there is one huge big ZERO of cultural heritage to draw upon as a basis for value judgements that have any applicability.
I want to make sure I understand your argument: you have a problem with saying that human intercourse with a robot is perverted because we have no experience to use to make this judgement. The problem with this argument is that, although we have never had robots capable of sexually stimulating humans, we have plenty of experience with sexual acts other than human+human. Any of these acts could be called perverted, but the word "perverted" is a very subjective term.
We have invented an endless list of mechanical devices, the sole purpose of which is sexual stimulation. Porn shops litter the highway selling these devices as well as video tapes of sexual acts. We have an online army of porn peddlers that, combined, probably out gross many countries. You can even buy a life sized doll made out of silicon that has an artificial internal skeleton (Check it out). We have personally witnessed the way in which technology has evolved sexuality and now you say that we can not use that experience to judge what seems like the next step in its evolution, particulartly one that seems eminent?
As a species we do this all the time: use past experience to predict and judge the future. We are doing it right now in relation to the cloning debate. If we can not use history as a guide for the future, then we are lost. Note that I said use history as a guide. No one is saying sex with robots is perverted because sex with animals is perverted. We are using reason, logic, history, and personal experience to make a judgement on a scenario. The fact that we have never actually been in that scenario does not make the judgement wrong, it simply means we have to be more careful in making it.
-
With all of the hoopla that has been going on lately about MP3s, it seems like everyone wants to throw those "obsolete" cds out the window and download more MP3s.
I'm just as guilty about downloading tons of MP3s as the next guy, but let us not forget that the sound quality of an MP3 is nowhere near as good as a cd. Yes MP3s are easy and convenient and I love them, too. But they are not as good.
-
Personally, I'm an advocate of immorality.
-
Man, when I was younger, I would have loved to have had that info...damn.
-
Sorry, that's not the kind of behavior I expect in a leader. Abusing my tax money to further an extremist moral crusade is just plain out of the
question. It's utterly inappropriate.
It's going on as we speak to keep the drinking age at 21 and the DUI level at 0.08. Probably a host of other things, too, that I'm not even aware of.
-
First of all, the argument has nothing to do with porn. The argument is simply about Federal vs. Local control. Libraries should be able to control their own content, not have beaurocrats a thousand miles away threatening to revoke their funding if they don't comply. It's because of this same kind of crap that the drinking age is 21.
Secondly, why is everyone so afraid of children looking at porn? Are we as a people so afraid of the naked body that we have to pretend like it doesn't exist? Or are we afraid that if a child sees a naked woman it will turn him into a drug crazed rapist? I think everyone needs to relax. I love the scene in The People vs. Larry Flynt where Flynt asks which is obsene, a woman's body or a dead corpse (which nobody is too concerned about a child seeing).
Its one thing to keep people from seeing what they want, but if this happens to a child, then what?
Precisely. Then what? Does the kid go off and rape somebody? No. He masterbates to it in the privacy of his own home and nobody gets hurt.
-
Labor pool too small? Human workers on demand.
Contrary to popular opinion, cloning isn't as simple as walking into a pod, some flashing lights, and wallah! a perfect copy of you in every way. A clone has to be born and grow up. They aren't conjured up magically as an adult. My point is that you can't just walk into a Clones 'R' Us and order a dozen coal miners, unless you're willing to wait about 18 years.
Also, according to a report I heard, clones aren't as good as regular people. Supposedly, there is something in DNA that gets shorter as you get older, and if you clone yourself, you create a baby that has 'old' DNA. They said "Dolly" was experiencing this problem. I'm not exactly sure what impact this has, but it's interresting.
-
Linux? Hell, I'd rather use anything than something produced by AOL. Are you sick and tired of hearing "You've got mail" in every movie you go see? Imagine hearing it every time you boot up your computer!!
I know this is just Microsoft's spin, but if it has any basis in truth whatsoever, I'm a little worried. I'd definitely rather have Microsoft take over the world than AOL.
-
I thought the movie was good, but there were problems. I loved a lot of the original jokes, but the COMMERCIALS gave away too many of them. Most of what the commercials didn't give away was stuff from the first movie.
I thought a lot of the "dated" jokes were funny, but they might hurt the movie's rewatchability in the long run. The movie was definitely entertaining and worth the money to go see if you enjoyed the first one. I just wish the commercials hadn't given so much away. I plan on seeing it again.
-
Do you happen to know why the courts ruled as they did? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Who sued? The cable companies or the local networks that were getting screwed by the dish owners.
-
Yes, it is WB's right to not release the episode...
But it is anyone's right to break the law if he wants. If he doesn't get caught...too bad for the WB...
-
I guess I can't speak for everyone else in this debate, but as far as I'm concerned the commotion isn't about the fact that the WB did anything *wrong* necessarily, but that we're all tired of this notion that the games we play, the movies we see, and the shows we watch make us killers.
I'm pissed because I can't watch Buffy just because it *might* offend twenty people in another state that don't even have to watch it.
I'm pissed because I can't eat delicious and fattening popcorn in movie theaters anymore because a bunch of health freaks bitched.
I'm also pissed because I can't get fried apple pies at McDonald's because of those same health freaks. WHY ARE YOU GOING TO MCDONALD'S IF YOU DON'T WANT TO EAT FAT?????
-
It seems to me that religion has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion at all. We live in a secular society made up of spiritual (and non-spiritual) individuals. Public policy and political debate are driven by anything but religion. Religion may have an effect on why an individual feels the way he does, but one can not use religion to directly change public policy.
Case-in-point: "Pro-lifers" always try to use religion to argue that abortion is wrong, but public policy changes not.
Other examples: Sex before marriage (although I have yet to see someone show me where in the bible it says this is wrong), Adultery.
Counter Example: Sodomy.
But that's just public policy (which is what this discussion is about). I don't think this discussion is about morality any more than it is about religion, but morality has a place in this discussion, unlike religion (which can easily be seperated from morality). Religion teaches morality through stories, it does not say what morality is. If you notice, most of the themes you find in different religions are very similar. People's religions have affect their perspectives, but Morality is completely independent of religion. Murder is wrong no matter what you believe in.
-
No intelligent person here is going to deny that WB had every right to do what they did. Was it censorship? No. Was it justified? Perhaps. Should it have been done? Most definitely NOT.
I don't care what anyone says, the notion that what the WB did was done out of "good taste" is ludicrous. I don't know how many consecutive days of around the clock coverage of the Columbine HS incident we were subjected to by MSNBC, CNBC, FOX NEWS, and CNN, interrupted only by reports on the Kosovo bombings. Where were the crys for decency in the name of good taste then? In addition to reports on the weapons and strategy used in the shootings and talk of unknown accomplices, we heard detailed descriptions of the grusome deaths of many of the students and the teacher that died, yet I heard no pleas for compassion then. I don't give a flip about the show Buffy, but if this had happened to a show I did like, I'd be damned if I'm going to change my life because of two psycho Nazi f*cks.
Likewise, anyone who says that TV stations should excersize "good taste" more often is equally insane. Insane, not because all of this talk about "good taste" seems like a slippery slope to censorship, but because I'll decide for myself what I think is in good taste and watch it. No Suit is going to tell me what will emotionally disturb me; if something grosses me out or hits too close to home, guess what I do...I change the channel, just like all of the other big boys and girls out there. If you don't like something, don't watch it. The shows that people watch stay on the air, the shows that people don't watch get cancelled. This is capitalism; this is the way it should be.
If WB doesn't want to air an episode, fine. If they think they risk more by showing an episode than not showing it, fine-it's their right. I just think people need to grow up and take a little responsibility for themselves rather than crying any time something happens that they don't like.
But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
-
Perhaps you know of a way to transmit data faster than the speed of light. :)
This is what confuses me about this theory:
1) Obviously they wouldn't do this to their own star, it would be too risky. They'd have to go to another solar system to do this.
2) They couldn't do it to a star that was too close for the same reason. They'd have to go a good distance, just in case they completely screwed up and caused a hypernova. They don't want to wipe out their civilization.
3) Why would they travel the many many light years it would take just to send a message no one is going to receive for centuries and probably won't understand, anyway, when they get it?
I suppose that if they have the capability of manipulating a star, they could conceivably have faster than light travel IF faster than light travel is possible, which wouldn't make the trip so bad.
Of course I'm also assuming that they can't manipulate the star from a great distance also, which isn't neccessarily so.
Pretty much, this whole post is a waste, then.
-
The question is not "Should a company be able to restrict the freedom of its customers?" because that is not the issue.
The issue is "Is it right for the government to hold an ISP accountable for the opinions of its customers?" and the answer is no if the government wants its people to be free.
When I read the link that Demon provides to the discussion of the case, one thing I thought was ridiculous was they made it look like the entire internet was going to collapse because of this:
The ruling, if not reversed on appeal, will have a widespread impact on the whole Internet industry and its users in all areas including freedom of expression and electronic trading. Complainants may be able to force ISPs to police and censor any item of information on their servers. The way is opened for scurrilous and unsubstantiated claims that would undoubtedly curb the freedom of speech by Internet users.
It seems to me that only ISPs unlucky enough to be stuck in a country without the freedom of speech will be affected by this. If this decision isn't reversed, the UK is in serious trouble.
-
First of all, a law, by definition, can not be "illegal," as you suggest. If an Act of Congress is repugnant to the Constitution, it is unconstitutional, not illegal.
Second, I assume you are refering to the second Amendment with respect to our "Constitutionally guaranteed rights". Unfortunately (or Fortunately, depending on your perspective), the second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does not, contrary to your claim, say "...the right of the people to keep, bear, and conceal Arms, shall not be infringed."
These "honest and good" people can carry their weapons wherever they wish, so long as they don't take them somewhere weapons are prohibited; they just can't conceal them.
I'll bet when they started putting in metal detectors at airports, or, better yet, those things that look at what's in your bags, everyone said "Wait until they put those in everywhere else."
Well, guess what? You don't see x-ray machines everywhere else, do you? So, why would you expect these things to pop up everywhere? Especially given that they are expensive as hell and basically do the same thing that metal detectors do.