You missed it. Take Two already implemented a nuisance-lawsuit version of the Bush Doctrine and sued Jack Thomson preemptively. That's how to have to deal with these sorts of fellows.
We have free speech protections in our Constitution. Speech that everyone agrees with or that no one finds offensive doesn't need to be protected because it is not threatened. Only so-called "offensive" speech actually needs protection.
So the answer is clearly yes.
Turn off the short wave radio if it's bothering you (and try minding your own business).
That doesn't say much for The Nation then, does it?
If anyone at Slashdot actually cares about freedom and individual rights on campus instead of socialist dogma, FIRE can help with that. For socialist dogma and for calls to throw off so-called right wing oppression in favor of left wing oppression, read The Nation. They don't actually help you though -- it's just a magazine.
I wonder if it helps that the vast majority of science proponents profess hatred for ordinary religious folks and their beliefs? Why should normal churchgoing folks want to support their detractors and would-be oppressors?
If science would go back to being about practical knowledge instead of partisan politics and anti-religious bigotry, maybe science could recover some of the good reputation it used to have.
It wrecks your drive, but it's good for the earth. Sounds normal for environmentalism. Sure it makes your life worse, but think of how much it helps the earth!
The "pledge" not to drink exists because of the prohibition laws.
There's no moral or ethical issue with drinking a beer or a glass of wine. So why would there be a pledge? Because some government would-be-dictators decided to substitute their choices for the choices of the individuals in question (and their parents' choices). And then some other government workers at the school decided to enforce the government choice with this pledge.
Come to think of it, it's time to close down the government schools and remove that intrusion from everyone's lives as well.
For instance, it is pretty sensible to respond to climate change by increasing energy efficiency wherever possible. Worst case scenario is improved productivity, competitiveness, and profit.
Yeah, because no one would ever decide to increase his "productivity, competitiveness, and profit" voluntarily.
Responses to climate change are damaging by definition. You're doing something you wouldn't otherwise choose to do without the climate change factor. Since folks choose to do things or not do things to make themselves better off, eliminating that choice makes those folks worse off. Eliminate enough choices and poverty is the inevitable result.
If, on the other hand, increased efficiency came at the cost of infecting every person with leprosy...
I'll take leprosy over slavery. Leprosy is easier to cure -- at least until someone decides that the cure for leprosy has Thimerosal in it or that manufacturing and transporting that cure results in CO2 emissions and we have to stop curing leprosy right away because... think of the children!
So you are saying it may "trigger" autism. But it never, ever triggered autism when used in vaccines -- that's why the incidence of autism remained the same after it was no longer used in vaccines.
You'd think people would stop going nuts over nothing. Or that other people would stop listening to the hysterical rantings of the folks who went nuts. But it seems to be trending in the opposite direction.
Giving gifts is about being generous and thinking of other people. It's not about fulfilling some sort of self-focused philosophical imperative. Your greenness is about feeling good about yourself. It misses the point of Christmas giving.
This holiday is about loving your family, go be with them, instead of working extra hours to buy them plastic crap you won't even remember in two years!
Some of us are a lot better at coming up with gifts than others, apparently.
How can you say that either game is "more awesome" than the other?
You just say it. It helps if you actually have that opinion, but it's not really necessary.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Apples are better than oranges. Oranges are too sugary and the non-juice parts of the orange are more-or-less pointless. Oranges are really a drink, whereas apples are a food. And, as a drink, oranges are too sugary and don't contain adequate caffeine. When apples are made into a drink, they're actually worse than orange juice though.
You also have to buy the good apples. Discount apples have little taste.
I would recommend Rock Band to anyone with more than two friends.
Why would I care if someone's car got carjacked in Minneapolis, when I'm in Phoenix?
Why should you? What makes it any of your business? I'm sure the folks in Minneapolis can take care of their own problems without your input. Not everything is about you.
And those punishments are sometimes strict enough to cause that person to not do it again.
In this case, it was. There's no benefit in doing this again. There was no benefit in doing it the first time. And there are some hefty consequences. So no one will do it again.
Aside from a pure desire to cause harm to enemies -- apparently "corporations" in this case -- there's no problem solved by the "legal solutions" that are being talked about.
What's to stop them from monitoring/blocking/listing you for contacting your senator in opposition to their immunity?
Life is not a conspiracy movie.
It works differently when there are no writers trying to make everything interesting for an audience. It's a lot more real, with people going to work and doing normal things rather than everyone either trying to take over the world or stop you from taking over the world.
You should consider joining us here in reality sometime. It's less interesting, but you get to be an adult and make your own decisions instead of following the writers' thoughts from one fictional plot point to another.
Yeah, what with them filing for bankruptcy and pretty much giving stuff away just to get some cash flow as the general public decided to completely boycott...
So every last person who worked for Sony BMG should have lost their job? And every investor in Sony BMG should have lost their entire investment?
You must believe in the death penalty for every crime then too.
...outside of a few geeks and a couple of other unlucky folks nobody cared...
It seems like most people cared in approximate proportion to the amount of damage caused -- not much. And some people cared because they hate various people or entities for whatever reason and they want their chosen enemies destroyed. You seem to be in the second group.
I guess I understand the purpose of a "legal solution" if your goal is to destroy your enemies using government power. I'm not sure why everyone else needs to empower a few folks who are motivated by vindictiveness though. In fact, it seems unwise.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate analogy.
There's no such thing as an entirely accurate analogy.
But the point is that Sony-BMG wishes they'd never used that software. They won't do it again. No one who knows about the situation would ever do it again. Isn't that the desired result?
So, since the desired result is already achieved without a new "legal solution", why do we need a new "legal solution"?
Why is a legal solution needed? Clearly, the whole incident worked out very badly for Sony-BMG. Any company can see this example and determine that this kind of software should not be used.
I don't hit my hand with a hammer, even though no law that restrains me from doing it. Is there a role for government in keeping folks from hitting their hand with a hammer?
Slashdot Mirror
You missed it. Take Two already implemented a nuisance-lawsuit version of the Bush Doctrine and sued Jack Thomson preemptively. That's how to have to deal with these sorts of fellows.
Is hate speech free speech?
We have free speech protections in our Constitution. Speech that everyone agrees with or that no one finds offensive doesn't need to be protected because it is not threatened. Only so-called "offensive" speech actually needs protection.
So the answer is clearly yes.
Turn off the short wave radio if it's bothering you (and try minding your own business).
That doesn't say much for The Nation then, does it?
If anyone at Slashdot actually cares about freedom and individual rights on campus instead of socialist dogma, FIRE can help with that. For socialist dogma and for calls to throw off so-called right wing oppression in favor of left wing oppression, read The Nation. They don't actually help you though -- it's just a magazine.
The main watchdog for campus rights abuses is FIRE.
Speech codes and anti-harassment "respect" policies are the most common culprits when it comes to violating individual rights at colleges.
I wonder if it helps that the vast majority of science proponents profess hatred for ordinary religious folks and their beliefs? Why should normal churchgoing folks want to support their detractors and would-be oppressors?
If science would go back to being about practical knowledge instead of partisan politics and anti-religious bigotry, maybe science could recover some of the good reputation it used to have.
It wrecks your drive, but it's good for the earth. Sounds normal for environmentalism. Sure it makes your life worse, but think of how much it helps the earth!
Glowing Pigs. Glowing Pigs dude. Pigs glowing in the dark! That's why.
The "pledge" not to drink exists because of the prohibition laws.
There's no moral or ethical issue with drinking a beer or a glass of wine. So why would there be a pledge? Because some government would-be-dictators decided to substitute their choices for the choices of the individuals in question (and their parents' choices). And then some other government workers at the school decided to enforce the government choice with this pledge.
Come to think of it, it's time to close down the government schools and remove that intrusion from everyone's lives as well.
Time to repeal the drinking age.
This isn't a "rights online" question. It's a natural consequence of the stupid prohibition laws we have. They need to be repealed.
If the only way anyone found out about the drinking was looking at Facebook after the fact, then how was it harmful?
For instance, it is pretty sensible to respond to climate change by increasing energy efficiency wherever possible. Worst case scenario is improved productivity, competitiveness, and profit.
... think of the children!
Yeah, because no one would ever decide to increase his "productivity, competitiveness, and profit" voluntarily.
Responses to climate change are damaging by definition. You're doing something you wouldn't otherwise choose to do without the climate change factor. Since folks choose to do things or not do things to make themselves better off, eliminating that choice makes those folks worse off. Eliminate enough choices and poverty is the inevitable result.
If, on the other hand, increased efficiency came at the cost of infecting every person with leprosy...
I'll take leprosy over slavery. Leprosy is easier to cure -- at least until someone decides that the cure for leprosy has Thimerosal in it or that manufacturing and transporting that cure results in CO2 emissions and we have to stop curing leprosy right away because
So you are saying it may "trigger" autism. But it never, ever triggered autism when used in vaccines -- that's why the incidence of autism remained the same after it was no longer used in vaccines.
That's some interesting logic you have there.
Yes, it might be good as a last resort. I'd say it's a bad idea in cases short of that.
This seems like an extremely bad idea.
- Occupy your immune system fighting something that's not an infection
- Make yourself immune to the benefits of a whole class of painkillers
I suggest just not getting addicted to Cocaine instead.
You'd think people would stop going nuts over nothing. Or that other people would stop listening to the hysterical rantings of the folks who went nuts. But it seems to be trending in the opposite direction.
And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.
They are not. Read the article. This will only affect people with more than 2 large spare batteries or who want to carry really large spare batteries.
For everyone else, you just can't check a bag with spare batteries. You can carry it on.
Why do you have to go nuts about something so minor?
They only passed about 5 real bills that got signed into law -- not including renaming parks and airports and other insubstantial legislation.
Go green, skip the gadgets
Giving gifts is about being generous and thinking of other people. It's not about fulfilling some sort of self-focused philosophical imperative. Your greenness is about feeling good about yourself. It misses the point of Christmas giving.
This holiday is about loving your family, go be with them, instead of working extra hours to buy them plastic crap you won't even remember in two years!
Some of us are a lot better at coming up with gifts than others, apparently.
Short answer:
Rock Band is a game. Playing real instruments is work.
I can help with this.
How can you say that either game is "more awesome" than the other?
You just say it. It helps if you actually have that opinion, but it's not really necessary.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Apples are better than oranges. Oranges are too sugary and the non-juice parts of the orange are more-or-less pointless. Oranges are really a drink, whereas apples are a food. And, as a drink, oranges are too sugary and don't contain adequate caffeine. When apples are made into a drink, they're actually worse than orange juice though.
You also have to buy the good apples. Discount apples have little taste.
I would recommend Rock Band to anyone with more than two friends.
Does God count as a friend?
What would you recommend?
Getting over it.
Why would I care if someone's car got carjacked in Minneapolis, when I'm in Phoenix?
Why should you? What makes it any of your business? I'm sure the folks in Minneapolis can take care of their own problems without your input. Not everything is about you.
And those punishments are sometimes strict enough to cause that person to not do it again.
In this case, it was. There's no benefit in doing this again. There was no benefit in doing it the first time. And there are some hefty consequences. So no one will do it again.
Aside from a pure desire to cause harm to enemies -- apparently "corporations" in this case -- there's no problem solved by the "legal solutions" that are being talked about.
What's to stop them from monitoring/blocking/listing you for contacting your senator in opposition to their immunity?
Life is not a conspiracy movie.
It works differently when there are no writers trying to make everything interesting for an audience. It's a lot more real, with people going to work and doing normal things rather than everyone either trying to take over the world or stop you from taking over the world.
You should consider joining us here in reality sometime. It's less interesting, but you get to be an adult and make your own decisions instead of following the writers' thoughts from one fictional plot point to another.
So every last person who worked for Sony BMG should have lost their job? And every investor in Sony BMG should have lost their entire investment?
You must believe in the death penalty for every crime then too.
It seems like most people cared in approximate proportion to the amount of damage caused -- not much. And some people cared because they hate various people or entities for whatever reason and they want their chosen enemies destroyed. You seem to be in the second group.
I guess I understand the purpose of a "legal solution" if your goal is to destroy your enemies using government power. I'm not sure why everyone else needs to empower a few folks who are motivated by vindictiveness though. In fact, it seems unwise.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate analogy.
There's no such thing as an entirely accurate analogy.
But the point is that Sony-BMG wishes they'd never used that software. They won't do it again. No one who knows about the situation would ever do it again. Isn't that the desired result?
So, since the desired result is already achieved without a new "legal solution", why do we need a new "legal solution"?
Why is a legal solution needed? Clearly, the whole incident worked out very badly for Sony-BMG. Any company can see this example and determine that this kind of software should not be used.
I don't hit my hand with a hammer, even though no law that restrains me from doing it. Is there a role for government in keeping folks from hitting their hand with a hammer?