I think you've spent some paragraphs defining "nihilism".
Or just a different set of priorities.
For example, it's not "nihilism" to value the well-being of people ahead of the "well-being" of the earth.
What's the basis for determining whether one state of "being" for the earth is more or less "well" than another state? Is it "nihilism" to want things to be based on reason rather than emotion and social pressure? That's not what my dictionary says.
I don't buy that you guys with your smart-growth agenda have figured out The Right Way or The Good Way for everyone to live their lives. I think people should be free to choose. Because their better understanding of their individual lives is a more effective decision-making tool than the self-assumed moral, emotional, and intellectual superiority of the smart-growth crowd.
Every dictator thinks he has the right answers -- but what is the historical track-record for dictators? How many of them had all the right answers?
Yeah, it replaces "you must live your life the way we tell you or we'll put you in jail" with "you must live your life the way we tell you or we'll steal your money". I feel so liberated.
Is it not logical for the well-being of the earth (and now- surprise- our health) to live in higher density urban centres, thus expending less energy to travel?
That's one opinion. The other opinions are that, no, it's not.
Some people even think that "logical for the well-being of the earth" isn't their #1 priority. Some people can afford to buy more energy to travel.
Some people don't think that "the well-being of the earth" can be significantly improved by adopting a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.
Some people think "the well-being of the earth" is an extremely silly concept, given that the earth isn't a "being" and doesn't experience "well-being", nor are there discrete states that are well or unwell for the earth. Those folks might describe a set of different states that are just different, not well, unwell, or otherwise related to the earth's qualitative wellness. I South more well that East? Is rain more well than snow or clear skies? How much more?
Yeah. Choices suck. People make bad choices. You should take all those choices away from everyone and make all the the choices for everyone yourself. Because you're smarter than everyone else in the world and know what all the right choices are that everyone should make.
Under the bill, you would still be completely free to voice your opinion. Except that you would have to admit publically IF you are getting paid to promote this opinion.
And if you don't, you're not free to voice your opinion. And being not free, it's an infringement on free speech.
You could still use your free speech, except that your readers would know that you are getting paid for it, and it would be in their judgment whether they continue to trust you.
It's that word "except" that should clue people in on whether the bill infringes on free speech. The First Amendment doesn't contain the word "except".
When I read a newspaper, I want to know who is running it. When I see an election ad, I want to know who is paying for it. When I read an op-ed, I want to know the affiliation of the author. When I read a blog, I would like to know in case this blogger is getting paid 100,000$ to promote his opinion while trying to make it look like a private blog.
And the First Amendment doesn't care what you want. Freedom doesn't depend on what you want. Why should anyone care what you want?
I want a new Mercedes convertible. Where's the bill that gives us all what we want?
This has nothing to do with preventing free speech, just with making free speech work....the way you want it to.
Speech that everyone wants doesn't need to be protected. Free speech protections are needed for when you're saying something that someone doesn't want.
The bill would have infringed the right of free speech. It's actually quite clear.
Astroturf campaigns are free speech. Fining groups engaged in astroturf campaigns is an infringement on free speech. Requiring speakers to "register" in order to be allowed to speak is not free speech.
All this BS justification is simply "we're in favor of free-speech only when we agree with the motives, methods, or message of the speaker". Agreeable speech doesn't need to be protected from the people who agree with it.
There's no First Amendment for sex or having kids or dinner or opening a restaurant or riding a skateboard or committing murder or any of the other things you keep bringing up to evade the free speech issue.
Also, note that you are again confusing the free speech / offering a service issue.
When speech is the service, that's a false distinction. And that's what the blog provisions of this bill attempt to restrict. Restricting the "service" of speech restricts speech.
I don't believe it's OK to restrict political speech. You apparently do. Only you're calling it "fraud", and "a service" and "astroturfing" and whatever else you can come up with to muddy the waters and provide cover for restricting political speech.
Where have I said anything about silencing anyone's speech?
The bill effectively creates "blog cops" who go around and check up on people engaging in speech. If you don't register, and you have been paid, then you're silenced (fined, arrested, intimidated, harrassed, etc.) by the blog cops. Period.
The entire thrust is against fraudulent activities in which a small group of people attempt to exert undue influence over our government by throwing money around to create the impression that they represent more people than they actual do.
That's not "fraud" by definition. You just don't like it.
Also, what is the definition of "undue" in this context? Does it mean "against my personal interests"?
What is an acceptable "impression"? One that benefits you?
No one is saying that they can't say whatever they want, just that they can't lie about who paid them to say it if there are, in fact, acting as paid shills for some other entity.
What does "paid" mean? If someone is employed by the ACLU and defends free speech on his blog, does he have to register as a lobbyist or face fines and jail time?
Free speech is about not having to satisfy "the enforcers" that your speech meets their approval. So your argument that some speech doesn't meet your approval is either irrelevant or simply anti-free-speech.
It seems pretty clear from your comment that you want to call some free speech "fraud" (even though no victims are actually being defrauded) or "astroturfing" in order to silence it.
Free speech ought to remain free and absolute in the political arena.
These restrictions were simply a way to silence critics by taking away their freedom of speech. There are plenty of justifications, but they all basically amount to "it only restricts people we don't like and it will give us an advantage".
This is great. A story hyping a cure for an ultra-hyped disease. This will be handy if bird flu actually becomes a real problem rather than a drive-by media hype-fest.
I hope they also cure SARS, maybe with some kind of halibut mucus.
Women mostly don't need to be self-taught. Colleges and educational institutions are happy to educate women. Meanwhile there's an increasing bias in educational institutions against males:
It's not a big factor in this particular case, but one reason some guys are self-taught is because they've learned education isn't for them -- rather it's against them.
The only reason we're not seeing widespread social unrest now is that we're funding our bread and circus by borrowing.
No. Deficits have been going down in absolute terms and in terms of a percentage of GDP.
It helps that the US has had so far unlimited credit with other nations. What happens when the bills come due and we have to pay for everything?
Please cite an example of "the bills come due". US Treasury bonds aren't bills that "come due and we have to pay for everything". They are just like any other bond.
If anyone thought your disaster scenario was even remotely likely, then T-bills would have to offer a much higher interest rate to get people to buy them. It's not going to happen and "other nations" know it.
When there are millions of desitute elderly, or taxes double in order to continue paying benefits?
Instead of them being the richest segment of the population? They're going to go from the richest segment to destitution overnight?
You're right. If that question was the entire interview, then it's not a very good question. If the interview was more than one question, it's a good question.
Given your post, it seems like it would be a good question to ask you in an interview to determine whether you are good at understanding and communicating with people.
How about being accurate? How about if you talk about what's actually happening now instead of saying basically:
"Everyone knows about this bad thing that happened in the past (Nazis, Killing Fields, slavery, plague, whatever). Without being specific at all we're saying that what's going on now is just as bad."
- How is it just as bad? We're not telling you that. - What's the bad thing that's happening? Nothing specific, but it's really bad, we assure you. - What should you do about it? You should do what we tell you to do! - Who are the victims? Everyone! - Can you give me a few examples? No, just believe us. Are you stupid or something?
Etc, etc, etc.
In other words, instead of talking about what happened 60 years ago in WWII, talk about exactly what you don't like that's happening now and actually try to make the case that it's bad in some way. Be specific and reasonable and talk about reality.
Why should anyone listen to hysterical ravings? Do scaremongers have a good track record for correct predictions of the future?
It's still a good question, even if the employees do, in fact, have a moderate understanding of their computers. If an IT guy can be nice to newbs, he can be nice to people of intermediate skill.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've spent some paragraphs defining "nihilism".
Or just a different set of priorities.
For example, it's not "nihilism" to value the well-being of people ahead of the "well-being" of the earth.
What's the basis for determining whether one state of "being" for the earth is more or less "well" than another state? Is it "nihilism" to want things to be based on reason rather than emotion and social pressure? That's not what my dictionary says.
I don't buy that you guys with your smart-growth agenda have figured out The Right Way or The Good Way for everyone to live their lives. I think people should be free to choose. Because their better understanding of their individual lives is a more effective decision-making tool than the self-assumed moral, emotional, and intellectual superiority of the smart-growth crowd.
Every dictator thinks he has the right answers -- but what is the historical track-record for dictators? How many of them had all the right answers?
Yeah, it's so polluted outside I can't even see past the horizon.
Yeah, it replaces "you must live your life the way we tell you or we'll put you in jail" with "you must live your life the way we tell you or we'll steal your money". I feel so liberated.
Does sprawl make us fat?
I guess it depends on how much sprawl you eat.
A better question: If part of my body sprawls, am I fat?
Is it not logical for the well-being of the earth (and now- surprise- our health) to live in higher density urban centres, thus expending less energy to travel?
That's one opinion. The other opinions are that, no, it's not.
Some people even think that "logical for the well-being of the earth" isn't their #1 priority. Some people can afford to buy more energy to travel.
Some people don't think that "the well-being of the earth" can be significantly improved by adopting a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.
Some people think "the well-being of the earth" is an extremely silly concept, given that the earth isn't a "being" and doesn't experience "well-being", nor are there discrete states that are well or unwell for the earth. Those folks might describe a set of different states that are just different, not well, unwell, or otherwise related to the earth's qualitative wellness. I South more well that East? Is rain more well than snow or clear skies? How much more?
Yeah. Choices suck. People make bad choices. You should take all those choices away from everyone and make all the the choices for everyone yourself. Because you're smarter than everyone else in the world and know what all the right choices are that everyone should make.
No kidding?
Does this knowledge lead to any conclusions on how to reverse the process whereby you got fat?
If it does, can I buy your diet book?
Under the bill, you would still be completely free to voice your opinion. Except that you would have to admit publically IF you are getting paid to promote this opinion.
...the way you want it to.
And if you don't, you're not free to voice your opinion. And being not free, it's an infringement on free speech.
You could still use your free speech, except that your readers would know that you are getting paid for it, and it would be in their judgment whether they continue to trust you.
It's that word "except" that should clue people in on whether the bill infringes on free speech. The First Amendment doesn't contain the word "except".
When I read a newspaper, I want to know who is running it. When I see an election ad, I want to know who is paying for it. When I read an op-ed, I want to know the affiliation of the author. When I read a blog, I would like to know in case this blogger is getting paid 100,000$ to promote his opinion while trying to make it look like a private blog.
And the First Amendment doesn't care what you want. Freedom doesn't depend on what you want. Why should anyone care what you want?
I want a new Mercedes convertible. Where's the bill that gives us all what we want?
This has nothing to do with preventing free speech, just with making free speech work.
Speech that everyone wants doesn't need to be protected. Free speech protections are needed for when you're saying something that someone doesn't want.
The most frequent cause of their deaths: vines caught in their propellers. Second is running out of fuel.
The bill would have infringed the right of free speech. It's actually quite clear.
Astroturf campaigns are free speech. Fining groups engaged in astroturf campaigns is an infringement on free speech. Requiring speakers to "register" in order to be allowed to speak is not free speech.
All this BS justification is simply "we're in favor of free-speech only when we agree with the motives, methods, or message of the speaker". Agreeable speech doesn't need to be protected from the people who agree with it.
So you're saying all snowflakes are exactly the same?
They don't taste the same.
There's no First Amendment for sex or having kids or dinner or opening a restaurant or riding a skateboard or committing murder or any of the other things you keep bringing up to evade the free speech issue.
Also, note that you are again confusing the free speech / offering a service issue.
When speech is the service, that's a false distinction. And that's what the blog provisions of this bill attempt to restrict. Restricting the "service" of speech restricts speech.
I don't believe it's OK to restrict political speech. You apparently do. Only you're calling it "fraud", and "a service" and "astroturfing" and whatever else you can come up with to muddy the waters and provide cover for restricting political speech.
Where have I said anything about silencing anyone's speech?
The bill effectively creates "blog cops" who go around and check up on people engaging in speech. If you don't register, and you have been paid, then you're silenced (fined, arrested, intimidated, harrassed, etc.) by the blog cops. Period.
You mean rich enough not to need government freebies? Probably most of the people on Slashdot.
If only the folks on Slashdot were good enough not to want government freebies...
The entire thrust is against fraudulent activities in which a small group of people attempt to exert undue influence over our government by throwing money around to create the impression that they represent more people than they actual do.
That's not "fraud" by definition. You just don't like it.
Also, what is the definition of "undue" in this context? Does it mean "against my personal interests"?
What is an acceptable "impression"? One that benefits you?
No one is saying that they can't say whatever they want, just that they can't lie about who paid them to say it if there are, in fact, acting as paid shills for some other entity.
What does "paid" mean? If someone is employed by the ACLU and defends free speech on his blog, does he have to register as a lobbyist or face fines and jail time?
Free speech is about not having to satisfy "the enforcers" that your speech meets their approval. So your argument that some speech doesn't meet your approval is either irrelevant or simply anti-free-speech.
It seems pretty clear from your comment that you want to call some free speech "fraud" (even though no victims are actually being defrauded) or "astroturfing" in order to silence it.
Clearly, we need people to write reviews of reviews and post them.
Free speech ought to remain free and absolute in the political arena.
These restrictions were simply a way to silence critics by taking away their freedom of speech. There are plenty of justifications, but they all basically amount to "it only restricts people we don't like and it will give us an advantage".
This is great. A story hyping a cure for an ultra-hyped disease. This will be handy if bird flu actually becomes a real problem rather than a drive-by media hype-fest.
I hope they also cure SARS, maybe with some kind of halibut mucus.
Women mostly don't need to be self-taught. Colleges and educational institutions are happy to educate women. Meanwhile there's an increasing bias in educational institutions against males:
Schoolboy's bias suit
Where The Boys Aren't
Why boys can't be boys
The Trouble With Boys
and especially
How the Schools Shortchange Boys
It's not a big factor in this particular case, but one reason some guys are self-taught is because they've learned education isn't for them -- rather it's against them.
The only reason we're not seeing widespread social unrest now is that we're funding our bread and circus by borrowing.
No. Deficits have been going down in absolute terms and in terms of a percentage of GDP.
It helps that the US has had so far unlimited credit with other nations. What happens when the bills come due and we have to pay for everything?
Please cite an example of "the bills come due". US Treasury bonds aren't bills that "come due and we have to pay for everything". They are just like any other bond.
If anyone thought your disaster scenario was even remotely likely, then T-bills would have to offer a much higher interest rate to get people to buy them. It's not going to happen and "other nations" know it.
When there are millions of desitute elderly, or taxes double in order to continue paying benefits?
Instead of them being the richest segment of the population? They're going to go from the richest segment to destitution overnight?
You're right. If that question was the entire interview, then it's not a very good question. If the interview was more than one question, it's a good question.
Given your post, it seems like it would be a good question to ask you in an interview to determine whether you are good at understanding and communicating with people.
So what would you have people do...
How about being accurate? How about if you talk about what's actually happening now instead of saying basically:
"Everyone knows about this bad thing that happened in the past (Nazis, Killing Fields, slavery, plague, whatever). Without being specific at all we're saying that what's going on now is just as bad."
- How is it just as bad? We're not telling you that.
- What's the bad thing that's happening? Nothing specific, but it's really bad, we assure you.
- What should you do about it? You should do what we tell you to do!
- Who are the victims? Everyone!
- Can you give me a few examples? No, just believe us. Are you stupid or something?
Etc, etc, etc.
In other words, instead of talking about what happened 60 years ago in WWII, talk about exactly what you don't like that's happening now and actually try to make the case that it's bad in some way. Be specific and reasonable and talk about reality.
Why should anyone listen to hysterical ravings? Do scaremongers have a good track record for correct predictions of the future?
I know who to blame for things like this: George Bush.
First he caused that hurricane, now this comet. Bill Clinton never caused any major natural disasters or evil omens.
It's still a good question, even if the employees do, in fact, have a moderate understanding of their computers. If an IT guy can be nice to newbs, he can be nice to people of intermediate skill.