Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?
Obviously, terrorism works. Let's hope the thousands of ideological groups don't get this obvious message. We'll be sorry.
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.
I didn't know you were so anti-science. If that a scientific theory's claims that X is correct do not mean that they are true, that they apply to the real world.
I guess you don't believe in agw then ? (unless of course, those theories are true, because of the magical pixie dust)...
Every theory, for obvious reasons, is based on a dataset.
I didn't think that there were 21st century Americans who didn't believe in science. Clearly I was wrong.
Truth does NOT depend on your observation of it. Why don't you step off a bridge, don't believe in gravity, and tell me what happens.
Because if one applies your theory to ipcc's claims, then they clearly cannot mean that temperatures will actually rise.
Look, either theory applies to the real world, in which case the ipcc lies, or theory doesn't apply to the real world, and the ipcc's claims have exactly the same value as the words of a drugged up hippie.
So which is it ? Is theory measured against the real world, or not ?
Declining to distribute is not the same as suppressing.
How about blocking p2p ? Or refusing to carry competitor's voice signals ?
Do you agree AT&T is fully in their right to "refuse to carry" Skype signals ?
By your reasoning if you fail to redistribute those then you are suppressing my free speech.
The problem is, of course, that rackspace, isn't "refusing to distribute" it's blocking distribution.
If you wrote, say, a book on evolution, and I used force (as rackspace did) to prevent you from doing this, surely you'd agree I'm suppressing your free speech. The same is going on here.
If you don't have 3d thermal heat maps, you cannot accurately determinate the average temperature of the oceans.
Why ? Because they're not in thermodynamic equilibrium. So, strictly speaking, you cannot determinate the temperature without every part of it separately.
More reasonably, you could be horribly off the mark if you only measure the easily accessible parts. If you measure, for example, 90% of the ocean, and the 10% left out is the poles,... you tell me what happens.
No, then you've falsely claimed a confidence interval. Let's compare here :
A scientist claims electrons have a charge of 1.2e (95% confidence interval).
This turns out to be a mistake in his measurement equipment. So if you look at his data, obviously this is a correct conclusion, he's just measured it wrong.
According to you, therefore, that claim will be correct. Was the original claim wrong or not ? Obviously is was wrong.
What is claimed by the ipcc is that their predictions will match what happens in the real world. Only they're giving out conflicting predictions... whoops. That means, just like the electron example, that they're wrong. Simple.
So if any group would want protection from criticism, they simply have to start randomly killing innocents, like these muslims do ?
Because, quite frankly, that's what you're saying. I sure hope those neo-nazi's don't see it this way, or we'll be in for a world of hurt. The same goes for dozens of other groups.
Thinking like you do doesn't lead to less violence, it leads to more violence.
Up to the point where it is considered hate speech which this clearly is.
Huh ? This is clearly not hate speech. It is criticism.
Is burning an American flag hate speech ? Is burning a bible (something these idiots regularly do) ? Is universal health care hate speech ?
Who gets to say what is hate speech ? Quite frankly, half the quran itself easily qualifies as hate speech itself, have you read it ? It's certainly a lot worse than book burning. The same could be said about the bible.
And, like in Europe, hate speech laws are mainly used for political purposes, mostly these laws legislate certain parts of the political spectrum out of (legal) existence. Exactly what you'd want to avoid at all costs.
If it were an ISP even slightly larger than rackspace, then yes, that would most definitely be suppressing free speech. In the case of rackspace, it's an edge case.
But it's despicable that rackspace doesn't "err on the side of freedom".
Come on, read your own post. You're basically saying that climate science is a fantasy and doesn't have anything to say about the real world.
Of course those confidence intervals mean that according to the IPCC there is a 95% chance that the reaction of the real world will fall within the claimed range.
The book burning is barely a real political statement, its not an artistic performance, and its certainly not warranted. It's some groaty, pissed-off redneck reminiscent of the side-character Skeeter in South Park -- the guy who hangs out in the bar going "we don't take kindly to your kind around here." In this case its "hey, intolerant Muslims! we don't take kindly to your kind around here!" Just because he has a legal right to proceed with his moronic plan, the irony of which, I'm sure, is probably much too subtle to have an impression on him, doesn't mean that, you, I, Rackspace, or anyone else has to facilitate his stupidity.
And killing people because of a perceived insult is... what... exactly ?
muslims once again demonstrates what assholes they are. I will, incidentally, retract this statement if any decent-sized group of muslims stands up and defends this book burning.
I don't agree. Rackspace is supposed to be a neutral carrier, and should be forced to do so.
Network neutrality applies first and most to offensive speech. Next AT&T gets a Texan president, and refuses to let traffic pass that talks about evolution.
Actually you will, provided they cannot touch the offender. It will cause serious loss of face for all muslim leaders claiming they need the power to prevent this sort of thing, then it turns out they can't touch this guy.
And loss of face, in a dictatorship, leads to loss of head.
Besides, if we have a weekly quran burning, they will have to get used to it, it won't even be news anymore. And that would even lead to more freedom for the people living in these countries.
Well the issue is, if it's adapt or die, a pretty fucking huge number of people will end up dying.
And the point is ? Sorry if the real world doesn't change to satisfy your sensibilities. It doesn't care. Nor (should) science.
Evolution : 1. Breed (preferably inaccurately and with lots of diseases and viruses involved, and other things that damage the DNA). Do not forget to include LOTS of random stupidity (because there is a tiny chance that something stupid turns out to be very smart instead) 2. Die off as a result of the mistakes committed at step 1. How many ? 99% at least, preferably more. You should show a "tendency" to kill off the "less fit" (anyone who produces, say 1%, less than the world champion), but no more than a tendency. In other words, make sure the killing is mostly (but not entirely) random. 3. Goto 1
Apply richly to humans, ideas, groups, countries, civilizations,... Which part, exactly is unclear ?
If you wish to experience a real "fuck !" moment, check what happens if you attempt to sabotage step 2 by using things like social security and medicine (ie. you massively lower the chance of dying as a result of defective genes, or inability to produce sufficient food/security/... for yourself).
Religions, nor anyone else, do NOT have the right not to be offended, or to be exempt from criticism. Time this religion's idiots get it through their skulls that the reason they get insulted and compared to all kinds of shit so often is, quite simply, that they're offensive and disgusting. The term "medieval" may be applied often to them, but it's horribly inaccurate : the medieval times were a lot more tolerant than these idiots.
And to invoke Godwin's law : it's not because someone cries racism that he's not. Hitler (and the Russians for that matter), and the nazi party and members in general, called everyone racist and warmongers at every turn, most of all France and England (though, admittedly, calling Churchill racist may have a grain of truth to it. Not when compared to the nazi's, of course, but still).
But the whole point of the second paragraph, curiously absent from your post, was that there is a warmer period in the history of civilization.
And it had a LOT more usable land than we have today. And, before you claim it, if the future is independant from the past, climate science itself does not have a basis either.
Change is disruptive... newsflash... you believe in evolution, right ? Does "Adapt or die" sound familiar ? It's just as valid for civilizations as it is for people, mice and bacteria.
Slashdot Mirror
Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
Christopher Hitchens
As Christopher Hitchens notes :
When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?
Obviously, terrorism works. Let's hope the thousands of ideological groups don't get this obvious message. We'll be sorry.
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.
Can't say it much better than that.
I didn't know you were so anti-science. If that a scientific theory's claims that X is correct do not mean that they are true, that they apply to the real world.
I guess you don't believe in agw then ? (unless of course, those theories are true, because of the magical pixie dust) ...
Every theory, for obvious reasons, is based on a dataset.
I didn't think that there were 21st century Americans who didn't believe in science. Clearly I was wrong.
Network neutrality only means that a network operator should treat packets the same regardless of source,
Regardless of content too, obviously. And rackspace most definitely is a network provider too.
Yes, but the whole point of network neutrality is that free speech laws should apply to ISP's.
Truth does NOT depend on your observation of it. Why don't you step off a bridge, don't believe in gravity, and tell me what happens.
Because if one applies your theory to ipcc's claims, then they clearly cannot mean that temperatures will actually rise.
Look, either theory applies to the real world, in which case the ipcc lies, or theory doesn't apply to the real world, and the ipcc's claims have exactly the same value as the words of a drugged up hippie.
So which is it ? Is theory measured against the real world, or not ?
I hate people with double standards.
How can you compare burning a hateful book to firebombing a shop full of people ?
Burning a book doesn't hurt anyone. Firebombing innocents (as these muslims will do) is wrong.
It's sad to think there are 21st century Americans no better than medieval people burning for heresy. Sad to think they're on slashdot too.
Btw, given that it's rackspace we're talking about, the church probably did set up their own server, and rackspace unilaterally kicked them out.
Declining to distribute is not the same as suppressing.
How about blocking p2p ? Or refusing to carry competitor's voice signals ?
Do you agree AT&T is fully in their right to "refuse to carry" Skype signals ?
By your reasoning if you fail to redistribute those then you are suppressing my free speech.
The problem is, of course, that rackspace, isn't "refusing to distribute" it's blocking distribution.
If you wrote, say, a book on evolution, and I used force (as rackspace did) to prevent you from doing this, surely you'd agree I'm suppressing your free speech. The same is going on here.
Rackspace is an ISP and should be forced not to care about what happens on their network, unless it seriously disrupts operation.
So terrorism does not only protect one from criticism, but you're actually defending it.
I sure hope you never say anything bad about my theories. Since I know just how to change your mind.
And clearly, "some people need to be hurt before they learn not to piss off others".
I *hope* you see the problem.
If you don't have 3d thermal heat maps, you cannot accurately determinate the average temperature of the oceans.
Why ? Because they're not in thermodynamic equilibrium. So, strictly speaking, you cannot determinate the temperature without every part of it separately.
More reasonably, you could be horribly off the mark if you only measure the easily accessible parts. If you measure, for example, 90% of the ocean, and the 10% left out is the poles, ... you tell me what happens.
No, then you've falsely claimed a confidence interval. Let's compare here :
A scientist claims electrons have a charge of 1.2e (95% confidence interval).
This turns out to be a mistake in his measurement equipment. So if you look at his data, obviously this is a correct conclusion, he's just measured it wrong.
According to you, therefore, that claim will be correct. Was the original claim wrong or not ? Obviously is was wrong.
What is claimed by the ipcc is that their predictions will match what happens in the real world. Only they're giving out conflicting predictions ... whoops. That means, just like the electron example, that they're wrong. Simple.
So if any group would want protection from criticism, they simply have to start randomly killing innocents, like these muslims do ?
Because, quite frankly, that's what you're saying. I sure hope those neo-nazi's don't see it this way, or we'll be in for a world of hurt. The same goes for dozens of other groups.
Thinking like you do doesn't lead to less violence, it leads to more violence.
Up to the point where it is considered hate speech which this clearly is.
Huh ? This is clearly not hate speech. It is criticism.
Is burning an American flag hate speech ?
Is burning a bible (something these idiots regularly do) ?
Is universal health care hate speech ?
Who gets to say what is hate speech ? Quite frankly, half the quran itself easily qualifies as hate speech itself, have you read it ? It's certainly a lot worse than book burning. The same could be said about the bible.
And, like in Europe, hate speech laws are mainly used for political purposes, mostly these laws legislate certain parts of the political spectrum out of (legal) existence. Exactly what you'd want to avoid at all costs.
Jee, what was voltaire jailed and banished for again ? Hmmmm, ... for doing things against the prevalent dogma.
Weren't we supposed to be better than medieval frenchmen ? Clearly you aren't.
If it were an ISP even slightly larger than rackspace, then yes, that would most definitely be suppressing free speech. In the case of rackspace, it's an edge case.
But it's despicable that rackspace doesn't "err on the side of freedom".
Come on, read your own post. You're basically saying that climate science is a fantasy and doesn't have anything to say about the real world.
Of course those confidence intervals mean that according to the IPCC there is a 95% chance that the reaction of the real world will fall within the claimed range.
The book burning is barely a real political statement, its not an artistic performance, and its certainly not warranted. It's some groaty, pissed-off redneck reminiscent of the side-character Skeeter in South Park -- the guy who hangs out in the bar going "we don't take kindly to your kind around here." In this case its "hey, intolerant Muslims! we don't take kindly to your kind around here!" Just because he has a legal right to proceed with his moronic plan, the irony of which, I'm sure, is probably much too subtle to have an impression on him, doesn't mean that, you, I, Rackspace, or anyone else has to facilitate his stupidity.
And killing people because of a perceived insult is ... what ... exactly ?
muslims once again demonstrates what assholes they are. I will, incidentally, retract this statement if any decent-sized group of muslims stands up and defends this book burning.
I don't agree. Rackspace is supposed to be a neutral carrier, and should be forced to do so.
Network neutrality applies first and most to offensive speech. Next AT&T gets a Texan president, and refuses to let traffic pass that talks about evolution.
Actually you will, provided they cannot touch the offender. It will cause serious loss of face for all muslim leaders claiming they need the power to prevent this sort of thing, then it turns out they can't touch this guy.
And loss of face, in a dictatorship, leads to loss of head.
Besides, if we have a weekly quran burning, they will have to get used to it, it won't even be news anymore. And that would even lead to more freedom for the people living in these countries.
Well the issue is, if it's adapt or die, a pretty fucking huge number of people will end up dying.
And the point is ? Sorry if the real world doesn't change to satisfy your sensibilities. It doesn't care. Nor (should) science.
Evolution :
1. Breed (preferably inaccurately and with lots of diseases and viruses involved, and other things that damage the DNA). Do not forget to include LOTS of random stupidity (because there is a tiny chance that something stupid turns out to be very smart instead)
2. Die off as a result of the mistakes committed at step 1. How many ? 99% at least, preferably more. You should show a "tendency" to kill off the "less fit" (anyone who produces, say 1%, less than the world champion), but no more than a tendency. In other words, make sure the killing is mostly (but not entirely) random.
3. Goto 1
Apply richly to humans, ideas, groups, countries, civilizations, ... Which part, exactly is unclear ?
If you wish to experience a real "fuck !" moment, check what happens if you attempt to sabotage step 2 by using things like social security and medicine (ie. you massively lower the chance of dying as a result of defective genes, or inability to produce sufficient food/security/... for yourself).
If only Obama thought the way you did.
Religions, nor anyone else, do NOT have the right not to be offended, or to be exempt from criticism. Time this religion's idiots get it through their skulls that the reason they get insulted and compared to all kinds of shit so often is, quite simply, that they're offensive and disgusting. The term "medieval" may be applied often to them, but it's horribly inaccurate : the medieval times were a lot more tolerant than these idiots.
And to invoke Godwin's law : it's not because someone cries racism that he's not. Hitler (and the Russians for that matter), and the nazi party and members in general, called everyone racist and warmongers at every turn, most of all France and England (though, admittedly, calling Churchill racist may have a grain of truth to it. Not when compared to the nazi's, of course, but still).
But the whole point of the second paragraph, curiously absent from your post, was that there is a warmer period in the history of civilization.
And it had a LOT more usable land than we have today. And, before you claim it, if the future is independant from the past, climate science itself does not have a basis either.
Change is disruptive ... newsflash ... you believe in evolution, right ? Does "Adapt or die" sound familiar ? It's just as valid for civilizations as it is for people, mice and bacteria.