Of course, figuring out how to prevent them while not having a lot of bandwidth with which to look things up is a lot more difficult. But I suppose realizing that would have required you actually thinking about it.
I like how, instead of addressing the racism directly in the comment you bring in an unrelated politician and attack the AC for their supposed fascism.
I really dislike Trump, but that was definitely a reach.
Blocking those views will, especially in this case, just push people more towards them. If you're arguing against people who already think the EU is eroding national sovereignty (and that this is a bad thing), using the government to silence them is just going to make them more certain of their beliefs. If you want to change their minds, you have to actually have a dialogue, which you can't do while preventing them from talking.
But even in a situation that has little to no safety regulations, you're still free to live in a safely built property with a safe toaster, and you're free to only do business with people you're fairly sure won't screw you over. What you want is a guarantee that the house you live in and the toaster you buy are safe. Forcing others to conform to your standards (of safety or whatever else) is, of course, not freedom. It can be morally justified, but it's not freedom. Freedom isn't always good or moral.
I use neither the main app nor the messenger one because of the permissions. I'm not going to start now; FB messages can wait until I get to a non-phone computer.
Islam is not a race. Being broadly anti-Muslim is bad, but not racism. Being critical of some parts of Islam (either how it's currently practiced in some areas, or some of its teachings) does not make you a racist either.
I think it's better than you're making it out to be. Decent cars (for most people's definition of decent) are certainly less than $50k, and cars overall today are safer and more fuel-efficient than cars in the '90s. College grads today can get starting offers of > $60k even without doing internships, depending on their major. You don't even necessarily need additional experience or certs, although those help. Electricians, plumbers, and welders all make good money and don't require an increasingly expensive college degree.
Really, a lot of it boils down to two things. One, technology and globalization are pushing First World economies to be more and more skill-based, and skills generally require education of some sort. Two, people are getting "educated", but are spending lots of money for a degree that isn't going to help them get a job. If you have that much money to waste, go for it, but why spend $200k on a degree where the average starting salary is maybe $40k? Too many people aren't preparing themselves well for the future.
The price of water does not change the value of water.
Of course it does. Price, as a measure of supply and demand, is an excellent indicator of value. If water is scarce, it's price and value are both higher. If it's abundant, each unit of water has low price and value. Water overall certainly has value, but how much value each unit of water has is certainly a function of supply and demand.
No, value and price aren't fundamentally different. Something is worth what someone else will pay for it. Gold demand does fluctuate, and if it ever dropped significantly, gold's value would also drop. Gold is only valuable because people think it is.
All value is assigned by people. If people suddenly decide they don't want something as much as they used to, the value of that thing decreases. Asking "did the value actually exist in the first place" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of value. The company was worth that much because people were willing to pay that much to own pieces of it. Now they aren't, so the value has gone down.
On the contrary; freedom is meaningless without the freedom to fail. "Looking behind your back for the person who will inevitably bite you" isn't easy, fun, or particularly useful to society, but it is freedom. Again, you're arguing for some restrictions on freedom to increase safety, which can certainly be good, but that doesn't make it more free.
I'm not arguing that unadulterated freedom is good or bad. You want some freedom and some peace of mind, which in this case restricts the freedom of both yourself and others. In some circumstances, that's perfectly reasonable.
Why do you assume I'm American? Who brought America into this?
My idea of freedom is different than yours. To me, freedom is being able to buy anything offered on the market without having to be concerned it will kill me.
So, not freedom then. Freedom would be being able to buy anything you wanted on the market, including things that were dangerous. You want a mixture of freedom and safety, which is a reasonable stance to take, but it's hardly just freedom.
Ah, I see. In that case, I think I agree with you. There's never a clear line between what counts as hate speech and what doesn't, and laws rely on lines to be effective in a just society.
I've had more crashes on my OS X machine at work than I have with my Win 8 machine at home. I doubt that's representative of the general experience, but - for me - Windows has been more stable. I also really like the Win-# to switch to specific applications, and the snap to half size feature that Windows has. Small things, sure, and OS X has its own advantages, but there are some features Windows has that OS X doesn't.
Depictions of Muhammed are not necessarily an insult to Islam; only in some groups is it seen that way. Iran, for instance, has a long history of paintings of him. Moreover, even if it provokes outrage in those people, it's not designed to incite hatred or anger against them.
Germany specifically outlawed Nazi imagery, to the best of my knowledge, including satirical uses. In addition, even most satirists in Germany might be unlikely to use it, since it's still kind of a touchy subject there. Whether or not satire should be allowed is a different conversation (I personally think all the hate speech stuff is stupid, and satire is an excellent tool against bigots), but in France it is covered, while in Germany it isn't always.
I think it really depends on how those laws are worded; most, I think, cover insults to groups of people but not insults to specific individuals unless it's on the basis of their membership in a group. Something that is offensive because it targets a historical person may not fall under that law. Furthermore, satire is often exempted from censorship on those grounds.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, figuring out how to prevent them while not having a lot of bandwidth with which to look things up is a lot more difficult. But I suppose realizing that would have required you actually thinking about it.
I like how, instead of addressing the racism directly in the comment you bring in an unrelated politician and attack the AC for their supposed fascism.
I really dislike Trump, but that was definitely a reach.
Blocking those views will, especially in this case, just push people more towards them. If you're arguing against people who already think the EU is eroding national sovereignty (and that this is a bad thing), using the government to silence them is just going to make them more certain of their beliefs. If you want to change their minds, you have to actually have a dialogue, which you can't do while preventing them from talking.
But even in a situation that has little to no safety regulations, you're still free to live in a safely built property with a safe toaster, and you're free to only do business with people you're fairly sure won't screw you over. What you want is a guarantee that the house you live in and the toaster you buy are safe. Forcing others to conform to your standards (of safety or whatever else) is, of course, not freedom. It can be morally justified, but it's not freedom. Freedom isn't always good or moral.
I use neither the main app nor the messenger one because of the permissions. I'm not going to start now; FB messages can wait until I get to a non-phone computer.
I don't use their app or the messenger app because the list of permissions they want is hideous.
Islam is not a race. Being broadly anti-Muslim is bad, but not racism. Being critical of some parts of Islam (either how it's currently practiced in some areas, or some of its teachings) does not make you a racist either.
I think it's better than you're making it out to be. Decent cars (for most people's definition of decent) are certainly less than $50k, and cars overall today are safer and more fuel-efficient than cars in the '90s. College grads today can get starting offers of > $60k even without doing internships, depending on their major. You don't even necessarily need additional experience or certs, although those help. Electricians, plumbers, and welders all make good money and don't require an increasingly expensive college degree.
Really, a lot of it boils down to two things. One, technology and globalization are pushing First World economies to be more and more skill-based, and skills generally require education of some sort. Two, people are getting "educated", but are spending lots of money for a degree that isn't going to help them get a job. If you have that much money to waste, go for it, but why spend $200k on a degree where the average starting salary is maybe $40k? Too many people aren't preparing themselves well for the future.
Got a source for that?
Sad that a GoT quote was marked "Flamebait".
Actually, both right wing and left wing politics have been full of both delusion and hate. The term "Regressive Left" exists for a reason.
The price of water does not change the value of water.
Of course it does. Price, as a measure of supply and demand, is an excellent indicator of value. If water is scarce, it's price and value are both higher. If it's abundant, each unit of water has low price and value. Water overall certainly has value, but how much value each unit of water has is certainly a function of supply and demand.
No, value and price aren't fundamentally different. Something is worth what someone else will pay for it. Gold demand does fluctuate, and if it ever dropped significantly, gold's value would also drop. Gold is only valuable because people think it is.
All value is assigned by people. If people suddenly decide they don't want something as much as they used to, the value of that thing decreases. Asking "did the value actually exist in the first place" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of value. The company was worth that much because people were willing to pay that much to own pieces of it. Now they aren't, so the value has gone down.
On the contrary; freedom is meaningless without the freedom to fail. "Looking behind your back for the person who will inevitably bite you" isn't easy, fun, or particularly useful to society, but it is freedom. Again, you're arguing for some restrictions on freedom to increase safety, which can certainly be good, but that doesn't make it more free.
I'm not arguing that unadulterated freedom is good or bad. You want some freedom and some peace of mind, which in this case restricts the freedom of both yourself and others. In some circumstances, that's perfectly reasonable.
Why do you assume I'm American? Who brought America into this?
My idea of freedom is different than yours. To me, freedom is being able to buy anything offered on the market without having to be concerned it will kill me.
So, not freedom then. Freedom would be being able to buy anything you wanted on the market, including things that were dangerous. You want a mixture of freedom and safety, which is a reasonable stance to take, but it's hardly just freedom.
In the biomedical field, yes. Or at least, pretty close to.
I was not; however, the comment I replied to specifically referenced the OS X/Windows feature comparison, not Ubuntu.
Ah, I see. In that case, I think I agree with you. There's never a clear line between what counts as hate speech and what doesn't, and laws rely on lines to be effective in a just society.
I've had more crashes on my OS X machine at work than I have with my Win 8 machine at home. I doubt that's representative of the general experience, but - for me - Windows has been more stable. I also really like the Win-# to switch to specific applications, and the snap to half size feature that Windows has. Small things, sure, and OS X has its own advantages, but there are some features Windows has that OS X doesn't.
"Everyone with a different opinion is a shill: a child's guide to internet discussions"
Depictions of Muhammed are not necessarily an insult to Islam; only in some groups is it seen that way. Iran, for instance, has a long history of paintings of him. Moreover, even if it provokes outrage in those people, it's not designed to incite hatred or anger against them.
Germany specifically outlawed Nazi imagery, to the best of my knowledge, including satirical uses. In addition, even most satirists in Germany might be unlikely to use it, since it's still kind of a touchy subject there. Whether or not satire should be allowed is a different conversation (I personally think all the hate speech stuff is stupid, and satire is an excellent tool against bigots), but in France it is covered, while in Germany it isn't always.
I think it really depends on how those laws are worded; most, I think, cover insults to groups of people but not insults to specific individuals unless it's on the basis of their membership in a group. Something that is offensive because it targets a historical person may not fall under that law. Furthermore, satire is often exempted from censorship on those grounds.
Yeah, but because they're doing something the government likes, they wouldn't be called out for it.
You spelled "China" wrong.