However, these bullies themselves are, in my experience, usually screwed up pretty badly. Deep-rooted inferiority complex, insecurities, a fear of smart people, frustration over their inability to do anything decent....this is what leads them to pick on kids (ok, those factors and bigger muscles). Maybe its those kids that need more help from people????
I'll concede that it's a bit more complicated than shipping them off to some type of "boot camp" environment (though the latter should be there as a last resort if all else fails).
/.
I do not think it means what you think it means...
on
Sean In The Middle
·
· Score: 1
These were the same tormentors, backstabbers, and generally mean people.... Then, I put my own prejudices aside, and accepted them.
What you put aside was not a prejudice (an attitude formed without examining any evidence), but a judgment (a determination based on someone's observed behavior). Putting aside a prejudice is commendable, putting aside a judgment is irrational (unless the judgment is undermined by contradictory logic and evidence).
This confusion is what leads to things like linuxrunner's story about the goth gang that spun some BS about "discrimination becuase of looks" when the issue was in fact discrimination because of misconduct. /.
Where is the answer to be found, then? To banish bullies
Well, yes. Every functional society banishes people who engage in assault, theft, vandalism, etc.
To develop an alternate educational system catering only to the geek, the meek and the ones who do not speak?
It would probably be more effective to develop (or, more precisely, to use the already-developed) alternative educational system for people who need a clue-by-four to convey the message that certain minimal standards of civilized behavior are required.
/.
Why are we suing a real company with a real product and real customers who probably shouldn't have sent out an unsolicited mail, but are far from being the real bad guys?
Because an essential part of holding the line is to make damn sure that spam remains limited to obvious scammers and sleazeballs. If even 1% of reputable businesses get the idea that it's OK to buy the $99 CD of Spew-O-Matic software and ten million e-mail addresses, then you can stick a fork in e-mail as a useful communications medium. /.
If you perceive this as a problem, you should be thrilled at the advent of a system that effectively requires advertisers to create ads that people will voluntarily watch. /.
For an event to be moral, it must be able to be universally applied. In otherwords, if everyone did it, things would be okay. From this arguement, suicide is immoral, because universal suicide means no humans.
From this argument, celibacy is immoral, because universal celibacy means no humans.
With these devices, advertising revenue WILL drop (less people watching, etc.).
Non sequitur. Advertisers would simply find it necessary to create ads that people actually want to watch (because they provide useful information, or are entertaining in their own right).
This will lessen the quantity of quality programming provided by the networks.
Nah... too easy.
Watch your favorite high-brow show (Frasier?) and look at the advertisements. Then watch the XFL or Wrestling, look at the advertisements.
If your argument were correct, the latter would already be unable to attract advertisers. The fact that it does indicates that, even in a world where everybody from middle class on up routinely zaps out commercials, a niche for advertising-supported programming will remain.
/.
Re:Would we know it if we saw it?
on
Explaining SETI
·
· Score: 2
I guarantee that in the next 1000-5000 years, we will launch multi-generational space ships to colonize other planets.
The main gap in the argument is the assumption that the travelers do, in fact, colonize other planets. Given the technology to maintain a self-contained habitat for generations, building a few more out of a few stray asteroids is more efficient, and closer to the lifestyle to which the travelers have become accustomed, than colonizing a planet. /.
I think this did happen once, although I don't know if it was a spy plane or a different kind of Soviet plane. Anyway, they demanded their plane back... Thing is, though, we didn't demand bogus apologies from the Russians or hold their pilots hostage.
If you're referring to this incident, there was no issue of holding the pilot hostage -- he was defecting, not being forced down. /.
In U.S. culture apology is an admission of wrongdoing to some extent but in chinese culture it is more of a polite formality in case of a mishappening.
If it were a simple cultural difference, the Chinese could have defused the problem by simply replying "Apology accepted" to the official US expressions of regret. In fact, that would have been the smart play; it would be awkward for the US government to say that it had not, in fact, issued an apology once the Chinese put that label on it.
The fact that they chose not to do so demonstrates that they want a dick-measuring contest or a propaganda chip. /.
Apparently these folks don't believe that freedom includes rights to free speech.
This is the same nonsense that spammers use to justify themselves. No, freedom does not include rights to "free speech" that use other people's property without permission.
However, it is ironic that these folks couldn't themselves find more credible ways to monitor and moderate their own property.
They did -- they warned him that he was breaking the rules, and when he continued they told him to get lost. He sneaked back anyway under aliases, and got caught at it. If you warn off a repeated tresspasser and he keeps returning in disguise, wouldn't you eventually call the police? /.
Er, are you going to get around to addressing the issue raised, which is that either the audio media surcharge pays for the right to record on it (in which case there's no problem with people downloading to record onto it) or else it doesn't (in which case there is no justification for collecting it, and it should be abolished)? /.
An earth sized satellite, moving in orbit around the gas giant, would be perpetual darkness for half of the orbit around the planet, while in perpetual full daylight for the other half of its orbit around the giant
The side of the satellite facing the planet (it would almost certainly be in a 1:1 tidal lock) would be eclipsed for part of the day (which would also be its orbital period around the giant -- probably in the range of a few Earth days). The exact fraction of the day depends on the radius of the planet relative to the orbit radius of the satellite, but it would be relatively small, because Roche's Limit sets a minimum ratio (about 2.5:1, IIRC) between the two radii.
The side of the satellite away from the planet would have a normal day/night cycle.
Lets not forget ejections from a possibily volatile gas-giant
Ejections all the way to orbit against the gravity of a gas giant? Powered by what?
the amount of space crap that would bombard a planet(and the moons, which we would be looking to inhabit)of that size
This is a likely problem; a gas giant would tend to sweep in space junk.
However, for professional aesthetes such as myself, it would be worth any risk--for the part of the satellite's orbit where the lighted side of the planet would be facing it--to watch planet-rise! But that's assuming that the satellite has a revolution as well as an orbit, and that might not be the case(look at OUR moon).
As noted above, the satellite would almost certainly be tidally locked, so the planet would stay put in the sky. /.
Re:Gee, I guess you don't agree with his views
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 2
but you shouldn't dismiss Sunstein so quickly
How quickly or slowly one dismisses Sunstein depends on how rapidly you dissect his arguments, but dismissal is the inevitable end result of thinking the matter through.
To note but one obvious flaw in Sunstein's notions, a left-wing government given the power to mandate "opposing view" links would approve a left-wing site directing people to neo-Nazi pages as examples of conservative thought, but would hardly permit right-wing sites to smear the left with similar links to revolutionary communist sites. (Of course, a right-wing government would do just the reverse.)
/.
Deja Vu All Over Again
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
As for the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" defense for limiting speech
How many people realize that this sound bite originated as a lame rationalization?
The case in question, Schenck v. United States, arose from the prosecution of Schenck for distributing anti-draft leaflets in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. The analogy between peaceful distribution of literature and causing a panic with a false fire alarm is dubious, to say the least. Less generously (but more accurately), the analogy is an intellectually dishonest evasion of the Constitution.
/.
No one can rationally claim that a particular movie, video game or website "made" them commit a particular crime. But that doesn't mean that we can't assess the contributory impact of such media on crime.
You can "assess" until the cows come home. What is forbidden is government action, outside a limited range of incitement to imminent lawless activity which the court found not to be present in this case.
Blurring the distinctions between "X is bad", "The government has the authority to suppress X", and "The government should in fact suppress X" is a common from of sloppy thinking (when done accidentally) or propaganda (when done deliberately). /.
If "Old West-style wanted posters" aren't to be classified as threats
It's well established that, for example, an "Old West style wanted poster" with a picture of Bill Clinton declaring him to be wanted for Perjury, Sexual Assault, Accepting Bribes, etc (or, if you prefer, with a picture of Dubya Bush declaring him to be wanted for Election Fraud) is protected political speech. The intent is clearly to denounce the target as a "crook"; and denoucing politicians as crooks is a venerable tradition.
It does get a bit greyer when the subjects are not public figures. IMO, a good civil case for harassment, at least, could be made. /.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll concede that it's a bit more complicated than shipping them off to some type of "boot camp" environment (though the latter should be there as a last resort if all else fails).
/.
What you put aside was not a prejudice (an attitude formed without examining any evidence), but a judgment (a determination based on someone's observed behavior). Putting aside a prejudice is commendable, putting aside a judgment is irrational (unless the judgment is undermined by contradictory logic and evidence).
This confusion is what leads to things like linuxrunner's story about the goth gang that spun some BS about "discrimination becuase of looks" when the issue was in fact discrimination because of misconduct.
/.
Well, yes. Every functional society banishes people who engage in assault, theft, vandalism, etc.
To develop an alternate educational system catering only to the geek, the meek and the ones who do not speak?
It would probably be more effective to develop (or, more precisely, to use the already-developed) alternative educational system for people who need a clue-by-four to convey the message that certain minimal standards of civilized behavior are required.
/.
...how can you repeatedly call the 1-800-SPAMMER numbers that show up in your e-mail?
/.
Actually, I thought the aim was to rebuke the government for asking about matters that are none if its business.
/.
Because an essential part of holding the line is to make damn sure that spam remains limited to obvious scammers and sleazeballs. If even 1% of reputable businesses get the idea that it's OK to buy the $99 CD of Spew-O-Matic software and ten million e-mail addresses, then you can stick a fork in e-mail as a useful communications medium.
/.
If you perceive this as a problem, you should be thrilled at the advent of a system that effectively requires advertisers to create ads that people will voluntarily watch.
/.
From this argument, celibacy is immoral, because universal celibacy means no humans.
With these devices, advertising revenue WILL drop (less people watching, etc.).
Non sequitur. Advertisers would simply find it necessary to create ads that people actually want to watch (because they provide useful information, or are entertaining in their own right).
This will lessen the quantity of quality programming provided by the networks.
Nah... too easy.
Watch your favorite high-brow show (Frasier?) and look at the advertisements. Then watch the XFL or Wrestling, look at the advertisements.
If your argument were correct, the latter would already be unable to attract advertisers. The fact that it does indicates that, even in a world where everybody from middle class on up routinely zaps out commercials, a niche for advertising-supported programming will remain.
/.
The main gap in the argument is the assumption that the travelers do, in fact, colonize other planets. Given the technology to maintain a self-contained habitat for generations, building a few more out of a few stray asteroids is more efficient, and closer to the lifestyle to which the travelers have become accustomed, than colonizing a planet.
/.
HAR-COURT! Harcourt Fenton Mudd, you've been over eating again and drinking....
/.
Thanks for the confession, thief.
/.
If you're referring to this incident, there was no issue of holding the pilot hostage -- he was defecting, not being forced down.
/.
If it were a simple cultural difference, the Chinese could have defused the problem by simply replying "Apology accepted" to the official US expressions of regret. In fact, that would have been the smart play; it would be awkward for the US government to say that it had not, in fact, issued an apology once the Chinese put that label on it.
The fact that they chose not to do so demonstrates that they want a dick-measuring contest or a propaganda chip.
/.
I suppose you also think that Jonathan Swift was literally advocating cannibalism with his Modest Proposal...
/.
This is the same nonsense that spammers use to justify themselves. No, freedom does not include rights to "free speech" that use other people's property without permission.
However, it is ironic that these folks couldn't themselves find more credible ways to monitor and moderate their own property.
They did -- they warned him that he was breaking the rules, and when he continued they told him to get lost. He sneaked back anyway under aliases, and got caught at it. If you warn off a repeated tresspasser and he keeps returning in disguise, wouldn't you eventually call the police?
/.
You owe me a new needle for my irony meter.
/.
Er, are you going to get around to addressing the issue raised, which is that either the audio media surcharge pays for the right to record on it (in which case there's no problem with people downloading to record onto it) or else it doesn't (in which case there is no justification for collecting it, and it should be abolished)?
/.
The side of the satellite facing the planet (it would almost certainly be in a 1:1 tidal lock) would be eclipsed for part of the day (which would also be its orbital period around the giant -- probably in the range of a few Earth days). The exact fraction of the day depends on the radius of the planet relative to the orbit radius of the satellite, but it would be relatively small, because Roche's Limit sets a minimum ratio (about 2.5:1, IIRC) between the two radii.
The side of the satellite away from the planet would have a normal day/night cycle.
Lets not forget ejections from a possibily volatile gas-giant
Ejections all the way to orbit against the gravity of a gas giant? Powered by what?
the amount of space crap that would bombard a planet(and the moons, which we would be looking to inhabit)of that size
This is a likely problem; a gas giant would tend to sweep in space junk.
However, for professional aesthetes such as myself, it would be worth any risk--for the part of the satellite's orbit where the lighted side of the planet would be facing it--to watch planet-rise! But that's assuming that the satellite has a revolution as well as an orbit, and that might not be the case(look at OUR moon). As noted above, the satellite would almost certainly be tidally locked, so the planet would stay put in the sky.
/.
How quickly or slowly one dismisses Sunstein depends on how rapidly you dissect his arguments, but dismissal is the inevitable end result of thinking the matter through.
To note but one obvious flaw in Sunstein's notions, a left-wing government given the power to mandate "opposing view" links would approve a left-wing site directing people to neo-Nazi pages as examples of conservative thought, but would hardly permit right-wing sites to smear the left with similar links to revolutionary communist sites. (Of course, a right-wing government would do just the reverse.)
/.
Moderate article: -1, Redundant, see last week's article on the same subject.
/.
Bloatware is an "innovation"?
/.
It still wouldn't help; people who snapped would simply burn down the school instead. What then -- ban gasoline?
/.
How many people realize that this sound bite originated as a lame rationalization?
The case in question, Schenck v. United States, arose from the prosecution of Schenck for distributing anti-draft leaflets in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. The analogy between peaceful distribution of literature and causing a panic with a false fire alarm is dubious, to say the least. Less generously (but more accurately), the analogy is an intellectually dishonest evasion of the Constitution.
/.
You can "assess" until the cows come home. What is forbidden is government action, outside a limited range of incitement to imminent lawless activity which the court found not to be present in this case.
Blurring the distinctions between "X is bad", "The government has the authority to suppress X", and "The government should in fact suppress X" is a common from of sloppy thinking (when done accidentally) or propaganda (when done deliberately).
/.
It's well established that, for example, an "Old West style wanted poster" with a picture of Bill Clinton declaring him to be wanted for Perjury, Sexual Assault, Accepting Bribes, etc (or, if you prefer, with a picture of Dubya Bush declaring him to be wanted for Election Fraud) is protected political speech. The intent is clearly to denounce the target as a "crook"; and denoucing politicians as crooks is a venerable tradition.
It does get a bit greyer when the subjects are not public figures. IMO, a good civil case for harassment, at least, could be made.
/.