Yes I do have the right to hang up the phone and effectively shut him up I'm sorry. I obviously was not clear enough when I said you don't have the right to shut him up. I meant deprive of freedom of speech. If you can do this simply by hanging up on someone, that's a neat trick. Personally when I close my eyes and plug my ears, people (and their rights) don't disappear. I see hanging up on someone not so much as silencing them as much as walking away from the conversation.
Demanding that we all mind our P's and Q's when he calls is rather, well, ridiculous! I agree that would be ridiculous. And I don't think thdexter is a ridiculous individual. Doing a search on this text, I found no instance of the word "demand." Therefore it seems to me thdexter has merely been requesting people not be verbally abusive to him and speak to him as civilly as they would want to be spoken to. Is that so much to ask? Apparently yes, for some.
Turning "should be" into rights when there are clear counter-rights is an exercise in futility Wow, I wish I had put it that eloquently when I was responding to this guy about his supposed right to not be bothered. Thank you.
Given that thdexter was unjustly marked Flamebait for his calm and rational response to your raging diatribe, I realize I am running a risk of being another victim of improper moderation. Nonetheless, I would like to also reply to your comment in a friendly manner if I may.
See, thing is, in this day and age of technology and computers and cellular phones, there is danger in possessing means with which people can contact you. Like some instant messenger setups (where only those on your buddy list can see your online presense and contact you), some folks have a telephone system that only accepts phone calls from those on a trusted list of numbers and/or individuals; all other calls are blocked or sent to a voicemail or automated response system. Given that many cell phones actually send people to voicemail when you hang up on them, some folks have a simpler system and just hang up on any number they don't recognize, figuring if the caller really has anything to say that the callee should hear, the caller will either leave a message or call from a recognized number.
Regarding your supposed right to not be bothered, the problem with this is how to enforce it. What constitutes being bothered? Is this thing that bothers you something that will bother everyone? This is one of the reasons why other real rights work- because they can be enforced. If someone tries to poll you on your political opinion, they may or may not annoy you. That "may not" part is what makes the "right to not be bothered" fit into a category I call "probably not a right." It may be something you strongly desire. I may strongly desire a pony, but I don't have a right to it. If I want it badly enough, I must take actions to get it, and in doing so I may have to forego other things I also want but want less. Likewise, if you want to not be bothered badly enough, you may have to forego some accessibility. I know it's a harsh reality. I feel like a heel having to tell you this, like the grown ups told me when I was a kid that a driver's license is not a right- that just doesn't seem correct, but it is the truth, hard as it may be to accept.
Another way of looking at this: If someone tries to kill anyone, they are in violation of that person's right to life. End of story. No questions asked. Black and white. But what if the person being killed asked to be killed, assisted suicide, or what if the person being killed is being killed for killing another? This gets into forfeited rights. You forfeit the right to freedom if you kill someone. Likewise, IF you have the right to not be contacted by a phone by someone looking to poll you, you give this right up when you take actions that give your number to those calling you, like people registering to vote with the option to give their number on their voter registration (which you'll see, if you read up, is how thdexter got his calling list).
Freedom of speech is given to everyone, and from my perspective, there are a lot more speakers than listeners. I really don't have time to listen to what each of my 300,000,000 fellow citizens has to say. Why do I waste my time? You won't even listen to me: communication with the politically active is strictly one-way. That's interesting- how do you define "politically active"? If you define it as a politician, then you should expect your representative to respond to you when you voice your opinion to him or her. (If said politician does not respond then he or she is a bad representative and you should vote accordingly). However, if you define politically active as I think you do- someone who engages in the exchange of political ideas- then what do you call this discussion here? I call it more than one-way.
And yet here you are engaging in a conversation with someone who doesn't want to talk to you. It seems to me that by replying to thdexter, the AC was making known that he did want to communicate to him, even if the idea he wanted to communicate was of how much AC didn't want to communicate with thdexter. Weird, no?
Fact: You have NO RIGHT to make me listen to you. That may be true. Another is the fact that you don't have the right to shut him up. You can ask him to shut up (as doing so is an example of speech), but he has the right to choose whether or not he will do as you ask. If he chooses not to, then it is up to you to either continue talking with him change or the channel, surf elsewhere, and don't answer the phone.
People don't like to be called randomly. Some people don't. Some really don't mind as much as you.
I notice thdexter doesn't supply his phone number That is hillarious. An ANONYMOUS COWARD -the mass of all who either don't bother to log in, or want to hide their identity- calling a logged individual out on not being forthcoming with his personal data that most (or all) folks don't share on slashdot. Comedy gold!
Funny how your freedom trumps my freedom to control my own phone. Explain how someone calling you robs you of your "freedom to control your phone." Does this freedom include the ability to not answer, or pick up and immediately hang up, or leaving the phone off the hook at hours when you can't be bothered with answering some simple questions? If so, how is parent using force to deprive you of this freedom?
And if you have political convictions you are required to receive annoying phone calls? No, it's optional. That's the beauty of freedom.
Nobody is talking about dissolving states' self-determination, only making individuals' votes count equally in national elections. Thus making mob rule easier.
Art is, at the very least, the use of skill and imagination in the creation of objects.[...]When one writes a program that produces pictures, the software may itself be art, but the pictures it produces are not.
Why is that? Why can't both the program and its output be seen as the result of a use of skill and imagination?
Use jet engines to cool servers?! Are you mad? Can you imagine how much this will ramp up global warming? Is it really worth it?... Yeah I guess so. Nevermind
I don't think you understand the way the prebate works. Your prebate does not have to go up with your S.O. loses their job because your S.O.'s tax liability does not change. This is what the prebate is based on - tax liability up to the poverty level.
It's not based on how many in your household have jobs, only how many are in your household. Yes this may require some agency to keep track of how many individuals there are in a household, but it would exclude keeping track of what the income is of these individuals, which frankly is none of any government's business.
And how will the goverment keep track of how many there are in a household? Sure maybe with SSN, but not necessarily. Could just as easily (maybe more easily) with some taxpayer ID (since Social Security is something you're supposed to get at retirement and the "IOU" number that associates you with it is a stupid identifier for paying taxes, just like it's a stupid identifier for all the other things that makes it so dangerous to have exposed).
Could this be a sign that we should switch to a form of taxation that doesn't require state and federal agencies to keep personal info on every American citizen?
For the past 100,000 years, earth has had a cycle of ice ages every 8,000 years. It's been about 8,500 years since our last one. That puts us about 500 years overdue for an ice age. Could be global warming has been helping to postpone disaster instead of bringing it on.
Brin told a small group of handpicked journalists selected because they wouldn't trash them for this bullshit decision: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to aid a communist country in their fight to squash any dissent of the people. Say, OK, let's not be hypocritcal asshats... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now. I mean, cmon, is anyone is gonna use Google any less because of this? Shyeah right!'
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I do have the right to hang up the phone and effectively shut him up
I'm sorry. I obviously was not clear enough when I said you don't have the right to shut him up. I meant deprive of freedom of speech. If you can do this simply by hanging up on someone, that's a neat trick. Personally when I close my eyes and plug my ears, people (and their rights) don't disappear. I see hanging up on someone not so much as silencing them as much as walking away from the conversation.
Demanding that we all mind our P's and Q's when he calls is rather, well, ridiculous!
I agree that would be ridiculous. And I don't think thdexter is a ridiculous individual. Doing a search on this text, I found no instance of the word "demand." Therefore it seems to me thdexter has merely been requesting people not be verbally abusive to him and speak to him as civilly as they would want to be spoken to. Is that so much to ask? Apparently yes, for some.
Turning "should be" into rights when there are clear counter-rights is an exercise in futility
Wow, I wish I had put it that eloquently when I was responding to this guy about his supposed right to not be bothered. Thank you.
Given that thdexter was unjustly marked Flamebait for his calm and rational response to your raging diatribe, I realize I am running a risk of being another victim of improper moderation. Nonetheless, I would like to also reply to your comment in a friendly manner if I may.
See, thing is, in this day and age of technology and computers and cellular phones, there is danger in possessing means with which people can contact you. Like some instant messenger setups (where only those on your buddy list can see your online presense and contact you), some folks have a telephone system that only accepts phone calls from those on a trusted list of numbers and/or individuals; all other calls are blocked or sent to a voicemail or automated response system. Given that many cell phones actually send people to voicemail when you hang up on them, some folks have a simpler system and just hang up on any number they don't recognize, figuring if the caller really has anything to say that the callee should hear, the caller will either leave a message or call from a recognized number.
Regarding your supposed right to not be bothered, the problem with this is how to enforce it. What constitutes being bothered? Is this thing that bothers you something that will bother everyone? This is one of the reasons why other real rights work- because they can be enforced. If someone tries to poll you on your political opinion, they may or may not annoy you. That "may not" part is what makes the "right to not be bothered" fit into a category I call "probably not a right." It may be something you strongly desire. I may strongly desire a pony, but I don't have a right to it. If I want it badly enough, I must take actions to get it, and in doing so I may have to forego other things I also want but want less. Likewise, if you want to not be bothered badly enough, you may have to forego some accessibility. I know it's a harsh reality. I feel like a heel having to tell you this, like the grown ups told me when I was a kid that a driver's license is not a right- that just doesn't seem correct, but it is the truth, hard as it may be to accept.
Another way of looking at this: If someone tries to kill anyone, they are in violation of that person's right to life. End of story. No questions asked. Black and white. But what if the person being killed asked to be killed, assisted suicide, or what if the person being killed is being killed for killing another? This gets into forfeited rights. You forfeit the right to freedom if you kill someone. Likewise, IF you have the right to not be contacted by a phone by someone looking to poll you, you give this right up when you take actions that give your number to those calling you, like people registering to vote with the option to give their number on their voter registration (which you'll see, if you read up, is how thdexter got his calling list).
Freedom of speech is given to everyone, and from my perspective, there are a lot more speakers than listeners. I really don't have time to listen to what each of my 300,000,000 fellow citizens has to say. Why do I waste my time? You won't even listen to me: communication with the politically active is strictly one-way.
That's interesting- how do you define "politically active"? If you define it as a politician, then you should expect your representative to respond to you when you voice your opinion to him or her. (If said politician does not respond then he or she is a bad representative and you should vote accordingly). However, if you define politically active as I think you do- someone who engages in the exchange of political ideas- then what do you call this discussion here? I call it more than one-way.
And yet here you are engaging in a conversation with someone who doesn't want to talk to you.
It seems to me that by replying to thdexter, the AC was making known that he did want to communicate to him, even if the idea he wanted to communicate was of how much AC didn't want to communicate with thdexter. Weird, no?
Fact: You have NO RIGHT to make me listen to you.
That may be true. Another is the fact that you don't have the right to shut him up. You can ask him to shut up (as doing so is an example of speech), but he has the right to choose whether or not he will do as you ask. If he chooses not to, then it is up to you to either continue talking with him change or the channel, surf elsewhere, and don't answer the phone.
People don't like to be called randomly.
Some people don't. Some really don't mind as much as you.
I notice thdexter doesn't supply his phone number
That is hillarious. An ANONYMOUS COWARD -the mass of all who either don't bother to log in, or want to hide their identity- calling a logged individual out on not being forthcoming with his personal data that most (or all) folks don't share on slashdot. Comedy gold!
Funny how your freedom trumps my freedom to control my own phone.
Explain how someone calling you robs you of your "freedom to control your phone." Does this freedom include the ability to not answer, or pick up and immediately hang up, or leaving the phone off the hook at hours when you can't be bothered with answering some simple questions? If so, how is parent using force to deprive you of this freedom?
And if you have political convictions you are required to receive annoying phone calls?
No, it's optional. That's the beauty of freedom.
Depends on what your definition of "definition" is.
Recommended reading
Nobody is talking about dissolving states' self-determination, only making individuals' votes count equally in national elections.
Thus making mob rule easier.
Recommended reading
This is a fantastic idea which seems to have the ability to cut down on red tape
You misspelt "a barrier to mob rule"
Recommended reading
Today's "How To" of the Day
Both are valid
Art is, at the very least, the use of skill and imagination in the creation of objects.[...]When one writes a program that produces pictures, the software may itself be art, but the pictures it produces are not.
Why is that? Why can't both the program and its output be seen as the result of a use of skill and imagination?
Yeah, what we oughta have more of is pay-for-need. That should cut down on CEOs abusing the system.
Are you seriously suggesting that voting for a 3rd party isn't throwing my vote away?! Unpossible!
I have found irrefutable proof of global warming!
Use jet engines to cool servers?! Are you mad? Can you imagine how much this will ramp up global warming? Is it really worth it?... Yeah I guess so. Nevermind
I don't think you understand the way the prebate works. Your prebate does not have to go up with your S.O. loses their job because your S.O.'s tax liability does not change. This is what the prebate is based on - tax liability up to the poverty level.
It's not based on how many in your household have jobs, only how many are in your household. Yes this may require some agency to keep track of how many individuals there are in a household, but it would exclude keeping track of what the income is of these individuals, which frankly is none of any government's business.
And how will the goverment keep track of how many there are in a household? Sure maybe with SSN, but not necessarily. Could just as easily (maybe more easily) with some taxpayer ID (since Social Security is something you're supposed to get at retirement and the "IOU" number that associates you with it is a stupid identifier for paying taxes, just like it's a stupid identifier for all the other things that makes it so dangerous to have exposed).
I'm very perplexed by what you're saying- why would prebate level need to be adjusted in the case of a job loss?
And how do higher taxes result from not providing financial info?
Could this be a sign that we should switch to a form of taxation that doesn't require state and federal agencies to keep personal info on every American citizen?
5. Using a system of taxation that requires personal information on every tax payer, instead of one that doesn't
Hey, maybe we should switch to a form of taxation that doesn't require state and federal agencies to keep personal info on every American citizen
For the past 100,000 years, earth has had a cycle of ice ages every 8,000 years. It's been about 8,500 years since our last one. That puts us about 500 years overdue for an ice age. Could be global warming has been helping to postpone disaster instead of bringing it on.
this
Brin told a small group of handpicked journalists selected because they wouldn't trash them for this bullshit decision: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to aid a communist country in their fight to squash any dissent of the people. Say, OK, let's not be hypocritcal asshats... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now. I mean, cmon, is anyone is gonna use Google any less because of this? Shyeah right!'