Why would you want to live in a place where someone could stand outside your door and hurl abuse day and night for weeks on end without any consequences
I have no problem with that.
I'd say you're dillusional, have no idea what you're talking about, and are liar and/or a troll..
You expect me to believe have no issue if your boss walked up to you every day and just spouted abuse, introduced you to your colleagues as an idiot with syphillis, referred to your wife/mother/girlfriend in all manner of demeaning terms, spread lies and gossip about you. Meanwhile your neighbour keeps you up by singing insults at you day and night at the top of his lungs, tells anyone that comes to your house all manner of lies about you - that you're a child molester, have relations with animals, have all kinds of diseases.
Freedom of speech *does* mean the freedom to say whatever you want.
Beside that, I don't really have a problem with the law of the jungle. To the contrary, it obliges me to stay sharp. When I'll weaken, I'll die (or be killed), and it will be the right way of things.
Freedom can exist within reasonable limits. I don't consider myself to be some sort of slave because I'm not allowed to go out and murder anyone I don't like.
In any case I think you're just trolling because I don't believe anyone is that stupid. Law of the jungle is a law of averages. Strength is a pre-requisit for survival not a guarantee. You'll die when the dice roll wrong for you. It doesn't keep you sharp. It means that you and those you love will be killed, robbed or mamed without any kind of recourse. It means everything you buy is likely to be dangerous to use. It means anyone could come into your home and throw you out unless you're willing to put your life on the line to defend it. People who claim the law of the jungle is fine are just mad.
Oh, I see. So if someone is offended by something, it should not be protected, even though the first amendment explicitly states that it protects all speech?
The first amendment is to the US constitution, it is not universal. And it does not protect all speech as you claim. It certainly won't work as a defence for someone who's stalking, abusing, misusing their authority in the work place, discriminating on race, colour, creed etc. You seem to forget that the whole purpose of the American constitution was to protect the citizens from harassment and provide them with a framework of freedom to do well and prosper. It as not set up so that people could do whatever the bloody hell they like. People died for those documents you bandy about so childishly.
What if someone is offended by the fact that I said that I don't like their god? They are as offended as if I insulted them personally, so they interpret this as a verbal assault.
There is a distinct difference between holding a belief and stating it in a public forum, and going to someone's house and yelling your belief at them or abusing them for their beliefs. The first would be protected. The second would not.
They, in reality, are the cause of their own misery. They need not be offended by such things, as far as I know, and it is not my fault if they are. The constitution doesn't say you can do whatever you please without consequence, but it does give you some freedoms, and one of those happens to be saying what you want without consequence, despite what our government says.
If you go out of your way to insult them and that is your only goal it is your fault if they are offended. If you give an opinion in a public forum with some degree of decorum it s not.
You are deeply misguided about what freedom of speech means if you think you can say "what you want without consequence". Such a society would be absolutely unlivable. You and the people you care about would be harassed and hounded mercilessly without any recourse. You'd have no recourse for verbal abuse in the workplace or in the community. Freedom without consequences is an unworkable idea. Freedom brings with it responsibility and consequences, and this is a good and necessary thing.
Second, you can't tell the difference between a troll and a logical discussion either. You've failed to actually come up with any valid counter-arguments, and instead resorted to name calling. No wonder you wish to protect this kind of behaviour - you're incapable of anything else. PATHETIC!
Perhaps, but a restriction upon free speech still is one. I am not necessarily saying it is wrong necessarily to have a law restricting it, but that it is wrong to lie about your intentions. Redefining free speech to not include what you dislike is dishonest and despicable.
If you're going to be pedantic his speech was not restricted AT ALL. He was allowed to say what he said. He simply faced the consequences of saying it after the fact. I find it humorous that you call me dishonest and despicable but defend a bloke who goes around handing out racist and sexist demeaning flyers about women. Basically I think you have your values very twisted.
Or a person who actually knows where this kind of thinking leads. Not long ago did we have committees to determine if you were a communist. It isn't immature to know that such a travesty is only a few "well intentioned" laws away from returning, especially with the constant assault on our freedoms from every angle. Neither political party cares about them, and people like you are too clueless to realize when they are at risk.
You're a fool. You can't tell the difference between giving an opinion on an ideology and an immature abusive idiot. You seem to think it's impossible to defend one and restrict the other. You've presented no evidence of this. You just think that people should be permitted to do and say whatever they feel like regardless of the damage they do. You've totally missed the irony of condemning Mcarthyism while condoning persecution by this immature highschooler.
Do you people have like a book you get this crap out of? People thinking that statement is an argument for why they can pick and choose what certain freedoms mean is way too common, especially here on slashdot.
Yet you don't have a retort. It is perfectly valid and a very clear example that you should not be permitted to yell "Fire" in the middle of a movie theatre and cause a stampede that has the potential to kill and mame. Since you've got no decent logical answer you've chosen ad hominem and straw men instead. When you're ready to actually respond to the point I've made, let me know!
We've never had free speech in the US and probably never will, as long as people can make excuses to suppress it like "national security," "cyber bullying," and "copyright." So, how could anything be a threat to what we haven't got?
Why would you want to live in a place where someone could stand outside your door and hurl abuse day and night for weeks on end without any consequences?
Freedom does not mean the freedom to do whatever you like. If your actions harm others - whether it's as destructive as murder or as simple as a limited verbal assault, they should not be protected. That's not the kind of freedom I want. That's called the law of the jungle.
"Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs."
It only protects speech you like, right? Sorry, there is no free speech if it comes with strings attached. I might disagree with what they say - even find it sickening - but it is their right to say it, and not yours to say otherwise. Why? Redefining "free" to be only what you want is more despicable than anything a person could say.
Fine, then you'd have no problem with people standing outside your house and yelling abuse at you day and night for weeks or months on end??? Because it's free speech right. You wouldn't bring noise pollution laws, or harassment laws to bear? No you'd defend them to the death. NONSENSE.
When's the last time you or someone you cared about was harassed to the point of being suicidal? If you have children are they fair game? Would you be fine if your children were disabled or mentally impaired? What if your wife/girlfriend/mother was on anti-depressant pills and suicidal?
People talk such NONSENSE and BUNK when it comes to free speech. No one decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible. There is a reason that these things are illegal. There are reasons for harassment and stalking laws. These are good things even if they violate your overly broad view of what free speech means.
But hey sandlotters, continue to mod this drivel up!!! Because slashdot has come to mod up only mindless groupthink drivel. (The irony is these defenders of free speech will mod me down!!!!)
The right to protest is a different issue. However I think you'll find that anyone can sue you for defamation and libel, and that there are anti-discrimination laws - civil and criminal that if applied would prevent you from making slurs such as the ones you cite. That these are no enforced in particular circumstances doesn't mean it's sanctioned or permitted by law.
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs.
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't and it does not matter how many times you repeat the fallacy. Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
Only here would someone trying to defend abuse as free speech get modded up. Walking around town handing out flyers that racially and sexually slur all the girls in your former highschool should not be protected by free speech. There's no idea here to suppress. No lie or cover up. THis guy is just being an abusive idiot. Having an opinion on something and presenting that opinion is one thing. Whilstle blowing is one thingr. Outright abuse is another. Only an immature twit can't tell the difference.
Being permitted to say something does not protect you from the consequences of saying it. The typical example is yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre. That's illegal and I'm fine with that, not because I don't like free speech or only like some free speech, but because acting to harm others should be against the law.
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs. It's good to see existing laws used instead of making up new ones just for the net On the other hand the response is a little over the top. So let me guess, the police chief's niece was on the list or something?
The real problem is that methodologies are followed, taught and practiced like religion instead of science. A new buzzword or buzzphrase and a new way of doing things will never substitute for thinking through whether what you're doing is actually working to attain the goal you've set out. Unit tests for example are brilliant when the developer gets control and is honest about using them. This almost never happens in practice. In practice unit test coverage becomes some bureaucratic check box to tick. What's worse is that there are dozens of industry expert consultancies wanting to sell you their own particular brand of excrement which may have some merit but the way it's sold - as a fix all for everything - will never be anything but a pile of poo.
Everyone says that they would go nuts but other people would be fine. It's ridiculous. It's not really a cultural issue at all, and it is only partly tied to how much stuff you have or how materialistic you are. We're animals and we're not happy when caged.
You're impressed that a person can live in a giant live in cupboard? Really? I think after a very short time I'd be looking for a padded cell. Maybe he could incorporate that too.
Where is the space to store stuff? Or work bench or gadget room? They'd all be crushed.
You've just described one main reason I don't bother with online systems and accounts. Fancy words and phrases that boil down to fooling your customers out of their money and giving them nothing in return. And what happens if the company goes bust? You become an unsecured creditor and get nothing back for your money at all. All the game companies can stick their games points up their arses and spin. FUCK OFF Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple and Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you want to live in a place where someone could stand outside your door and hurl abuse day and night for weeks on end without any consequences
I have no problem with that.
I'd say you're dillusional, have no idea what you're talking about, and are liar and/or a troll..
You expect me to believe have no issue if your boss walked up to you every day and just spouted abuse, introduced you to your colleagues as an idiot with syphillis, referred to your wife/mother/girlfriend in all manner of demeaning terms, spread lies and gossip about you. Meanwhile your neighbour keeps you up by singing insults at you day and night at the top of his lungs, tells anyone that comes to your house all manner of lies about you - that you're a child molester, have relations with animals, have all kinds of diseases.
Freedom of speech *does* mean the freedom to say whatever you want.
Beside that, I don't really have a problem with the law of the jungle. To the contrary, it obliges me to stay sharp. When I'll weaken, I'll die (or be killed), and it will be the right way of things.
Freedom can exist within reasonable limits. I don't consider myself to be some sort of slave because I'm not allowed to go out and murder anyone I don't like.
In any case I think you're just trolling because I don't believe anyone is that stupid. Law of the jungle is a law of averages. Strength is a pre-requisit for survival not a guarantee. You'll die when the dice roll wrong for you. It doesn't keep you sharp. It means that you and those you love will be killed, robbed or mamed without any kind of recourse. It means everything you buy is likely to be dangerous to use. It means anyone could come into your home and throw you out unless you're willing to put your life on the line to defend it. People who claim the law of the jungle is fine are just mad.
or as simple as a limited verbal assault
Oh, I see. So if someone is offended by something, it should not be protected, even though the first amendment explicitly states that it protects all speech?
The first amendment is to the US constitution, it is not universal. And it does not protect all speech as you claim. It certainly won't work as a defence for someone who's stalking, abusing, misusing their authority in the work place, discriminating on race, colour, creed etc. You seem to forget that the whole purpose of the American constitution was to protect the citizens from harassment and provide them with a framework of freedom to do well and prosper. It as not set up so that people could do whatever the bloody hell they like. People died for those documents you bandy about so childishly.
What if someone is offended by the fact that I said that I don't like their god? They are as offended as if I insulted them personally, so they interpret this as a verbal assault.
There is a distinct difference between holding a belief and stating it in a public forum, and going to someone's house and yelling your belief at them or abusing them for their beliefs. The first would be protected. The second would not.
They, in reality, are the cause of their own misery. They need not be offended by such things, as far as I know, and it is not my fault if they are. The constitution doesn't say you can do whatever you please without consequence, but it does give you some freedoms, and one of those happens to be saying what you want without consequence, despite what our government says.
If you go out of your way to insult them and that is your only goal it is your fault if they are offended. If you give an opinion in a public forum with some degree of decorum it s not.
You are deeply misguided about what freedom of speech means if you think you can say "what you want without consequence". Such a society would be absolutely unlivable. You and the people you care about would be harassed and hounded mercilessly without any recourse. You'd have no recourse for verbal abuse in the workplace or in the community. Freedom without consequences is an unworkable idea. Freedom brings with it responsibility and consequences, and this is a good and necessary thing.
First, why reply as AC? Childish.
Second, you can't tell the difference between a troll and a logical discussion either. You've failed to actually come up with any valid counter-arguments, and instead resorted to name calling. No wonder you wish to protect this kind of behaviour - you're incapable of anything else. PATHETIC!
"THis guy is just being an abusive idiot."
Perhaps, but a restriction upon free speech still is one. I am not necessarily saying it is wrong necessarily to have a law restricting it, but that it is wrong to lie about your intentions. Redefining free speech to not include what you dislike is dishonest and despicable.
If you're going to be pedantic his speech was not restricted AT ALL. He was allowed to say what he said. He simply faced the consequences of saying it after the fact. I find it humorous that you call me dishonest and despicable but defend a bloke who goes around handing out racist and sexist demeaning flyers about women. Basically I think you have your values very twisted.
Or a person who actually knows where this kind of thinking leads. Not long ago did we have committees to determine if you were a communist. It isn't immature to know that such a travesty is only a few "well intentioned" laws away from returning, especially with the constant assault on our freedoms from every angle. Neither political party cares about them, and people like you are too clueless to realize when they are at risk.
You're a fool. You can't tell the difference between giving an opinion on an ideology and an immature abusive idiot. You seem to think it's impossible to defend one and restrict the other. You've presented no evidence of this. You just think that people should be permitted to do and say whatever they feel like regardless of the damage they do. You've totally missed the irony of condemning Mcarthyism while condoning persecution by this immature highschooler.
Do you people have like a book you get this crap out of? People thinking that statement is an argument for why they can pick and choose what certain freedoms mean is way too common, especially here on slashdot.
Yet you don't have a retort. It is perfectly valid and a very clear example that you should not be permitted to yell "Fire" in the middle of a movie theatre and cause a stampede that has the potential to kill and mame. Since you've got no decent logical answer you've chosen ad hominem and straw men instead. When you're ready to actually respond to the point I've made, let me know!
Maybe your sis needs to toughen up a bit...
Maybe his sister doesn't deserve the abuse, and maybe abusing people shouldn't be protected as free speech!
We've never had free speech in the US and probably never will, as long as people can make excuses to suppress it like "national security," "cyber bullying," and "copyright." So, how could anything be a threat to what we haven't got?
Why would you want to live in a place where someone could stand outside your door and hurl abuse day and night for weeks on end without any consequences?
Freedom does not mean the freedom to do whatever you like. If your actions harm others - whether it's as destructive as murder or as simple as a limited verbal assault, they should not be protected. That's not the kind of freedom I want. That's called the law of the jungle.
"Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs."
It only protects speech you like, right? Sorry, there is no free speech if it comes with strings attached. I might disagree with what they say - even find it sickening - but it is their right to say it, and not yours to say otherwise. Why? Redefining "free" to be only what you want is more despicable than anything a person could say.
Fine, then you'd have no problem with people standing outside your house and yelling abuse at you day and night for weeks or months on end??? Because it's free speech right. You wouldn't bring noise pollution laws, or harassment laws to bear? No you'd defend them to the death. NONSENSE.
When's the last time you or someone you cared about was harassed to the point of being suicidal? If you have children are they fair game? Would you be fine if your children were disabled or mentally impaired? What if your wife/girlfriend/mother was on anti-depressant pills and suicidal?
People talk such NONSENSE and BUNK when it comes to free speech. No one decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible. There is a reason that these things are illegal. There are reasons for harassment and stalking laws. These are good things even if they violate your overly broad view of what free speech means.
But hey sandlotters, continue to mod this drivel up!!! Because slashdot has come to mod up only mindless groupthink drivel. (The irony is these defenders of free speech will mod me down!!!!)
The right to protest is a different issue. However I think you'll find that anyone can sue you for defamation and libel, and that there are anti-discrimination laws - civil and criminal that if applied would prevent you from making slurs such as the ones you cite. That these are no enforced in particular circumstances doesn't mean it's sanctioned or permitted by law.
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs.
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't and it does not matter how many times you repeat the fallacy. Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
Only here would someone trying to defend abuse as free speech get modded up. Walking around town handing out flyers that racially and sexually slur all the girls in your former highschool should not be protected by free speech. There's no idea here to suppress. No lie or cover up. THis guy is just being an abusive idiot. Having an opinion on something and presenting that opinion is one thing. Whilstle blowing is one thingr. Outright abuse is another. Only an immature twit can't tell the difference.
Being permitted to say something does not protect you from the consequences of saying it. The typical example is yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre. That's illegal and I'm fine with that, not because I don't like free speech or only like some free speech, but because acting to harm others should be against the law.
If you've ever watched Star Trek and said, 'Hey, I could build that,' then why the fuck haven't you?
Because I sobered up?
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs. It's good to see existing laws used instead of making up new ones just for the net On the other hand the response is a little over the top. So let me guess, the police chief's niece was on the list or something?
This is Facebook, so the two factors are username and password.
No they are password and captcha made of farmville goat.cx
...the last thing you're going to do is pause to check who bought a new pig in farmville.
What age bracket did they survey?
The real problem is that methodologies are followed, taught and practiced like religion instead of science. A new buzzword or buzzphrase and a new way of doing things will never substitute for thinking through whether what you're doing is actually working to attain the goal you've set out. Unit tests for example are brilliant when the developer gets control and is honest about using them. This almost never happens in practice. In practice unit test coverage becomes some bureaucratic check box to tick. What's worse is that there are dozens of industry expert consultancies wanting to sell you their own particular brand of excrement which may have some merit but the way it's sold - as a fix all for everything - will never be anything but a pile of poo.
I'm passionate about programming, but not enough to have sex with my mother. I guess I'll never be a programming motherfucker.
Yeah sure buddy - public gadget benches abound. Why look I just fell over one when I wasn't even looking.
Everyone says that they would go nuts but other people would be fine. It's ridiculous. It's not really a cultural issue at all, and it is only partly tied to how much stuff you have or how materialistic you are. We're animals and we're not happy when caged.
You're impressed that a person can live in a giant live in cupboard? Really? I think after a very short time I'd be looking for a padded cell. Maybe he could incorporate that too.
Where is the space to store stuff? Or work bench or gadget room? They'd all be crushed.
So is it fueled by Soylent Green?
No, but Soylent Green is what you become if you stop peddaling at sufficient height.
With application names like ZynAddSubFX and Guayadeque, I'm sure they can come up with something apt.
Project.....GIMP!!!!
Sci-fi not Sy-phy-lis, like the current one. There's nothing to salvage after what they've done.
What have Apple got to do with this?
All their iTMS and App Store purchases are done with actual money.
Or were you just lumping them in for good measure, just because?
Never heard of itunes gift cards huh? BULLSHIT, ALL OF IT.
You've just described one main reason I don't bother with online systems and accounts. Fancy words and phrases that boil down to fooling your customers out of their money and giving them nothing in return. And what happens if the company goes bust? You become an unsecured creditor and get nothing back for your money at all. All the game companies can stick their games points up their arses and spin. FUCK OFF Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple and Sony.
Correct way to handle cookies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqL7jyrXhLs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHfEmIXkWfg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqz9ZXUoUcE