Your ignorance leads me to believe that you haven't spent much time in the typical corporate environment.
I've spent time at IBM and TRW, where I was subjected to the horrors of Lotus Notes and Meeting Maker. I've seen enough.
For one, it lets you easily turn messages you receive into reminders, without having to copy-and-paste between two incompatible apps.
Two different applications does not imply two incompatibile applications. My browser can invoke my e-mail client and vice versa; my e-mail client can invoke my favorite editor; my editor can invoke my compiler or even give a nice shell for my debugger. Yet they're all different applications, so I can pick my favorite of each. Choice - it's a good thing.
Also, in case you slept through the last ten years, the EMAIL SERVER is the mechanism by which appointments and meeting requests are sent.
And unless you're sending them by e-mail, this is broken.
Trying to saw a 2x4 with it would be pretty stupid, but then that would be kind of like trying to build a web page with the same app that does email. Oops, Mozilla (used) to do that!
And they learned better. Meanwhile others of us turned to leaner browsers like Galeon.
"The meetings will continue until productivity increases" is rather like "the beatings will continue until morale improves".
If people from all around the world can collaborate with each other to build things like Linux without meeting face to face, why do I need to see these people?
Which is a problem, not a feature. "Do one thing and do it well." E-mail clients should let me read e-mail. Scheduling apps should let me check my or someone else's calendar. I shouldn't have to or be expected to use one program to do both any more than I should have to use the same power tool to drill holes and cut 2x4s.
It sucks not being able to arrange meetings, add appointments easily, and check other people's schedules.
I have always maintained that if you need software to schedule meetings, you are spending entirely too much time in meetings.:-)
I'm no climber, or pilot, but isn't the Everest peak inaccessible to helicopters because the air is too thin?
I did some Googling and it seems you are correct. Copters can only get about 2/3 of the way up. And there have been crashes. But most other mountains are well below the ceiling for helicoptering (they can function at altitudes of several kilometers).
And for women with ponytails, there is even a split in the middle of the headrest. "It is very uncomfortable to drive with a ponytail," said Ms Christiansen.
So is it only uncomfortable for women with ponytails or something? 'Cause I've had very long hair for about 15 years and never noticed this...
I'd say the Foo Fighters have budget. You see Dave Grohl singing into an SM 57 in the Monkey Wrench vid. SM57's are quite popular and quite cheap.
The SM 57 and 58 are pretty much the default for live sound; one is for vocals, one for instruments, the same core but different housing that affects the frequency response. (I'm not an audio engineer, but in addition to occasionally playing out at bars and such I've been helping set up sound at the Free Spirit Festival for the past few years, so I've started to pay attention to these things.) You can get them for around $60 used.
For those not familiar with mics: these are dynamic mics, which are basically teeny tiny generators - a moving coil generates current. This means that your microphone has to be an energy source.
In a condenser mics, OTOH, you're moving one plate of a capacitor (condenser == capacitor), changing capacitance and thus impedence to your AC signal. That plate is typically lighter than a coil, so condensor mics track the air pressure changes - the sound - better, with wider-range and flatter frequency response and better transient response. The price is that you have to supply power ("phantom power") to it.
You can pay as much as you want to for a condensor mic:-). I have an AKG C1000 which is affordable (under $200), can power itself of an internal 9V battery, and is rugged enough to cart around. It definitely has a brighter, cleaner sound than my SM 57/58s, and I'll probably be using it when I record my CD later this year. (My resolutions for this year: 1. get a story or poem published, 2. make a CD of my original songs.)
"Got it right" how? "On March 2 1979, FooBar Airlines flight 17 out of XYZ Airport will suffer engine failure and crash on takeoff", or "Somewhere near a major city in the late winter or spring there will be an accident involving a plane"?
And how many did he not get right? Make enough predictions and you'll have a few hits.
They release a whole slew of free software. For instance there is a version of Windows Media player for Windows, Mac OS, and even Solaris.
Can you get source? Can you make changes? Can you make your own software that creates and plays Windows Media format files? No? Then it's not free software.
Indeed, when I was 20, I thought that all software had to be free. Now that I'm (past) 30, I sometimes wonder where all the paychecks get paid from.
Please go find a blackboard. Or a whiteboard. And write on it one hundred times "Free as in freedom, not as in price."
I'm past 30 myself, and have had a pretty good career writing software for the past thirteen years.
Everything I've written in my career as a software developer could have been GPLed and still gotten me paid.
Some of it was software written for internal use, where the licencing matters very little since there's no distribution. Some of it was custom software for a single client, where my employer could have given them the source (we might have had to adjust our pricing scheme). And some of it was written for general sale, but required support, so instead of being $1000 per copy and $500 for support per chair, you charge $1500 for support per chair.
People don't want programs; they want solutions. Software is pieces of solutions; if we share software, we can all make better solutions. But people still need to hire skilled software artisans to assemble solutions out of the parts.
In the days before every square inch of ground was private property, stone could be freely had by anyone who walked out of the village and loaded up a wheelbarrow. Yet stonemasons could still get paid.
Well it wouldn't necessarily affect the final results, unless the machines were labeled "Republican", "Democrat", and "Nader Voters".
No...they'd be labeled "Prince George's County", "Harford County", etcetera, (actually you'd know down to the voting precint, even better) which is enough to tell you "mostly Republican", "mostly Democrat", etcetera. All you have to do is throw out more votes from one side than the other, after all.
We have a guy here who is attacking our children within their own home. This guy is entering our homes and showing our children pornographic material...If I rob a bank are you just going to fine me what I stole?
Settle down. This guy is neither attacking children nor entering your home. It's only pictures. Inappropriate to show to kids? Sure. Comparable to armed robbery? No way.
Hmm, I must have missed the point where $corporation grabbed some workers off the street and chained them in their plant to work for them.
To paraphrase Woody Guthrie, "some chains you with iron, and some with a fountain pen".
Your free to take the same $20 worth of parts and hire your own $5 worth of labor and make your own $30 part and get the full $5 at any time. Feel free. I'll wait.
I'm not free to do that, because to start any industrial work a capitalist system I have to go to the capitalists and either get investors, or get a loan and pay interest, and we're right back where we started.
(That's why I'll soon be setting up my own bodywork business; total investment in training and materials (some books, a mat, and a massage table) is maybe $6500. No employees to expoit, no boss to exploit me, just producing value from labor. But, I digress.)
I would only make one change. Everyone is entitled to a reasonably safe workplace. Potentially unsafe workplaces are a fact of life.
Agreed. Nothing is perfectly safe (and it would be a damn boring world if it were).
So, if the evidence is not conclusive.... what good is it in the analysis of creating a reasonable work environment?
It is reasonable that if the employer believes that there is a reasonable possibility of a threat to safety - enough to, say, cause the employer to keep a "corporate mortality file" and track the deaths of thousands of workers, and discover higher cancer rates amoung those workers - they be required to notify the employees. IBM had enough evidence that there was a safety threat to open their own investigation; they ought to have shared that information with the people who may have been at risk.
If someone's pointing a gun at your employees, you don't wait until there's conclusive evidence that it's real, working, loaded, and the holder is going to shoot before you sound a warning.
So you're saying that you would rather the U.S. had simply published the engineering specifications for the bombs and related equipment, etc. once they got them working?
I would rather have had a policy that understood the historical truth that "ulitmate weapons" always get copied and end up in everyone's arsenal. That doesn't mean you have to publish the information, but understand and acknowledge that it will get out and plan for that eventuality, rather than stand around saying "I'm shocked - shocked! - to see pissant dictators planning to build nuclear weapons!"
There's a difference between not telling, and surpressing others from telling. You can effectively keep a secret for a while (not for very long, but for a while), but if you're surpressing others who've found out or figured it out, you're too late.
Those workers were under incredibly harsh conditions, but they never seemed to prove that IBM's chemicals actually did cause the diseases...
Remember how long it took to prove that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer - and that with a sample size of millions. Only a few decades ago, physicians recommended smoking to some patients. When the modern anti-smoking movement began, you could have said "No one has proved that smoking contributes to cancer", and you'd be right; yet smoking was in fact doing just that.
allow the free market to create independent agencies that can set various warnings for both employees and employers alike.
But if none of those groups has legal authority, the exercise is pointless. You can already go to the boss and say "You're exposing me five times the level of mercury that XYZ Labs says is safe!", the boss says "Tough cookies. Our guys (be they OSHA or PDQ Labs Inc.) say it's safe. Practices are the same at Competitor Inc. Complain any more and we ship your job to Mexico."
The free market only works when buyers and sellers meet in the marketplace with equal power. That's simply not the usual case in the American labor market today. I'd love to see a market where OSHA is not necessary; but that wouldn't be a corporate capitalist one.
Employers and employees really are on equal ground more than the general media wants you to believe. Both parties gain a profit from the jobs performed.
Incorrect on both counts.
First, a large corporation has the individual employee outnumbered millions of stockholders to one. And those stockholders have only a little bit of investment income to lose - they stand to, essentially, make a gambling loss - while the employee relies on his job for basic necessities.
In a world of large corporations, employers and employees, in general, do not meet in the marketplace with equal power.
Second, it is the nature of capitalism that, under the usual owner/employee arrangement, the employee cannot profit. His wage must be less than the value he adds, because the investor has to get his dividend.
If I work on an assembly line and take parts worth $20, and let's say it takes $5 worth of support and services from other workers (the electric bill, the secretaries, the salesmen, the janitors) to enable me to do this, and the end product sells for $30, do I get the $5 of value I've created? No. The owners and investors have to get paid. Until the workers are identical with the owners and investors - until "the workers control the means of production" - the people who actually create value are systematically ripped off.
All of which is beside the point. Everyone has the right to balance risk and reward, but everyone also has the legal right to expect a safe workplace unless explicitly told otherwise.
It sounds like IBM is getting off on this only because the evidence of harm from these chemicals is not conclusive. The problem is it can take a long time before evidence that "X contributes to cancer risk" is conclusive, but people exposed during that time are still getting cancer. (Remember, only decades ago people still used lead paint, and doctors recommended cigarette smoking to some patients.) Imagine if it took twenty years to gather enough evidence to convict a suspect as a serial killer beyond a reasonable doubt - and all that time you had to let him run free.
But they are still one of the leading hardware companies
Exactly. I spent some time contracting at IBM, and that's the main thing I learned about their business model: all the software stuff they do has the goal of selling IBM hardware. That's a plan that plays quite well with open source / free software.
First off, the gun scenario completely goes off the deep end. Pointing a gun is a threat of force in and of itself, regardless of what you say while doing so.
I wanted a clear-cut example, but you're right, pointing a gun is a threat in and of itself. Consider instead that the speaker merely has a holstered handgun (in an area where this is legal) and is walking toward you.
I know of one case where a bouncer in SC was charged with assault on the basis of a comment made to a client.
But it would still have taken more than the content of speech to make assault. One can be threatening with body language; a good bouncer should be expert at this.
You don't give details, so let's say the bouncer's words were "You're being rude. Somebody ought to teach you some manners, bub." Delivered with threatening body language and vocal tone while standing within or approaching punching range, this is a threat; said while seated in an exasperated tone of voice to someone well out of reach, it's not.
Third, you show me where you are granted unrestricted freedom of speech. Don't say the constitution, there is nothing in that document which would lead anyone to believe that reasonable limits do not apply.
It is a fundamental principle of American law that rights are not granted. They are pre-existing entities which a sound government recognizes.
As for the Constitution, what part of "shall make no law" do you not understand? Amendment I does not say "shall make no unreasonable law".
If you can seperate my rights from my content, which you have, why can you not come to the logical conclusion? That being that language is also powerful enough to create situations where the content obviates the protection.
It's not a logical conclusion at all; it is in fact a conclusion void of logical, legal, or ethical support. To hold that there are "unspeakable" things is superstition, not logic. Indeed, the power you attribute to language is magical thinking - which can be a fine and enjoyable way to play your life, but a lousy basis for law.
There is an inherent extremism in the way you present your ideas which makes me nervous. Extremism allways makes me nervous.
You are suggesting that it is right, proper, and just for the state to use force against people merely for expressing certain ideas - and you consider me an extremist? I'm not the one advocating violence here.
So where do you come down on that. Should McCarthy not have trampled folks free speech rights? Even if that would have meant a Communist government being elected and striking down that right?
Ignoring for the moment that the threat of "Communist infiltration" was entirely a product of deranged right-wing imaginations...if you try to become oppressors to prevent oppression, you've seriously failed. As the cliche goes, "then the terrorists have already won".
As you point out, I have a right to not be threatened or harassed, allthough the wording rarely is that clear. Doesn;t that preclude you from threatening or harassing me while you are exercising your right to free speech?
The point you seem not to grasp is that threatening or harassing requires more than the certain content of speech. If some Grade A Asshole says "God hates fags, they deserve to die", that's free speech. (Doesn't change that he's an asshole, or mean that any sane person agrees with him.) If some other Grade A Asshole says "God hates fags, they deserve to die" while he's pointing a gun at someone, that's a threat (assault). The content of speech alone is not enough to create assault.
In any case, I don't see why you are getting so worked up, for someone who professes to love free speech so much you sure do get worked up when someone else exercises it...
WTF? Have I in any way, shape, or form, even suggested that you or anyone else not be permitted to speak? I believe that even Grade A Assholes should be allowed to speak - I certainly don't want to interfere with the rights of merely ignorant people like yourself:-) I just reserve the right to make corrective speech of my own.
How is the Canadian law a violation of free speech?
By definition. A law that says "we will put you in a cage if you say X" is an abridgement of the freedom of speech.
I would say publishing something for example that says all (insert racial/religious/cultural group here) is less than human and only deserving of persecution and death is a pretty clear violation of that target groups rights...
You do not have the right to stop others from thinking you should be killed. You do not have the right to stop others from expressing their thought that you should be killed. Of course expressing that thought in certain manners and contexts may constitute threat, harassment, or incitement, but the content of the communication itself is free.
Slashdot Mirror
This is nothing new. But do Movieoke'er bring props?
I've spent time at IBM and TRW, where I was subjected to the horrors of Lotus Notes and Meeting Maker. I've seen enough.
Two different applications does not imply two incompatibile applications. My browser can invoke my e-mail client and vice versa; my e-mail client can invoke my favorite editor; my editor can invoke my compiler or even give a nice shell for my debugger. Yet they're all different applications, so I can pick my favorite of each. Choice - it's a good thing.
And unless you're sending them by e-mail, this is broken.
And they learned better. Meanwhile others of us turned to leaner browsers like Galeon.
Only half joking...I fully agree with this classic bit of fax lore.
"The meetings will continue until productivity increases" is rather like "the beatings will continue until morale improves".
If people from all around the world can collaborate with each other to build things like Linux without meeting face to face, why do I need to see these people?
Which is a problem, not a feature. "Do one thing and do it well." E-mail clients should let me read e-mail. Scheduling apps should let me check my or someone else's calendar. I shouldn't have to or be expected to use one program to do both any more than I should have to use the same power tool to drill holes and cut 2x4s.
I have always maintained that if you need software to schedule meetings, you are spending entirely too much time in meetings.I did some Googling and it seems you are correct. Copters can only get about 2/3 of the way up. And there have been crashes. But most other mountains are well below the ceiling for helicoptering (they can function at altitudes of several kilometers).
Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? If you just want to get to the top without the physical challenge, you could already helicopter up.
Would be great for search & rescue in mountain areas, though.
An order of magnitute means closer to a factor of 10 (in base 10): closer to a factor of 10 than a factor of 1 or of 100.
Think round(log(x/y)).
Maybe you don't do anything. But you still want your buddy with the awesome set of tools to be able to help you out:
"I've having problems xyz with the car. Guess I'll have to take it to the dealer and pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to get it fixed."
"Dude, you just need new spark plugs. I can do it in half an hour. Pay for the parts and buy me a six-pack of good beer and we're even."
"That would be great! Oh, except this car is designed so that only Volvo technicians have the special tool to open up the hood. Shoot."
So is it only uncomfortable for women with ponytails or something? 'Cause I've had very long hair for about 15 years and never noticed this...
The SM 57 and 58 are pretty much the default for live sound; one is for vocals, one for instruments, the same core but different housing that affects the frequency response. (I'm not an audio engineer, but in addition to occasionally playing out at bars and such I've been helping set up sound at the Free Spirit Festival for the past few years, so I've started to pay attention to these things.) You can get them for around $60 used.
For those not familiar with mics: these are dynamic mics, which are basically teeny tiny generators - a moving coil generates current. This means that your microphone has to be an energy source.
In a condenser mics, OTOH, you're moving one plate of a capacitor (condenser == capacitor), changing capacitance and thus impedence to your AC signal. That plate is typically lighter than a coil, so condensor mics track the air pressure changes - the sound - better, with wider-range and flatter frequency response and better transient response. The price is that you have to supply power ("phantom power") to it.
You can pay as much as you want to for a condensor mic :-). I have an AKG C1000 which is affordable (under $200), can power itself of an internal 9V battery, and is rugged enough to cart around. It definitely has a brighter, cleaner sound than my SM 57/58s, and I'll probably be using it when I record my CD later this year. (My resolutions for this year: 1. get a story or poem published, 2. make a CD of my original songs.)
"Got it right" how? "On March 2 1979, FooBar Airlines flight 17 out of XYZ Airport will suffer engine failure and crash on takeoff", or "Somewhere near a major city in the late winter or spring there will be an accident involving a plane"?
And how many did he not get right? Make enough predictions and you'll have a few hits.
Can you get source? Can you make changes? Can you make your own software that creates and plays Windows Media format files? No? Then it's not free software.
Please go find a blackboard. Or a whiteboard. And write on it one hundred times "Free as in freedom, not as in price."
I'm past 30 myself, and have had a pretty good career writing software for the past thirteen years.
Everything I've written in my career as a software developer could have been GPLed and still gotten me paid.
Some of it was software written for internal use, where the licencing matters very little since there's no distribution. Some of it was custom software for a single client, where my employer could have given them the source (we might have had to adjust our pricing scheme). And some of it was written for general sale, but required support, so instead of being $1000 per copy and $500 for support per chair, you charge $1500 for support per chair.
People don't want programs; they want solutions. Software is pieces of solutions; if we share software, we can all make better solutions. But people still need to hire skilled software artisans to assemble solutions out of the parts.
In the days before every square inch of ground was private property, stone could be freely had by anyone who walked out of the village and loaded up a wheelbarrow. Yet stonemasons could still get paid.
Just in case you're not trolling: no. VoiceXML is a language for writing interactive voice applications.
Settle down. This guy is neither attacking children nor entering your home. It's only pictures. Inappropriate to show to kids? Sure. Comparable to armed robbery? No way.
To paraphrase Woody Guthrie, "some chains you with iron, and some with a fountain pen".
I'm not free to do that, because to start any industrial work a capitalist system I have to go to the capitalists and either get investors, or get a loan and pay interest, and we're right back where we started.
(That's why I'll soon be setting up my own bodywork business; total investment in training and materials (some books, a mat, and a massage table) is maybe $6500. No employees to expoit, no boss to exploit me, just producing value from labor. But, I digress.)
Agreed. Nothing is perfectly safe (and it would be a damn boring world if it were).
It is reasonable that if the employer believes that there is a reasonable possibility of a threat to safety - enough to, say, cause the employer to keep a "corporate mortality file" and track the deaths of thousands of workers, and discover higher cancer rates amoung those workers - they be required to notify the employees. IBM had enough evidence that there was a safety threat to open their own investigation; they ought to have shared that information with the people who may have been at risk.
If someone's pointing a gun at your employees, you don't wait until there's conclusive evidence that it's real, working, loaded, and the holder is going to shoot before you sound a warning.
I would rather have had a policy that understood the historical truth that "ulitmate weapons" always get copied and end up in everyone's arsenal. That doesn't mean you have to publish the information, but understand and acknowledge that it will get out and plan for that eventuality, rather than stand around saying "I'm shocked - shocked! - to see pissant dictators planning to build nuclear weapons!"
There's a difference between not telling, and surpressing others from telling. You can effectively keep a secret for a while (not for very long, but for a while), but if you're surpressing others who've found out or figured it out, you're too late.
Remember how long it took to prove that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer - and that with a sample size of millions. Only a few decades ago, physicians recommended smoking to some patients. When the modern anti-smoking movement began, you could have said "No one has proved that smoking contributes to cancer", and you'd be right; yet smoking was in fact doing just that.
But if none of those groups has legal authority, the exercise is pointless. You can already go to the boss and say "You're exposing me five times the level of mercury that XYZ Labs says is safe!", the boss says "Tough cookies. Our guys (be they OSHA or PDQ Labs Inc.) say it's safe. Practices are the same at Competitor Inc. Complain any more and we ship your job to Mexico."
The free market only works when buyers and sellers meet in the marketplace with equal power. That's simply not the usual case in the American labor market today. I'd love to see a market where OSHA is not necessary; but that wouldn't be a corporate capitalist one.
Incorrect on both counts.
First, a large corporation has the individual employee outnumbered millions of stockholders to one. And those stockholders have only a little bit of investment income to lose - they stand to, essentially, make a gambling loss - while the employee relies on his job for basic necessities. In a world of large corporations, employers and employees, in general, do not meet in the marketplace with equal power.
Second, it is the nature of capitalism that, under the usual owner/employee arrangement, the employee cannot profit. His wage must be less than the value he adds, because the investor has to get his dividend.
If I work on an assembly line and take parts worth $20, and let's say it takes $5 worth of support and services from other workers (the electric bill, the secretaries, the salesmen, the janitors) to enable me to do this, and the end product sells for $30, do I get the $5 of value I've created? No. The owners and investors have to get paid. Until the workers are identical with the owners and investors - until "the workers control the means of production" - the people who actually create value are systematically ripped off.
All of which is beside the point. Everyone has the right to balance risk and reward, but everyone also has the legal right to expect a safe workplace unless explicitly told otherwise.
It sounds like IBM is getting off on this only because the evidence of harm from these chemicals is not conclusive. The problem is it can take a long time before evidence that "X contributes to cancer risk" is conclusive, but people exposed during that time are still getting cancer. (Remember, only decades ago people still used lead paint, and doctors recommended cigarette smoking to some patients.) Imagine if it took twenty years to gather enough evidence to convict a suspect as a serial killer beyond a reasonable doubt - and all that time you had to let him run free.
Exactly. I spent some time contracting at IBM, and that's the main thing I learned about their business model: all the software stuff they do has the goal of selling IBM hardware. That's a plan that plays quite well with open source / free software.
I wanted a clear-cut example, but you're right, pointing a gun is a threat in and of itself. Consider instead that the speaker merely has a holstered handgun (in an area where this is legal) and is walking toward you.
But it would still have taken more than the content of speech to make assault. One can be threatening with body language; a good bouncer should be expert at this.
You don't give details, so let's say the bouncer's words were "You're being rude. Somebody ought to teach you some manners, bub." Delivered with threatening body language and vocal tone while standing within or approaching punching range, this is a threat; said while seated in an exasperated tone of voice to someone well out of reach, it's not.
It is a fundamental principle of American law that rights are not granted. They are pre-existing entities which a sound government recognizes.
As for the Constitution, what part of "shall make no law" do you not understand? Amendment I does not say "shall make no unreasonable law".
It's not a logical conclusion at all; it is in fact a conclusion void of logical, legal, or ethical support. To hold that there are "unspeakable" things is superstition, not logic. Indeed, the power you attribute to language is magical thinking - which can be a fine and enjoyable way to play your life, but a lousy basis for law.
You are suggesting that it is right, proper, and just for the state to use force against people merely for expressing certain ideas - and you consider me an extremist? I'm not the one advocating violence here.
Ignoring for the moment that the threat of "Communist infiltration" was entirely a product of deranged right-wing imaginations...if you try to become oppressors to prevent oppression, you've seriously failed. As the cliche goes, "then the terrorists have already won".
The point you seem not to grasp is that threatening or harassing requires more than the certain content of speech. If some Grade A Asshole says "God hates fags, they deserve to die", that's free speech. (Doesn't change that he's an asshole, or mean that any sane person agrees with him.) If some other Grade A Asshole says "God hates fags, they deserve to die" while he's pointing a gun at someone, that's a threat (assault). The content of speech alone is not enough to create assault.
WTF? Have I in any way, shape, or form, even suggested that you or anyone else not be permitted to speak? I believe that even Grade A Assholes should be allowed to speak - I certainly don't want to interfere with the rights of merely ignorant people like yourself :-) I just reserve the right to make corrective speech of my own.
By definition. A law that says "we will put you in a cage if you say X" is an abridgement of the freedom of speech.
You have the right not to be killed. (Murder is a crime. Unless it was done by a policeman or aristocrat...) And you have the right to not be threatened or harassed.
You do not have the right to stop others from thinking you should be killed. You do not have the right to stop others from expressing their thought that you should be killed. Of course expressing that thought in certain manners and contexts may constitute threat, harassment, or incitement, but the content of the communication itself is free.