Well as a simple and seemingly correct definition I think its fair.
But in no way shape or form would I ever advocate for it to have a law associated with it, its all too subjective, which was the point of the original post.
Short of that very literal one, I dont believe there is a reasonable definition of 'hate speech', it would appear to be a tool mostly used to silence discussion, probably for political or dogmatic reasons.
I have been feeling exactly the same way for a few weeks now.
I am center left generally, but Slashdot continually pushing the partisan political agenda is getting tiring and off putting. Have always preferred the tech discussions, but many of those are being given a political slant now and i'm not interested.
This will all come to a head at some point as the dominant politically correct/cultural marxist/postmodernism tactic of our era is to engage in such a way as EVERYTHING is polarized and if you dont echo the dominant mobs views you must be a 'bad person', which obviously fails in practice, not that reality or reason will stop the flood in the short term.
Eventually these ways of thinking implode upon themselves, historically the cost is many lives, by some estimates over 100M people have already suffered this fate in this century.
I am tempted to abandon Slashdot, as the signal to noise ratio of 'actually interesting' articles is very low, so would be interested in seeing anyones suggestions.
According to these idiots insults are hate speech: http://www.dictionary.com/brow... noun speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
Websters seems to have it simplified down to a literal state which could be fine: https://www.merriam-webster.co... Definition of Hate speech : speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people
These people are subjectively confused thinking "any form of expression regarded as offensive": https://definitions.uslegal.co... Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
These people get it: https://www.urbandictionary.co...
Hate speech A highfalutin' way of saying "I disagree with your meticulously-researched, irrefutable facts, so I am going to organize a social media campaign to demonize you and ruin your life. But don't forget to donate to my Patreon." Sane, rational human being: "I sure do loves me some grapes!" Filthy SJW bacterium: "OMFG GRAPE HAS 'RAPE' IN IT THAT'S HATE SPEECH! RAAAAAAAPE CULTUUUUUURE!"
Disparaging a social group is hate speech to these people: https://www.thefreedictionary.... hate speech n. Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group.
Does this program whatever it is have a need for large memory use and why? After reading some comments (the summary was useless), it appears to be some kind of media library whatever thing so it probably does not demand a 64 bit version but some people still think its faster or better in some way.
Dont be a fool my new Super-duper-awesome-blockchain-bitcoin-make-you-money-LLC, is clearly better because look the name is longer and we'll promise you more awesomeness. Send all money now, dont fall behind the extra duper awesomeness or you will lose out.
Normally speculation is actually done on real life things, not imaginary 'stuff'. If you speculated on Tulip bulbs back when or other things today, you may actually have received a bulb or whatever in the end.
It could be argued that it would be better to speculate on custom built serialized super special rubber duckies, because at the end you may actually get some of them in a box rather than nothing.
Then just think about all the fun you could have in the bath tub?!
Well thats a silly comparison, at the very least 1 of the things is actually a thing, the other is probably a semi random looking hexadecimal string, I can get lots of those near instantly, are they intrinsically valuable and nice to look at as a painting?
The only feature that supposedly guarantees value is the scarcity and, and thats just a joke since there are over 4000 types of 'coins' now, and I would bet that number is growing daily now.
Many people have pointed out that its already looking like some kind of 'investment' vehicle which is a near perfect reversal from what its claimed to want to do. Others have pointed out that as the perceived value rises more people will hold their coins rather than use them since its both too costly to use and if the belief is that the 'value' will continue to rise then its very difficult to reliably buy or sell anything with it since you dont know its value minute to minute or day to day.
And I wish Slashdot would stop posting stories about this scam, if the underlying tech is interesting in some other field then great, but its not for currency.
So much wasted space on this newest version of the google news site, the previous version was tolerable but this new version is stupid. I still look at it every so often to see if they pulled their head out of their ass but no not yet.
The whitespace 'craze' is very overdone now, people didn't seem to catch the part where its a good technique to promote something special and have it stick out but to use it everywhere is dumb.
Nonsense, it isn't anything. Just happens to be 'first' maybe not even the first, just the first to accidentally be recognized as a good vehicle to make a scam from.
Other than its current 'popularity' what differentiates it from any other of the same ilk?
Nothing is the correct and only answer, its been forked and copied and soon to be extended and forked and copied some more.
Bitcoin will implode, the only question is how many people get hurt by their poor and or uninformed decisions.
There is no actual scarcity, or any restrictions on scarcity at all. Its pure unregulated speculation with no foundation, maybe its just gambling, or some combination of an mlm/ponzi/pyramid scam with the net effect of a bubble.
People who have bought in already have a vested interest in keeping the fever pitch high. Maybe Slashdot editors need to disclose if they have any coins and are using us to keep the story going.
Well said thank you, your comment pretty much covers my opinion as well.
It could be said that more people need to read some Camille Paglia:
"The idea that feminism is the first group that has ever denounced rape is a gross libel to men. Throughout history, rape has been condemned by honorable men. Honorable men do not murder; honorable men do not steal; honorable men do not rape. It goes all the way back through history. Tarquin’s rape of Lucretia caused the fall of the tyrants and the beginning of the Roman Republic. The idea that somehow suddenly feminism miraculously found out that women were being exploited and raped throughout history is ridiculous. "
This one is particularly biting:
"A male student makes vulgar remarks about your breasts? Don't slink off to whimper with the campus shrinking violets. Deal with it. On the spot. Say, "Shut up, you jerk! And crawl back to the barnyard where you belong!" In general, women who project this take-charge attitude towards life get harassed less often. I see too many dopey, immature, self-pitying young women walking around like melting sticks of butter. "
The point of currency is for trade, not to hold. So called intrinsic value by holding is nonsense, if no one is trading it for things they want.
This is one of the many reasons that bitcoin will fail, as the perceived value increases more people will hold it and not trade it, till the bubble bursts and everyone 'loses something'.
They are all some hybrid of a ponzi/pyramid/mlm scam.
Certainly someone will come along and say how 'you dont know how they work, so you dont know what you are talking about'.
And thats fine, but it appears that the scarcity feature isn't. When an infinite number of 'coins' can be made on a whim, anyone can make Super Bitcoin tomorrow then the day after the next brainiac can make Super Duper Bitcoin, then we'll get Super Ultra Duper Bitcoin(the bestest ever), and so on.
So there is no overarching scarcity, yes there may be scarcity within a particular set but any set can be forked or duplicated with no restrictions, and new sets made to infinity. Any perceived value appears to have more to do with marketing, speculation and wishful thinking than anything 'real'.
I get your point but in general I still disagree, self interest will tend to follow public interest, probably till some point on the scale is passed so it would mean that most companies of smaller size will be more actually interested in public interest as compared to larger ones.
Seems like the responsible thing to do, could even couch it in a "we respect and value our customers and dont want them to be at risk" type message.
If it were a large enough entity it could cause a kerfuffle or if there were enough of them willing to leave, could be even more interesting. No doubt some competitor with less principles will fill the market, its easily big enough for most manufacturing scales depending on the gadget.
Almost want them to follow through with this kind of crazy, could be a fantastic litmus test, instantly see which companies dont have the general publics actual interests in mind.
*rant on* First, give an average person a 'free' thing but with a very finite time horizon and expect them to change their behavior is ridiculous.
Widely differing amounts and types of self interest drives most peoples motivations, trying to derive a conclusion based on a single type of 'carrot' is again ridiculous. *rant off*
I appreciate that they may actually be able to make a useful prediction from their test but on the surface I find it weak.
On the surface it seems really simple just to say 'Net Neutrality is obviously good because reasons', and I agree with most of the reasons I have found.
But I look a step or 2 deeper and there does appear to be some legitimate questions about competition and internet nuts and bolts type stuff that we may all take for granted.
Having the benefit of 10 minutes more time to consider the position, I have 1 addendum.
If the higher education institutions returned to being place for spirited discourse and actual personal growth, and not a 'safe space' for indoctrination, then there is some significant value there preparing young people for the world.
That in place change could be years or decades away or worse it may be an incorrigible problem that could force the deconstruction and replacement outright.
I have read nearly every post all the way down to here and this may be the single most insightful one. And I have no mod points. A bunch of the comments are interesting going back and forth on the merits of the changes from various perspectives, then you go ahead and correctly leapfrog the whole discussion.
I think there is still some value in a public demonstration of knowledge/competence certificate or degree for those core subjects where public confidence in a person may be important, or some structure like that anyways. No clue what that would look like or how to prove/administer it, but seems like it could be doable and accepted by the public completely independent or adjunct to the current higher education system.
Very strong position anyways, its going to be interesting to see if anyone would be able to argue me away from this way of thinking about higher education now.
Would trains not be the 'perfect' place to automate nearly the whole process? Seems like there are pretty well defined paths and controls at every stage of the operation already. Compared to roads, rails seem super defined and 'easy' for robotic expert systems to handle.
I wonder how high we could get the rail utilization if it was all RoboTrains
I'm sure to be in the minority but I have yet to see any 'genius inventions' from Elon, all 'his ideas' seem to be things thought up over the years (some 100s of years old) and deemed to be too difficult to achieve at the time.
So your point of getting billions to throw at some problems seems to be right on the mark. If I wanted to complement Elon it would not be for his various projects that people are attributing to him to have thought up where he really has not, but instead that he has the balls to take some of those well known ideas and actually try to make them work, sometimes with the brute force of money, other times with some hard work.
I dont see a genius idea person there, 'just' a motivated business person attempting some ideas thought in the past to be too hard, heck many of them may still be too hard but if you can get the money and give it a shot we may still learn alot.
If we did a fair comparison of who has broken more 'trust', I wonder who would come out on top. I dont recall the last time the 'am I secure' landscape looked so uncertain.
Dont miss out, everyone is doing it. If you dont buy now you will miss the boat.
Looks like a ponzi scheme, smells like a pyramid scheme. The technology is interesting but its surrounded by what seems to be an endless amount of negative stories of stolen lost or destroyed 'things'. Valuations all over the map, all seemingly based on nothing but speculation.
Even if some individual 'currency' is limited by some arbitrary design, there is an infinite number of 'currencies' that can be created with other limits or even no limits. So it appears on a macro scale there are actually no limits, and in fact no limiting factors at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well as a simple and seemingly correct definition I think its fair.
But in no way shape or form would I ever advocate for it to have a law associated with it, its all too subjective, which was the point of the original post.
Short of that very literal one, I dont believe there is a reasonable definition of 'hate speech', it would appear to be a tool mostly used to silence discussion, probably for political or dogmatic reasons.
I have been feeling exactly the same way for a few weeks now.
I am center left generally, but Slashdot continually pushing the partisan political agenda is getting tiring and off putting. Have always preferred the tech discussions, but many of those are being given a political slant now and i'm not interested.
This will all come to a head at some point as the dominant politically correct/cultural marxist/postmodernism tactic of our era is to engage in such a way as EVERYTHING is polarized and if you dont echo the dominant mobs views you must be a 'bad person', which obviously fails in practice, not that reality or reason will stop the flood in the short term.
Eventually these ways of thinking implode upon themselves, historically the cost is many lives, by some estimates over 100M people have already suffered this fate in this century.
I am tempted to abandon Slashdot, as the signal to noise ratio of 'actually interesting' articles is very low, so would be interested in seeing anyones suggestions.
According to these idiots insults are hate speech:
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
noun
speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
Websters seems to have it simplified down to a literal state which could be fine:
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Definition of Hate speech
: speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people
Wikipedia is all over the map but at least seems to only report on various countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
These people are subjectively confused thinking "any form of expression regarded as offensive":
https://definitions.uslegal.co...
Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
These people get it:
https://www.urbandictionary.co...
Hate speech
A highfalutin' way of saying "I disagree with your meticulously-researched, irrefutable facts, so I am going to organize a social media campaign to demonize you and ruin your life. But don't forget to donate to my Patreon."
Sane, rational human being: "I sure do loves me some grapes!"
Filthy SJW bacterium: "OMFG GRAPE HAS 'RAPE' IN IT THAT'S HATE SPEECH! RAAAAAAAPE CULTUUUUUURE!"
Disparaging a social group is hate speech to these people:
https://www.thefreedictionary....
hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group.
SIMD is a fair boost for applications that can use it as well. Many 32bit programs are faster than 64 due to a few reasons as noted.
I suspect most people just see 64 vs 32 and think it must be mo gooderer in all cases.
This was my first thought as well.
Does this program whatever it is have a need for large memory use and why? After reading some comments (the summary was useless), it appears to be some kind of media library whatever thing so it probably does not demand a 64 bit version but some people still think its faster or better in some way.
Dont be a fool my new Super-duper-awesome-blockchain-bitcoin-make-you-money-LLC, is clearly better because look the name is longer and we'll promise you more awesomeness. Send all money now, dont fall behind the extra duper awesomeness or you will lose out.
Normally speculation is actually done on real life things, not imaginary 'stuff'. If you speculated on Tulip bulbs back when or other things today, you may actually have received a bulb or whatever in the end.
It could be argued that it would be better to speculate on custom built serialized super special rubber duckies, because at the end you may actually get some of them in a box rather than nothing.
Then just think about all the fun you could have in the bath tub?!
Well thats a silly comparison, at the very least 1 of the things is actually a thing, the other is probably a semi random looking hexadecimal string, I can get lots of those near instantly, are they intrinsically valuable and nice to look at as a painting?
Its some hybrid of a ponzi/pyramid/mlm scam.
The only feature that supposedly guarantees value is the scarcity and, and thats just a joke since there are over 4000 types of 'coins' now, and I would bet that number is growing daily now.
Many people have pointed out that its already looking like some kind of 'investment' vehicle which is a near perfect reversal from what its claimed to want to do. Others have pointed out that as the perceived value rises more people will hold their coins rather than use them since its both too costly to use and if the belief is that the 'value' will continue to rise then its very difficult to reliably buy or sell anything with it since you dont know its value minute to minute or day to day.
And I wish Slashdot would stop posting stories about this scam, if the underlying tech is interesting in some other field then great, but its not for currency.
So much wasted space on this newest version of the google news site, the previous version was tolerable but this new version is stupid. I still look at it every so often to see if they pulled their head out of their ass but no not yet.
The whitespace 'craze' is very overdone now, people didn't seem to catch the part where its a good technique to promote something special and have it stick out but to use it everywhere is dumb.
Nonsense, it isn't anything. Just happens to be 'first' maybe not even the first, just the first to accidentally be recognized as a good vehicle to make a scam from.
Other than its current 'popularity' what differentiates it from any other of the same ilk?
Nothing is the correct and only answer, its been forked and copied and soon to be extended and forked and copied some more.
Bitcoin will implode, the only question is how many people get hurt by their poor and or uninformed decisions.
This to infinity.
According to this 1 source more than 4000 cryptocurrencies already.
https://cryptocoincharts.info/...
There is no actual scarcity, or any restrictions on scarcity at all. Its pure unregulated speculation with no foundation, maybe its just gambling, or some combination of an mlm/ponzi/pyramid scam with the net effect of a bubble.
People who have bought in already have a vested interest in keeping the fever pitch high. Maybe Slashdot editors need to disclose if they have any coins and are using us to keep the story going.
Well said thank you, your comment pretty much covers my opinion as well.
It could be said that more people need to read some Camille Paglia:
"The idea that feminism is the first group that has ever denounced rape is a gross libel to men. Throughout history, rape has been condemned by honorable men. Honorable men do not murder; honorable men do not steal; honorable men do not rape. It goes all the way back through history. Tarquin’s rape of Lucretia caused the fall of the tyrants and the beginning of the Roman Republic. The idea that somehow suddenly feminism miraculously found out that women were being exploited and raped throughout history is ridiculous. "
This one is particularly biting:
"A male student makes vulgar remarks about your breasts? Don't slink off to whimper with the campus shrinking violets. Deal with it. On the spot. Say, "Shut up, you jerk! And crawl back to the barnyard where you belong!" In general, women who project this take-charge attitude towards life get harassed less often. I see too many dopey, immature, self-pitying young women walking around like melting sticks of butter. "
The point of currency is for trade, not to hold. So called intrinsic value by holding is nonsense, if no one is trading it for things they want.
This is one of the many reasons that bitcoin will fail, as the perceived value increases more people will hold it and not trade it, till the bubble bursts and everyone 'loses something'.
They are all some hybrid of a ponzi/pyramid/mlm scam.
Certainly someone will come along and say how 'you dont know how they work, so you dont know what you are talking about'.
And thats fine, but it appears that the scarcity feature isn't. When an infinite number of 'coins' can be made on a whim, anyone can make Super Bitcoin tomorrow then the day after the next brainiac can make Super Duper Bitcoin, then we'll get Super Ultra Duper Bitcoin(the bestest ever), and so on.
So there is no overarching scarcity, yes there may be scarcity within a particular set but any set can be forked or duplicated with no restrictions, and new sets made to infinity. Any perceived value appears to have more to do with marketing, speculation and wishful thinking than anything 'real'.
I get your point but in general I still disagree, self interest will tend to follow public interest, probably till some point on the scale is passed so it would mean that most companies of smaller size will be more actually interested in public interest as compared to larger ones.
Seems like the responsible thing to do, could even couch it in a "we respect and value our customers and dont want them to be at risk" type message.
If it were a large enough entity it could cause a kerfuffle or if there were enough of them willing to leave, could be even more interesting. No doubt some competitor with less principles will fill the market, its easily big enough for most manufacturing scales depending on the gadget.
Almost want them to follow through with this kind of crazy, could be a fantastic litmus test, instantly see which companies dont have the general publics actual interests in mind.
*rant on*
First, give an average person a 'free' thing but with a very finite time horizon and expect them to change their behavior is ridiculous.
Widely differing amounts and types of self interest drives most peoples motivations, trying to derive a conclusion based on a single type of 'carrot' is again ridiculous.
*rant off*
I appreciate that they may actually be able to make a useful prediction from their test but on the surface I find it weak.
On the surface it seems really simple just to say 'Net Neutrality is obviously good because reasons', and I agree with most of the reasons I have found.
But I look a step or 2 deeper and there does appear to be some legitimate questions about competition and internet nuts and bolts type stuff that we may all take for granted.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Maybe there are some people here who can give some insight or add some nuance to the 'underbelly' of the Net Neutrality question.
Having the benefit of 10 minutes more time to consider the position, I have 1 addendum.
If the higher education institutions returned to being place for spirited discourse and actual personal growth, and not a 'safe space' for indoctrination, then there is some significant value there preparing young people for the world.
That in place change could be years or decades away or worse it may be an incorrigible problem that could force the deconstruction and replacement outright.
I have read nearly every post all the way down to here and this may be the single most insightful one. And I have no mod points. A bunch of the comments are interesting going back and forth on the merits of the changes from various perspectives, then you go ahead and correctly leapfrog the whole discussion.
I think there is still some value in a public demonstration of knowledge/competence certificate or degree for those core subjects where public confidence in a person may be important, or some structure like that anyways. No clue what that would look like or how to prove/administer it, but seems like it could be doable and accepted by the public completely independent or adjunct to the current higher education system.
Very strong position anyways, its going to be interesting to see if anyone would be able to argue me away from this way of thinking about higher education now.
Thanks.
Perfect response to the tunnel nonsense thanks.
Would trains not be the 'perfect' place to automate nearly the whole process? Seems like there are pretty well defined paths and controls at every stage of the operation already. Compared to roads, rails seem super defined and 'easy' for robotic expert systems to handle.
I wonder how high we could get the rail utilization if it was all RoboTrains
I'm sure to be in the minority but I have yet to see any 'genius inventions' from Elon, all 'his ideas' seem to be things thought up over the years (some 100s of years old) and deemed to be too difficult to achieve at the time.
So your point of getting billions to throw at some problems seems to be right on the mark. If I wanted to complement Elon it would not be for his various projects that people are attributing to him to have thought up where he really has not, but instead that he has the balls to take some of those well known ideas and actually try to make them work, sometimes with the brute force of money, other times with some hard work.
I dont see a genius idea person there, 'just' a motivated business person attempting some ideas thought in the past to be too hard, heck many of them may still be too hard but if you can get the money and give it a shot we may still learn alot.
http://www.securityweek.com/wi...
If we did a fair comparison of who has broken more 'trust', I wonder who would come out on top. I dont recall the last time the 'am I secure' landscape looked so uncertain.
Dont miss out, everyone is doing it. If you dont buy now you will miss the boat.
Looks like a ponzi scheme, smells like a pyramid scheme. The technology is interesting but its surrounded by what seems to be an endless amount of negative stories of stolen lost or destroyed 'things'. Valuations all over the map, all seemingly based on nothing but speculation.
Even if some individual 'currency' is limited by some arbitrary design, there is an infinite number of 'currencies' that can be created with other limits or even no limits. So it appears on a macro scale there are actually no limits, and in fact no limiting factors at all.