Out of curiosity, which countries are you referring to? Do you have a strong case that countries plagued by worse terrorism are better off by not going to war?
Faulty categorization. Why focus only on countries suffering from terrorism? How about when one country routinely screws another causing loss of life?
But focusing on terrorism, Cuba was plagued by terrorists (although perhaps not as bad as 9/11), some of whom found harbor in the US. The US is refusing to turn over suspects, and is also refusing to prosecute - which is an even worse stance than the Taliban took over Bin Laden.
So you're suggesting Cuba going to war would have been better for its people?
I think India, for instance, should have crushed Pakistan years ago. They had plenty of opportunities.
(Sarcasm) Yes, just like their previous 2-3 wars solved that problem. (End sarcasm)
They didn't, and so Pakistan is launching terrorist attacks against India to this day.
To minimal effect on 99.9% of the population. They're more likely to be hurt by antiterrorism policies than actual terrorism.
Even putting aside nuclear weapons, one or two assaults by the Pakistani army can kill far more than the terrorists dream about.
And speaking of India, suicides by farmers due to questionable policies kill more than the terrorists from Pakistan do. Internal strife (various riots, massacres, conflicts) kill more than the terrorists from Pakistan do.
But that's OK: India's more concerned with deflecting attention from those problems to someone else than actually, you know, solving problems.
Slashdot is closer to an aggregator than a news site.
But if it makes you feel better:
Open and unmoderated comments to news stories almost always have brought out the worst in people in every news site I've seen. There's almost never anything informative in them, and even if there is a comment that makes a valid point, it is lost in the crowd of other comments.
Free speech was never meant to defend acts of libel.
If reasonable acts of libel took place, and the site knows the IP address of the posters, then it is ridiculous to use the shield law. That's like saying that I can set up a newspaper where I don't disclose the identity of any of my journalists, and where they can freely malign any individual through it while appealing to the shield law. That is ridiculous.
What wasn't clear from a cursory reading is whether the news outlets will be required to store the information. That's a bit overstepping, if it's the case. It's like saying that if I have a bulletin board in my supermarket, then I should be required to get the identity of anyone who posts there.
While not germane to the point of the story, I've not seen one instance of a news site allowing comments improving the quality of the site, or the discourse.
Not once.
Open comments to news stories almost always have brought out the worst in people in every news site I've seen. There's almost never anything informative in them, and even if there is a comment that makes a valid point, it is lost in the crowd of other comments.
They work when civilization collapses and they're found centuries later in a cave
Most paper in books don't last that long. I'd guess 150 years is the limit.
The documents we do have that are much older were made using a (more expensive) process which includes durability as a side effect. There's no way one can produce the volume of books we do using that kind of process - it would be prohibitively expensive.
Surely having an interface consistent with 99.9% of the other applications running on your system is more useful than keeping up with the Jones's latest patent-encumbered different-for-the-sake-of-being-different UI fad?
Regardless of her political party, regardless of YOUR political party, we did not need this. We are all, on both sides of the aisle, diminished when this happens.
That's empty rhetoric. Moreover, it's simply not true. Someone is guilty. I'm not that someone. I am not diminished by this at all.
I grew up in a country where any tragedy of this kind (massacre, police injustice, etc) would result in everyone nodding their heads saying, "This is a collective shame for all of us!" Sorry, but no sir! I'm not ashamed of what I didn't do, or was not part of. Growing up there, I never saw this notion of false collectivism solve anything as a result of said collective shame.
yes, there are crazy people everywhere. but if you give the crazy person easy access to a gun,..., you can't absolve from guilt the demagogue who has been preaching violence and hate
Just as you can't absolve the owner of the gun company, the guy who sold the gun in the store, and the worker who actually was involved in building that gun. Let's not point fingers only to those we find convenient to blame.
Taking an example from a discipline and condemning the whole discipline for it is not intelligent. I mean, I could take some aspects of evolution and point at how biologists study them, and claim it is science - when compared to what most other disciplines do, the rigor is laughable.
Basically, there are two camps in psychology: Those who rigorously follow the scientific method, and those who loosely follow it. Declaring a whole discipline as not science would be like declaring biology not to be science.
College is a choice, if students decide to squander it, banning laptops won't fix it.
True, but laptops can break an education of a student who didn't intend to squander it - and I don't say that in jest. When I was in school, I know people who would have learned better had they simply not brought the laptop in. They didn't "decide" to squander it.
Nevertheless, banning them from the classroom is stupid.
The lack of misinformation doesn't negate the plethora of ignorance - their probably thinking "they're just saying this is a placebo to test if it's really working".
Always a possibility. However, your stance is non-falsifiable, and thus out of the realms of science.
While I haven't seen any reference to specifically "forgiving" a brother after a rape, there are certainly ample references to situations where a woman's family is expected to kill her because of a rape.
Ever consider that Pakistanis don't always (or even often) follow Shariah law?
I suppose if you put "Islamic Law" into the constitution, everything that follows is Shariah Law? That's great: Now I understand that democracy is against allowing women and people of the wrong skin color from voting.
Rape is assumed in most cases to be the woman's fault which leads to women being kept as virtual prisoners in their homes and being covered head to toe when they are allowed outside.
Again, how is this Shariah Law?
No, Sharia law isn't the rule in all Islamic countries as you don't see women being stoned to death in Egypt or Turkey.
And nor are women who get raped treated the way you described in all Islamic countries. I guess that must have been a clause in Shariah law that said those rules need only apply in certain geographic regions...
But increasingly in non-Islamic countries Sharia law is being given precedence over local laws for violations between Muslims.
And in not a single one of those countries is Sharia Law being given precedence over local laws for criminal matters.
If you screw a woman in some countries without their father's approval beforehand it is rape. Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother.
You had me until you started spouting drivel.
What other silly stereotypes do you harbor, I wonder?
Their entire method of life involves: provoke problem where there was none, call police.
If they are calling the police, then by definition, they are not vigilantes.
Your post, while illustrating a real problem, is taking away from the more relevant post by the parent who is talking about real vigilantes, who generally cause a lot more serious problems than harassment.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, which countries are you referring to? Do you have a strong case that countries plagued by worse terrorism are better off by not going to war?
Faulty categorization. Why focus only on countries suffering from terrorism? How about when one country routinely screws another causing loss of life?
But focusing on terrorism, Cuba was plagued by terrorists (although perhaps not as bad as 9/11), some of whom found harbor in the US. The US is refusing to turn over suspects, and is also refusing to prosecute - which is an even worse stance than the Taliban took over Bin Laden.
So you're suggesting Cuba going to war would have been better for its people?
I think India, for instance, should have crushed Pakistan years ago. They had plenty of opportunities.
(Sarcasm) Yes, just like their previous 2-3 wars solved that problem. (End sarcasm)
They didn't, and so Pakistan is launching terrorist attacks against India to this day.
To minimal effect on 99.9% of the population. They're more likely to be hurt by antiterrorism policies than actual terrorism.
Even putting aside nuclear weapons, one or two assaults by the Pakistani army can kill far more than the terrorists dream about.
And speaking of India, suicides by farmers due to questionable policies kill more than the terrorists from Pakistan do. Internal strife (various riots, massacres, conflicts) kill more than the terrorists from Pakistan do.
But that's OK: India's more concerned with deflecting attention from those problems to someone else than actually, you know, solving problems.
Because we must follow the rules of war, our costs/losses are going to be exponentially higher.
I don't recall those rules stating that you must go to war.
Many countries go through worse and choose not to go to war.
Perhaps Bin Laden didn't cost the US trillions. Perhaps the ego and vanity of a nation did.
Only if you use a disposable computer. IP addresses are not the only way to identify someone.
Slashdot is closer to an aggregator than a news site.
But if it makes you feel better:
Open and unmoderated comments to news stories almost always have brought out the worst in people in every news site I've seen. There's almost never anything informative in them, and even if there is a comment that makes a valid point, it is lost in the crowd of other comments.
Actually, when it became public, they confronted him and threatened him with all kinds of legal action if he didn't return the device.
Too lazy to find the news articles. Just Google it.
Oh, let's dispense with the silly sensationalism.
Free speech was never meant to defend acts of libel.
If reasonable acts of libel took place, and the site knows the IP address of the posters, then it is ridiculous to use the shield law. That's like saying that I can set up a newspaper where I don't disclose the identity of any of my journalists, and where they can freely malign any individual through it while appealing to the shield law. That is ridiculous.
What wasn't clear from a cursory reading is whether the news outlets will be required to store the information. That's a bit overstepping, if it's the case. It's like saying that if I have a bulletin board in my supermarket, then I should be required to get the identity of anyone who posts there.
While not germane to the point of the story, I've not seen one instance of a news site allowing comments improving the quality of the site, or the discourse.
Not once.
Open comments to news stories almost always have brought out the worst in people in every news site I've seen. There's almost never anything informative in them, and even if there is a comment that makes a valid point, it is lost in the crowd of other comments.
They work when civilization collapses and they're found centuries later in a cave
Most paper in books don't last that long. I'd guess 150 years is the limit.
The documents we do have that are much older were made using a (more expensive) process which includes durability as a side effect. There's no way one can produce the volume of books we do using that kind of process - it would be prohibitively expensive.
Just imagine if all the talented people who spent hundreds or thousands of man-hours making this remake instead spent their energy on something new.
If you'd bother to look, you'd know that AGDI has produced original pieces of work.
Surely having an interface consistent with 99.9% of the other applications running on your system is more useful than keeping up with the Jones's latest patent-encumbered different-for-the-sake-of-being-different UI fad?
As an Emacs user, I beg to differ.
Regardless of her political party, regardless of YOUR political party, we did not need this. We are all, on both sides of the aisle, diminished when this happens.
That's empty rhetoric. Moreover, it's simply not true. Someone is guilty. I'm not that someone. I am not diminished by this at all.
I grew up in a country where any tragedy of this kind (massacre, police injustice, etc) would result in everyone nodding their heads saying, "This is a collective shame for all of us!" Sorry, but no sir! I'm not ashamed of what I didn't do, or was not part of. Growing up there, I never saw this notion of false collectivism solve anything as a result of said collective shame.
yes, there are crazy people everywhere. but if you give the crazy person easy access to a gun, ..., you can't absolve from guilt the demagogue who has been preaching violence and hate
Just as you can't absolve the owner of the gun company, the guy who sold the gun in the store, and the worker who actually was involved in building that gun. Let's not point fingers only to those we find convenient to blame.
And dude, linking to Daily Mail? Really?
Yes, you get a useless magazine.
Publishing a nonsensical paper in a useless magazine proves little.
He then came out later and revealed the hoax, embarrassing the reviewers and the journal.
What reviewers? The journal was not a peer reviewed journal. In other words, it was merely at the level of a magazine.
Almost every time the Sokal Affair comes up on the net, I have to correct someone on this point.
so if we start using CHEAPER electricity, are the economies hurt?
Let me know when you find the magic bottle with cheaper electricity.
if you believe that, you have idea what economics is, and so you should stop talking about the subject
Thanks for enlightening me.
it's just simple economics
Yes, but your simple economics will also greatly hurt both the US and the Canadian economy.
You're going off on a tangent. These regulations are in place not because KSA is a theocracy, but because it is a dictatorship.
Taking an example from a discipline and condemning the whole discipline for it is not intelligent. I mean, I could take some aspects of evolution and point at how biologists study them, and claim it is science - when compared to what most other disciplines do, the rigor is laughable.
Basically, there are two camps in psychology: Those who rigorously follow the scientific method, and those who loosely follow it. Declaring a whole discipline as not science would be like declaring biology not to be science.
College is a choice, if students decide to squander it, banning laptops won't fix it.
True, but laptops can break an education of a student who didn't intend to squander it - and I don't say that in jest. When I was in school, I know people who would have learned better had they simply not brought the laptop in. They didn't "decide" to squander it.
Nevertheless, banning them from the classroom is stupid.
The lack of misinformation doesn't negate the plethora of ignorance - their probably thinking "they're just saying this is a placebo to test if it's really working".
Always a possibility. However, your stance is non-falsifiable, and thus out of the realms of science.
While I haven't seen any reference to specifically "forgiving" a brother after a rape, there are certainly ample references to situations where a woman's family is expected to kill her because of a rape.
Ever consider that Pakistanis don't always (or even often) follow Shariah law?
I suppose if you put "Islamic Law" into the constitution, everything that follows is Shariah Law? That's great: Now I understand that democracy is against allowing women and people of the wrong skin color from voting.
Rape is assumed in most cases to be the woman's fault which leads to women being kept as virtual prisoners in their homes and being covered head to toe when they are allowed outside.
Again, how is this Shariah Law?
No, Sharia law isn't the rule in all Islamic countries as you don't see women being stoned to death in Egypt or Turkey.
And nor are women who get raped treated the way you described in all Islamic countries. I guess that must have been a clause in Shariah law that said those rules need only apply in certain geographic regions...
But increasingly in non-Islamic countries Sharia law is being given precedence over local laws for violations between Muslims.
And in not a single one of those countries is Sharia Law being given precedence over local laws for criminal matters.
Thanks for the spin.
This is actually how rape laws work in Saudi Arabia - men are incapable of rape and women are responsible for being raped.
Please cite the part of Saudi Law that says this.
If you screw a woman in some countries without their father's approval beforehand it is rape. Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother.
You had me until you started spouting drivel.
What other silly stereotypes do you harbor, I wonder?
If you go into academia and research, you need to be self-educating anyhow,
Which most graduates, even from the selective schools, have no intention of doing.
Their entire method of life involves: provoke problem where there was none, call police.
If they are calling the police, then by definition, they are not vigilantes.
Your post, while illustrating a real problem, is taking away from the more relevant post by the parent who is talking about real vigilantes, who generally cause a lot more serious problems than harassment.