My wifes little brother had to write a game for a HS class. It had to be non-violent and semi-original (no straight clones). We came up with the idea of a zombie game where you drive around in an ambulance shooting zombies the 'cure'. The whole point of the game was to save people and yet the teacher thought it was too violent.
He turned it into an ice cream truck that delivers cones to people who get over-heated, which makes them act like zombies but can over-heat other people.
Violence is a crutch for the unimaginative, that is used too often, both in games and in hollywood. In reality, cars don't explode. They do get really hot, but generally, no big fireball. Same with hit-men, there really isn't much of a career to be made in the real world with contract killing.
And the rich pay more taxes then the poor, both in absolute numbers and percentages.
However, if you want to see tyranny of the majority, you need look no farther then the Baby Boomers. They are tyranny of the majority, both in political and sociological terms and I think they have decided, en masse, to at least try to "take it with them". I actually think they will succeed in this endeavor as there will not be much left of the US when the last of them is put into the dirt. Never thought Soylent Green would look like a good alternative.
Everything is pretty much back-asswards these days. Just look at the New England Patriots to see an example of how "cheaters always prosper".
I worked on a project that created a large amount of HTML pages. The manager of the project and even some of the other engineers kept bugging me about why I didn't output the files in strict XML. To which I replied, they are in XML as HTML is an XML schema. You would think that would be the end of the argument, but it wasn't. Eventually I had to bring up that HTML is the most widely used and best known XML schema.
I think Ubuntu is fast becoming the same for Linux, although it wouldn't be my first choice for a Linux server box (too much eyecandy). I do use Ubuntu on a desktop/development system and happily so.
I figure most slashdotters have no problem attacking Vista without any personal knowledge. Most slashdotters have no problems with commenting on just about anything with no personal knowledge.
Anywhile, I should have pointed out that increased hardware requirements were a source of many complaints about win95 and winXP. So my assumption wasn't from blind ignorance. Still, I think that MS will either fix Vista or take the good things from Vista and put them into XP.
I'm not sure if I should be impressed by your vast knowledge of an OS that is slow and sucks, with bigtime sucky wifi (on an E6700 no less). I think I'll just feel sorry for you and your bad experience. It obviously has left you with a big time sucky chip on your shoulder.
The Dems and Reps have unfortunately enshrined themselves into power. They've done this by setting rules for receiving matching funds based on prior performance, something only they could qualify for at the time. They've done this be putting Dems and Reps into lifetime judgeships. They've done this by subsidizing their primaries and conventions. They've done this by putting (R) or (D) next to their candidates and (I) next to anybody else. They've done this by putting simple check boxes that let you vote either (R) or (D) for the whole ballot.
The whole government now works on the principle that it is either the Dems or the Reps who are in charge and our elections just reinforce this principle.
I think a lot of the negative Vista press is people installing on older hardware while turning on every new feature. There are features on XP that will slow it to a crawl, like indexing and write on read. The 3d GUI is one of those features in Vista. UAC is another. Vista is a technical improvement over XP in some areas. They will either incorporate those areas back into XP or fix what isn't working in Vista.
Personally, I've never used it and probably won't unless they release BF3 or the next Medieval as a Vista only title. Most slashdotters who use windows as a choice use it 'for the games'. That's not going to change. MS is a slave to the market, just like everyone else.
I'm not arguing against a 2 party system or arguing for an N party system. I'm arguing that the government should not fund a political party, no matter how big they become.
Ross Perot tried to start a national party and showed just how entrenched the Dems and Reps have become. They are not part of the government, no matter how many of them get elected or how many branches of the government they control.
Host based security is tricky because if the host is compromised, a good attacker will cover their tracks. It's harder, maybe even impossible, to cover your tracks when you are dealing with something transparent on the network, like a bump in the wire.
Detecting an attack is easier to do then thwarting an attack, and obviously so. What is sad is that many IT types would rather not even know about attacks because then they are liable. Ignorance, even in IT, is bliss.
I once tested a network monitor that I developed on a live accounting server. They were happy to let me test until I found 3 rogue connections that tracked to known attack vectors. The next day the IT manager disconnected the network monitor and replaced the accounting server with a new box. The old accounting server got formatted before we could see if the rogue connections were actual intrusions. If they weren't, they certainly were suspicious enough to pull the box and replace it.
So Turkey is the exception to the rule? I'd agree with that. Of course to be that exception took some drastic measures to halt Islamic fundamentalism, such as outlawing burkas. I hope Turkey either remains the exception to the rule or eventually gets some company in the Islamic moderate world.
All of these problems are nothing compared to the 800 lb gorilla that is the 2 party system.
The Democrats and Republicans have voted into place a system that pays for the Democrat and Republican parties. Oh sure, it doesn't say Democrat or Republican, it just says they have to get such and such a percentage to qualify, have to be nationwide, etc. All things that the Dems and Reps were at the time they inacted them. This is little different from Soviet Russia except instead of one party, we've got two.
The rules in place for running the House and Senate are even more blatant. It's all based on simple majority, which you can do with two parties. If a third party were ever to steal seats from both parties and neither of the two had a majority, they would have to rewrite all the rules for committees, offices, etc.
I will never donate any tax funds to pay for the elections of Democrats and Republicans and I urge everyone else not to either.
If it sets a precedent on something common, the company that sues can then go after Apple, Red Hat, etc. MS has deep pockets and can afford to settle. Apple as well, but it would depend on the patent. If it covers anything iPod, it would be bad news.
This may be just be blunder and buss from a bumbler or it could be some hint of their nefarious plot to take over the world. I'm leaning towards the former.
The government routinely infiltrated, spied upon, tapped, harrased, held public trials over and prosecuted American citizens and legal residents for being communists. The US government is currently embargoing a small communist state a few miles from Miami and actively hinders travel to that country. That's today, when communist states have been shredded every where but a few poor countries.
Whether it is changed piecemeal or wholesale, it explicitly allows it, and any right you currently enjoy can be taken away.
Today's free speech rights are upheld much more clearly than they were in the past. You can't have it both ways. You go from one extreme to another. I'm in the middle saying you can't advocate taking away my rights and expect that to be protected by our rights. Go ahead and say it, but you're likely to be put on a watch list, unless your just saying it cause ya want to be cool.
Why, when the government was fighting against the spread of communism, and they were arresting people, did they only do so if violent overthrow was being advocated? Because you don't have to throw somebody in jail to silence their speech. You can infiltrate, spy upon, tap, harrass, prosecute their friends, relatives and/or threaten to do any of those things for any number of other violations.
I couldn't care less if you burn a flag, so long as it's yours.
"If someone was a communist or monarchist, and they want the US to become a communist state or a monarchy, then their speech does not enjoy the protections of the 1st ammendment."[EMPHASIS MINE].
The only way you can contend that their speech is protected is if you believe there is a way for the US to become a communist state or a monarchy while leaving the constitution and bill of rights intact. Maybe that's what you are saying, which is another huge leap of illogic. Do you really think the constitution and bill of rights are compatable with communism and monarchy? A reasonable person would clearly see that it is exempt from 1st ammendment protection.
the Court has routinely held they [FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS] may be limited... to guard against subversion of the government ---
I never stated free speech was absolute You haven't really stated much of anything. Things you did say...
That some idea is beyond criticism is completely antithetical to the idea of free speech.
What does it mean to have free speech if you can't use free speech to argue against it?
the Court has routinely held they [FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS] may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy[,FREE SPEECH]) ---
Nowhere does it say, nor have I said, that the government has to crack down on subversive speech or speech intended to deprive others of their rights, only that it would not violate the 1st ammendment if they did so. You can show a million cases of communists speaking freely and it doesn't negate the fact that the speech is not protected. You could do the same for monarchists and it still doesn't change anything. Call yourself Emperor Norton if you want, just don't fool yourself into thinking that that changes anything.
Never said I was a Christian, did I? Also, I understand the difference between a discussion and an attack.
What I can't understand is why an Atheist would spend so much time worrying about other peoples delusions. As far as Christianity having a much greater impact on your daily life, what impact is that? I'm not an atheist nor am I a christian and Christianity has no impact on my life except for traffic on Sunday morning that somehow the cops feel it is neccessary for them to prefer the people leaving church.
Islam, on the other hand, is a very repressive system that exacts special taxes on non-Muslims, prevents people from leaving their brotherhood, demeans women and has been tolerant of terrorism against the west when it is not outright encouraging it. Sorry, I just don't get it. Did a priest piddle you when you were younger? Did the christians beat you up at school?
Christians in America are for the most part not 'Christ like'. They can be materialistic and self-centered, are in general overweight and under-educated, especially about their own religion, and largely ignorant of their own sins.
Atheists is America are generally just anti-Christian. However, they are still materialistic and self-centered, in general overweight, but over educated in the history of Christianity, especially everything bad, and largely ignorant of their own narrow bias.
If a story on slashdot is posted about evolution or religion in general, it will always turn, at some point, into an attack on Christianity. The people carrying out the attack will always claim to be athiests. However, if a story about Islam is posted, these same athiests will inject their anti-Christian attacks and avoid saying anything bad about Islam.
I think I'd just like to see the next slashdot story on Islam tagged with 'flyingspaghettimonster'.
"If it was not protected, then people could have been thrown in jail for just stating their support of communism"
So someone has to go to jail for their rights to be violated? That's a leap of illogic. The Bill of Rights is not a set of laws a citizen can break. They are rights that cannot be taken away.
You've gone from my original statement about being a communist to "merely speaking in favor of communism". You're running out of room for back tracking.
You even admit as much when you say...
"Please cite a case where a Bill-of-Rights based government restricted free speech for a monarchist."
From www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php...
"While some Supreme Court justices have declared that First Amendment freedoms are absolute or occupy a preferred position, the Court has routinely held they may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy), or to guard against subversion of the government and the spreading of dissension in wartime. Thus, the Court's majority has remained firm - the First Amendment rights are not absolute."
Key phrases being 'to protect the rights of others' and 'to guard against subversion to the government'. Sound familiar?
I did give you a specific example. Saying you are or even were a communist has been a reason to exclude people from military and government service. Some have even been prosecuted for speaking the word 'No', as in no I'm not a communist. It may not even be true today, mainly because communism isn't much of a threat, but it certainly has been true in the past, all the way up to the 1990s.
It's even more self apparent for monarchists. Many were driven from their homes, property seized, etc. War of 1812 ring a bell? Burned most of Washington. Wasn't a good time to be a monarchist in America.
The only wrong I can see is your inability to seperate being a communist and advocating communism. It's easy for a moral relatavist. A moral relatavist can advocate communism the same as they can advocate the parliamentary system or sharia law or donkey buggery. It's all the same to them and I suspect, to you.
Free speech means being able to speak with impunity. Losing the ability to join the military or work for the government or get a clearance, are all punitive in nature, whether you'd like any of them or not.
Confused my regular doctors no end. Luckily, both appendixes went bad at nearly the same time. The one on my left was found after they looked at the one on the right and decided it couldn't have caused all of the problems (high fever, hallucinations, etc). The surgeon saved them in a jar and asked if he could have them. Of course I let him, he had saved my life.
Something good to know, if you ever have a pain on the left side and someone tells you it can't be your appendix.
"I ask again, do you have a specific example where merely being an advocate of communism was held in violation of the law?"
The bill of rights is not a set of laws that you break, they are rights that are afforded to citizens and legal residents. They are not just limitations on the government, private citizens, corporations, religious institutions, etc, also can not take away those rights. Anywhile, I'm sure we wouldn't have to look very far into Americas past to find an example of the 'right' to advocate communism being curtailed both by the government and also by the citizenry. The same way that advocating for a return to monarchy was curtailed after the revolution, both by the government and the citizenry.
Furthermore, the right to free speech does not include the rigth to advocate violence, whether it is against the government, private citzens, corporations, religious institutions, etc. If someone advocates violence and violence results from that speech, the right to free speech is no longer a valid argument against criminal and civil liability.
"You keep on trying to pin a label on me as part of an ad hominen attack. I am not advocating communism, but merely arguing that the 1st amendment protects those who advocate it, which is how this whole argument got started."
Never said you were advocating communism, what I did say is that you are a moral relativist. Which means you stand for everything, which is just an over-educated persons way of saying they stand for nothing. Don't be wimp, take a stand.
I'm fairly certain that the ozone hole over the artic was and continues to be sold as a man made catastrophe, despite no long term data on the subject and now, a natural variance of 30% and the thought that the hole was always there. As many have pointed out, the results of completely banning cfcs was maybe rash. That maybe there is a middle ground that might be better.
As far as maligning all scientists, I'll go one step further and say that most people do not own up to their mistakes. Scientists are just people. A certain amount of ego comes with being intelligent.
I don't claim to be a scientist, but I am a natural skeptic.
"But, you see, the truth is that you have many choices of things to drink, and the cost of not drinking is miniscule, while the cost of drinking could be fatal. So I'm betting you won't drink it. Even though it looks like symmetry."
So we shouldn't make judgements based on methods, data, etc, we should just respond thru fear. Scientist A has good methods and solid theory, but Scientist B says everything is going to hell and we're all going to die. Therefore, we should ignore Scientist A. 'You made a good point, but in the end we thought your idea was boring. Try to add some death, disease, starvation, you know, something to grab the reader next time.'
Even when they are wrong, I don't see scientists making any efforts to own up to their mistakes. I don't even see them using science to respond to critics, they just accuse their accuser of being funded by big oil or having an agenda or some other childishness. The history of science is full of big egos that do some pretty unscientific and unscrupulus things.
Environmentalists have their own problems. There is a branch of environmentalists that think preserving an environment is the ultimate goal. That's why they oppose cutting a few trees to make fire breaks. When wild fires burn down the entire forest, I don't see any of them coming forward and saying 'mea culpa'. Same for opposing nuclear power, although some of them are coming around.
This is moral relativism at work. People in communist countries are not allowed to opt out of the system. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep people out, it was built to keep people from fleeing to the west. Even then, it didn't keep people from seeking asylum in the west, it just made it more difficult.
There are plenty of examples of people being prosecuted for lying about being communists. 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party' was a standard question for military and government service. For the military, it used to be right after 'Are you now or have you ever been a homosexual', which they no longer ask. Communism is such a tarnished idea that the only people who still argue for it are over-educated, moral relativists.
"I don't think at any point in the history of this country has it been illegal to argue against free speech"
That is something I never said. What I actually said... 'A reasonable person would consider that speech intended to remove the constitution and bill of rights should not be afforded the protections contained in the constitution and bill of rights.'
I think you may be the first person to argue about arguing against arguing. It's like all the people who are against protesting but have no way to show it.
Slashdot Mirror
My wifes little brother had to write a game for a HS class. It had to be non-violent and semi-original (no straight clones). We came up with the idea of a zombie game where you drive around in an ambulance shooting zombies the 'cure'. The whole point of the game was to save people and yet the teacher thought it was too violent.
He turned it into an ice cream truck that delivers cones to people who get over-heated, which makes them act like zombies but can over-heat other people.
Violence is a crutch for the unimaginative, that is used too often, both in games and in hollywood. In reality, cars don't explode. They do get really hot, but generally, no big fireball. Same with hit-men, there really isn't much of a career to be made in the real world with contract killing.
And the rich pay more taxes then the poor, both in absolute numbers and percentages.
However, if you want to see tyranny of the majority, you need look no farther then the Baby Boomers. They are tyranny of the majority, both in political and sociological terms and I think they have decided, en masse, to at least try to "take it with them". I actually think they will succeed in this endeavor as there will not be much left of the US when the last of them is put into the dirt. Never thought Soylent Green would look like a good alternative.
Everything is pretty much back-asswards these days. Just look at the New England Patriots to see an example of how "cheaters always prosper".
I worked on a project that created a large amount of HTML pages. The manager of the project and even some of the other engineers kept bugging me about why I didn't output the files in strict XML. To which I replied, they are in XML as HTML is an XML schema. You would think that would be the end of the argument, but it wasn't. Eventually I had to bring up that HTML is the most widely used and best known XML schema.
I think Ubuntu is fast becoming the same for Linux, although it wouldn't be my first choice for a Linux server box (too much eyecandy). I do use Ubuntu on a desktop/development system and happily so.
I figure most slashdotters have no problem attacking Vista without any personal knowledge. Most slashdotters have no problems with commenting on just about anything with no personal knowledge.
Anywhile, I should have pointed out that increased hardware requirements were a source of many complaints about win95 and winXP. So my assumption wasn't from blind ignorance. Still, I think that MS will either fix Vista or take the good things from Vista and put them into XP.
I'm not sure if I should be impressed by your vast knowledge of an OS that is slow and sucks, with bigtime sucky wifi (on an E6700 no less). I think I'll just feel sorry for you and your bad experience. It obviously has left you with a big time sucky chip on your shoulder.
If this hadn't been reported, I wonder if any of the flying public would even be aware that the rules had changed.
The Dems and Reps have unfortunately enshrined themselves into power. They've done this by setting rules for receiving matching funds based on prior performance, something only they could qualify for at the time. They've done this be putting Dems and Reps into lifetime judgeships. They've done this by subsidizing their primaries and conventions. They've done this by putting (R) or (D) next to their candidates and (I) next to anybody else. They've done this by putting simple check boxes that let you vote either (R) or (D) for the whole ballot.
The whole government now works on the principle that it is either the Dems or the Reps who are in charge and our elections just reinforce this principle.
I think a lot of the negative Vista press is people installing on older hardware while turning on every new feature. There are features on XP that will slow it to a crawl, like indexing and write on read. The 3d GUI is one of those features in Vista. UAC is another. Vista is a technical improvement over XP in some areas. They will either incorporate those areas back into XP or fix what isn't working in Vista.
Personally, I've never used it and probably won't unless they release BF3 or the next Medieval as a Vista only title. Most slashdotters who use windows as a choice use it 'for the games'. That's not going to change. MS is a slave to the market, just like everyone else.
I'm not arguing against a 2 party system or arguing for an N party system. I'm arguing that the government should not fund a political party, no matter how big they become.
Ross Perot tried to start a national party and showed just how entrenched the Dems and Reps have become. They are not part of the government, no matter how many of them get elected or how many branches of the government they control.
Host based security is tricky because if the host is compromised, a good attacker will cover their tracks. It's harder, maybe even impossible, to cover your tracks when you are dealing with something transparent on the network, like a bump in the wire.
Detecting an attack is easier to do then thwarting an attack, and obviously so. What is sad is that many IT types would rather not even know about attacks because then they are liable. Ignorance, even in IT, is bliss.
I once tested a network monitor that I developed on a live accounting server. They were happy to let me test until I found 3 rogue connections that tracked to known attack vectors. The next day the IT manager disconnected the network monitor and replaced the accounting server with a new box. The old accounting server got formatted before we could see if the rogue connections were actual intrusions. If they weren't, they certainly were suspicious enough to pull the box and replace it.
So Turkey is the exception to the rule? I'd agree with that. Of course to be that exception took some drastic measures to halt Islamic fundamentalism, such as outlawing burkas. I hope Turkey either remains the exception to the rule or eventually gets some company in the Islamic moderate world.
All of these problems are nothing compared to the 800 lb gorilla that is the 2 party system.
The Democrats and Republicans have voted into place a system that pays for the Democrat and Republican parties. Oh sure, it doesn't say Democrat or Republican, it just says they have to get such and such a percentage to qualify, have to be nationwide, etc. All things that the Dems and Reps were at the time they inacted them. This is little different from Soviet Russia except instead of one party, we've got two.
The rules in place for running the House and Senate are even more blatant. It's all based on simple majority, which you can do with two parties. If a third party were ever to steal seats from both parties and neither of the two had a majority, they would have to rewrite all the rules for committees, offices, etc.
I will never donate any tax funds to pay for the elections of Democrats and Republicans and I urge everyone else not to either.
"applies to cases where the settlement occurs before the finding of fact"
Sure, that may cover some cases, but a settlement can occur after the finding of facts. Look at what has recently happened with Vonage and RIM.
If it sets a precedent on something common, the company that sues can then go after Apple, Red Hat, etc. MS has deep pockets and can afford to settle. Apple as well, but it would depend on the patent. If it covers anything iPod, it would be bad news.
This may be just be blunder and buss from a bumbler or it could be some hint of their nefarious plot to take over the world. I'm leaning towards the former.
I couldn't care less if you burn a flag, so long as it's yours.
The only way you can contend that their speech is protected is if you believe there is a way for the US to become a communist state or a monarchy while leaving the constitution and bill of rights intact. Maybe that's what you are saying, which is another huge leap of illogic. Do you really think the constitution and bill of rights are compatable with communism and monarchy? A reasonable person would clearly see that it is exempt from 1st ammendment protection.
the Court has routinely held they [FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS] may be limited
Nowhere does it say, nor have I said, that the government has to crack down on subversive speech or speech intended to deprive others of their rights, only that it would not violate the 1st ammendment if they did so. You can show a million cases of communists speaking freely and it doesn't negate the fact that the speech is not protected. You could do the same for monarchists and it still doesn't change anything. Call yourself Emperor Norton if you want, just don't fool yourself into thinking that that changes anything.
Never said I was a Christian, did I? Also, I understand the difference between a discussion and an attack.
What I can't understand is why an Atheist would spend so much time worrying about other peoples delusions. As far as Christianity having a much greater impact on your daily life, what impact is that? I'm not an atheist nor am I a christian and Christianity has no impact on my life except for traffic on Sunday morning that somehow the cops feel it is neccessary for them to prefer the people leaving church.
Islam, on the other hand, is a very repressive system that exacts special taxes on non-Muslims, prevents people from leaving their brotherhood, demeans women and has been tolerant of terrorism against the west when it is not outright encouraging it. Sorry, I just don't get it. Did a priest piddle you when you were younger? Did the christians beat you up at school?
Really, I'd like to know.
Christians in America are for the most part not 'Christ like'. They can be materialistic and self-centered, are in general overweight and under-educated, especially about their own religion, and largely ignorant of their own sins.
Atheists is America are generally just anti-Christian. However, they are still materialistic and self-centered, in general overweight, but over educated in the history of Christianity, especially everything bad, and largely ignorant of their own narrow bias.
If a story on slashdot is posted about evolution or religion in general, it will always turn, at some point, into an attack on Christianity. The people carrying out the attack will always claim to be athiests. However, if a story about Islam is posted, these same athiests will inject their anti-Christian attacks and avoid saying anything bad about Islam.
I think I'd just like to see the next slashdot story on Islam tagged with 'flyingspaghettimonster'.
"If it was not protected, then people could have been thrown in jail for just stating their support of communism" So someone has to go to jail for their rights to be violated? That's a leap of illogic. The Bill of Rights is not a set of laws a citizen can break. They are rights that cannot be taken away. You've gone from my original statement about being a communist to "merely speaking in favor of communism". You're running out of room for back tracking. You even admit as much when you say... "Please cite a case where a Bill-of-Rights based government restricted free speech for a monarchist." From www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php... "While some Supreme Court justices have declared that First Amendment freedoms are absolute or occupy a preferred position, the Court has routinely held they may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy), or to guard against subversion of the government and the spreading of dissension in wartime. Thus, the Court's majority has remained firm - the First Amendment rights are not absolute." Key phrases being 'to protect the rights of others' and 'to guard against subversion to the government'. Sound familiar?
I did give you a specific example. Saying you are or even were a communist has been a reason to exclude people from military and government service. Some have even been prosecuted for speaking the word 'No', as in no I'm not a communist. It may not even be true today, mainly because communism isn't much of a threat, but it certainly has been true in the past, all the way up to the 1990s.
It's even more self apparent for monarchists. Many were driven from their homes, property seized, etc. War of 1812 ring a bell? Burned most of Washington. Wasn't a good time to be a monarchist in America.
The only wrong I can see is your inability to seperate being a communist and advocating communism. It's easy for a moral relatavist. A moral relatavist can advocate communism the same as they can advocate the parliamentary system or sharia law or donkey buggery. It's all the same to them and I suspect, to you.
Free speech means being able to speak with impunity. Losing the ability to join the military or work for the government or get a clearance, are all punitive in nature, whether you'd like any of them or not.
Confused my regular doctors no end. Luckily, both appendixes went bad at nearly the same time. The one on my left was found after they looked at the one on the right and decided it couldn't have caused all of the problems (high fever, hallucinations, etc). The surgeon saved them in a jar and asked if he could have them. Of course I let him, he had saved my life.
Something good to know, if you ever have a pain on the left side and someone tells you it can't be your appendix.
"I ask again, do you have a specific example where merely being an advocate of communism was held in violation of the law?"
The bill of rights is not a set of laws that you break, they are rights that are afforded to citizens and legal residents. They are not just limitations on the government, private citizens, corporations, religious institutions, etc, also can not take away those rights. Anywhile, I'm sure we wouldn't have to look very far into Americas past to find an example of the 'right' to advocate communism being curtailed both by the government and also by the citizenry. The same way that advocating for a return to monarchy was curtailed after the revolution, both by the government and the citizenry.
Furthermore, the right to free speech does not include the rigth to advocate violence, whether it is against the government, private citzens, corporations, religious institutions, etc. If someone advocates violence and violence results from that speech, the right to free speech is no longer a valid argument against criminal and civil liability.
"You keep on trying to pin a label on me as part of an ad hominen attack. I am not advocating communism, but merely arguing that the 1st amendment protects those who advocate it, which is how this whole argument got started."
Never said you were advocating communism, what I did say is that you are a moral relativist. Which means you stand for everything, which is just an over-educated persons way of saying they stand for nothing. Don't be wimp, take a stand.
I'm fairly certain that the ozone hole over the artic was and continues to be sold as a man made catastrophe, despite no long term data on the subject and now, a natural variance of 30% and the thought that the hole was always there. As many have pointed out, the results of completely banning cfcs was maybe rash. That maybe there is a middle ground that might be better.
As far as maligning all scientists, I'll go one step further and say that most people do not own up to their mistakes. Scientists are just people. A certain amount of ego comes with being intelligent.
I don't claim to be a scientist, but I am a natural skeptic.
I was trying to figure out what was wrong with the summary and, to a lesser extent, the article.
It's rare to see such a sensible and informative response on slashdot that is not accompanied by flamebait or ego stroking.
"But, you see, the truth is that you have many choices of things to drink, and the cost of not drinking is miniscule, while the cost of drinking could be fatal. So I'm betting you won't drink it. Even though it looks like symmetry."
So we shouldn't make judgements based on methods, data, etc, we should just respond thru fear. Scientist A has good methods and solid theory, but Scientist B says everything is going to hell and we're all going to die. Therefore, we should ignore Scientist A. 'You made a good point, but in the end we thought your idea was boring. Try to add some death, disease, starvation, you know, something to grab the reader next time.'
Even when they are wrong, I don't see scientists making any efforts to own up to their mistakes. I don't even see them using science to respond to critics, they just accuse their accuser of being funded by big oil or having an agenda or some other childishness. The history of science is full of big egos that do some pretty unscientific and unscrupulus things.
Environmentalists have their own problems. There is a branch of environmentalists that think preserving an environment is the ultimate goal. That's why they oppose cutting a few trees to make fire breaks. When wild fires burn down the entire forest, I don't see any of them coming forward and saying 'mea culpa'. Same for opposing nuclear power, although some of them are coming around.
"Not every person under communism feels enslaved"
This is moral relativism at work. People in communist countries are not allowed to opt out of the system. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep people out, it was built to keep people from fleeing to the west. Even then, it didn't keep people from seeking asylum in the west, it just made it more difficult.
There are plenty of examples of people being prosecuted for lying about being communists. 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party' was a standard question for military and government service. For the military, it used to be right after 'Are you now or have you ever been a homosexual', which they no longer ask. Communism is such a tarnished idea that the only people who still argue for it are over-educated, moral relativists.
"I don't think at any point in the history of this country has it been illegal to argue against free speech"
That is something I never said. What I actually said... 'A reasonable person would consider that speech intended to remove the constitution and bill of rights should not be afforded the protections contained in the constitution and bill of rights.'
I think you may be the first person to argue about arguing against arguing. It's like all the people who are against protesting but have no way to show it.