There's a significant difference between the communists on the left and the fascists on the right. Body count.
Bullshit. No one killed more than communists. Stalin sent 20 million to the Gulag, and probably killed around 5 million. Add to that Khmer Rouge's body count (4.8 million - see Wikipedia), plus Fidel's "paredon" executions, you have probably twice or threefold the body count of the right.
Nothing justifies these body counts on the right and on the left. But what I absolutely loathe about communists is how they pose as the liberators of mankind with their lofty goals when, in fact, they're dangerous wolves in sheep's clothes.
That's terrible...But Anon doesn't look like "a group". It's a porous container, a fluid, moving gathering of individuals. It's a new group each time it gets "together". This is something the press never seems to get.
Mob rules and common sense are two things that have no place in legislation when you live under a democratic state. That's the very stuff Nazis and Christofucks are made of.
I just read the part about the Schenk case. "Potential to cause harm" is ill-defined. Inciting illegal action is well-defined, except that you can't forget that every single revolutionary - and that includes the American patriots who fought for independence, and people like Gandhi and Mandela - were outside the law at some point. So both are stupid concoctions for you to "beg the argument" (that is argue as a premise that which you are to demonstrate). I have to mention how "nonplussed" I was at the Supreme Court judge's line of reasoning.
It appears to me that shouting falsely fire is first of all, not expressing any opinion or idea. Furthermore, it is an act of communicating, in fact, an act intentional miscommunication of a danger to all, with full knowledge of the consequences (stampedes, etc.), unless if it's a case of mental illness.
How can you be sure of that diagnosis? Russian doctors are notoriously famous for their absurd medical practices. I doubt they ran all the tests with proper equipment. As a matter of fact, I even doubt they had the equipment.
Enjoy reading the Roving Russophobe's article on Russian doctors.
Here's the counterpoint to your very uneducated Darwinian argument:
A substantially (large) proportion of the human population (~10%) keeps popping out with this particular behavioral trait, i.e., homosexuality (there are others traits, but let's leave it at that.). Much to religious people's chagrin, it just doesn't seem to go away, as much as they pray and curse. It has been so for millenia.
Contrary to what you argued, instead of it being "unnatural" as you claimed, it would seem that there must be some Darwinian explanation for that trait to remain in the human population gene pool, because otherwise, if it weren't so, it would already have been eliminated, for precisely the reasons you pointed out.
As much as I think the Westboro Baptist nutjobs are straight out of the middle ages, I think Anonymous isn't protecting free speech at all by attacking those religious fanatics. Then the next step for Anonymous would "I don't like you, so I'll DDOS the fuck out of you." In this digital age, they argue that their DOS attacks are the equivalent of a crowd sit-in. How exactly *do you* effectively obstruct a bank in, say, Zurich, when their customers can do on-line transactions, and people don't really walk to the bank much for anything (I don't. Do you?).
The concept that "hate speech" is an actual act of hate (hence, not free speech at all) is kinda of a slippery slope... A hate group is a self-delimited group. They single themselves out, so it's immediately obvious who one is talking to. You can just turn your back. As long as hate groups (Westboro, Arian Nations, Nation of Islam, etc.) don't actually commit to physical violence, maybe it's better to keep them in open shouting their stupid ideas rather than having them plot in the dark.
The Anonymous collective is a bunch of very smart and articulate people, but I think they are taking their hacktivism in the wrong direction. Their Litmus Test for attacks should be: "If I woke up as an ACLU lawyer, what would *I do in this case."
It's kind of sad that, in America and Europe, protests are so sanitized, and furthermore, monitored by the police (cameras, databases, etc.) to an extent it really is kind of fascist and Orwellian. Americans in particular don't really seem to have the guts to go out and protest, due to all the laws (Patriot Act, No Fly list, police brutality and arrests) their previous right-wing government has advanced - they can claim their Constitution is grand, but you really need to have a very well-paid lawyer...In that kind of climate, it's only natural that a group of activists prefers anonymity to open spaces. Suck it up, "civilized" nations. Anonymous is just your own backyard blowback to so much crowd control (in America, thought control is called "patriotism") and so little respect for dissenting voices.
Hey, maybe there isn't much evidence because of the small OpenBSD userbase. Maybe they (Feds) thought OpenBSD would get more attention from, say, foreign governments, when in fact it hasn't got much attention at all. China, for instance, has chosen FreeBSD as the basis for they're "government OS".
But I would contend that it's still pretty tough stuff to get that right. You gotta consider how good your compiler is, how good your C library is, the numerical stability of the algorithms for your platform, etc.In fact, if you think too much about it, you're probably gonna become one über paranoid kind of dude. At least one very well know book on crypto is said to have very buggy code.
As a matter of fact, the US Government has a bunch of Haskell hackers under contract to develop mathematically proven, type-safe crypto protocols. They are Galois
The truth is there aren't that many eyes that can audit crypto code. You need a specialized Maths background (meaning that you can grok Number Theory at graduate level) and you need to understand stuff like numerical stability of algorithms, not to mention proficiency in internet protocols (implementation and design). Oh, also you need to know your OS from the inside out.
It ain't on the same ball park as writing web software or Unix systems programming, I don't think.
What I'm actually thinking - and I've pondered on this before - is that Tor might have been targeted in a similar way.
We don't hear much about Tor because most would-be-perps don't use it (or so called perps, such as the Wikileaks crew) much.If they did, government idiots (namely, senators without a clue) would probably try to outlaw crypto (which is akin to outlawing mathematics - but they are truly stupid, those US Senators - actually, legislators everywhere).
BTW, Theo always rejected any modern programming method. He's a C hacker to the core. He would never allow, for instance, software with sophisticated, safe, type systems in OpenBSD infrastructure (and, in contrast, Microsoft has done this type of analysis on drivers) and seems to reject any method using automated software verification. There's a price to pay for staying in the 70's...
...and meanwhile, the leak that Amir Karzai gets money in suitcases to release drug lords is not important.
Or that the Saudis asked the US to bomb Iran.
Or that Hillary asked diplomats to steal credit card info from fellow colleagues.
Or the leak (with video) about US Army personnel not complying with the rules of engagement and killing Reuters reporters.
None of that is important.
What is important is who Assange fucked.
Put a condom over that enemy combatant!
Oh well, blame the feminists who never thought about the consequences of going to the police because of a condomless one night stand. You heartless bitches.
I have a better ancient method: First part: Take a roll of string and some glue. Cut the string and glue it on top of the curve. Remember to write down how long the piece of string was. Then take some more glue and continue adding pieces of string until you fill the whole area. For increased fun you can choose different colors (choose bright colors). When you are done you count how much string you used. Now for the second part. Second part: Pull out brand new string from a roll. As much as the sum total of the pieces you used to fill the area under the curve (which should be a colorful thing). Pin down one extremity and roll it around until you make a circle. Then, calculate the area of the circle! There! This should be enough for Diabetes Care! (Now make many more circles, each a different color!)
I'm on a mission...It is to convince doctors I know to shun Excel as it were the Devil...
Excel is a piece of trash and should never be used for serious medical statistics. The statistical community has pointed out - many times - how Excel failed miserably in statistical tests.
It's fine for counting cents or dollars, but doing medical research with it might result actual harm.
Doctors should stick to SPSS. If they're feeling real adventurous, they can do what *everyone* in the statistics community does and use R (or do like the engineers and use Matlab). But don't use Excel! NEVER! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
There's a significant difference between the communists on the left and the fascists on the right. Body count.
Bullshit. No one killed more than communists. Stalin sent 20 million to the Gulag, and probably killed around 5 million. Add to that Khmer Rouge's body count (4.8 million - see Wikipedia), plus Fidel's "paredon" executions, you have probably twice or threefold the body count of the right.
Nothing justifies these body counts on the right and on the left. But what I absolutely loathe about communists is how they pose as the liberators of mankind with their lofty goals when, in fact, they're dangerous wolves in sheep's clothes.
You're absolutely right. Today's Roman Catholic Church accepts the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution.
That's terrible...But Anon doesn't look like "a group". It's a porous container, a fluid, moving gathering of individuals. It's a new group each time it gets "together". This is something the press never seems to get.
See also the concept upheld in some Supreme Court decisions: Fighting words. (It's the concept I came up with in the other reply to your post).
Charlie Sheen is trying to fuck her. Do not be fooled by his apparent good intentions.
It's not even mob rule, it's common sense.
Mob rules and common sense are two things that have no place in legislation when you live under a democratic state. That's the very stuff Nazis and Christofucks are made of.
sorry about the long underline...
I just read the part about the Schenk case. "Potential to cause harm" is ill-defined. Inciting illegal action is well-defined, except that you can't forget that every single revolutionary - and that includes the American patriots who fought for independence, and people like Gandhi and Mandela - were outside the law at some point. So both are stupid concoctions for you to "beg the argument" (that is argue as a premise that which you are to demonstrate). I have to mention how "nonplussed" I was at the Supreme Court judge's line of reasoning.
It appears to me that shouting falsely fire is first of all, not expressing any opinion or idea. Furthermore, it is an act of communicating, in fact, an act intentional miscommunication of a danger to all, with full knowledge of the consequences (stampedes, etc.), unless if it's a case of mental illness.
Hate speech, it seems, when not convoking people to "hang niggers", is probably expressing an opinion. Problem is when that opinion is "reasons why we should send Jews to the gas chamber." I would say, however, that an opinion is different than an instruction. Clear and present danger alone is ill-defined, and Justice Holmes' use was, in fact, a political use of the term (so much that it was overruled later). Saying the instruction is geared towards committing an imminent lawless act is probably more on the mark, but still vague (can you pass legislation that protests are illegal?).
I would define hate speech as an "act" when: it's not an opinion, that is, it's a call to action.
What we need, therefore, is more Grammar Nazis. LOL:-) Oh. My. Head. Hurts.
Thanks for that link, BTW.
They say the soldiers died because "America worships the rectum". LOL :-)
That has got to make it into a Top 10 crazy shit list.
How can you be sure of that diagnosis? Russian doctors are notoriously famous for their absurd medical practices.
I doubt they ran all the tests with proper equipment. As a matter of fact, I even doubt they had the equipment.
Enjoy reading the Roving Russophobe's article on Russian doctors.
Can't you use proper Unicode?
He wrote a 3 stage plan to get to his classless, stateless society:
1) install a "dictatorship of the proletariat"
(...) REDACTED (...)
Here's the counterpoint to your very uneducated Darwinian argument:
A substantially (large) proportion of the human population (~10%) keeps popping out with this particular behavioral trait, i.e., homosexuality (there are others traits, but let's leave it at that.). Much to religious people's chagrin, it just doesn't seem to go away, as much as they pray and curse. It has been so for millenia.
Contrary to what you argued, instead of it being "unnatural" as you claimed, it would seem that there must be some Darwinian explanation for that trait to remain in the human population gene pool, because otherwise, if it weren't so, it would already have been eliminated, for precisely the reasons you pointed out.
As much as I think the Westboro Baptist nutjobs are straight out of the middle ages, I think Anonymous isn't protecting free speech at all by attacking those religious fanatics. Then the next step for Anonymous would "I don't like you, so I'll DDOS the fuck out of you." In this digital age, they argue that their DOS attacks are the equivalent of a crowd sit-in. How exactly *do you* effectively obstruct a bank in, say, Zurich, when their customers can do on-line transactions, and people don't really walk to the bank much for anything (I don't. Do you?).
The concept that "hate speech" is an actual act of hate (hence, not free speech at all) is kinda of a slippery slope... A hate group is a self-delimited group. They single themselves out, so it's immediately obvious who one is talking to. You can just turn your back. As long as hate groups (Westboro, Arian Nations, Nation of Islam, etc.) don't actually commit to physical violence, maybe it's better to keep them in open shouting their stupid ideas rather than having them plot in the dark.
The Anonymous collective is a bunch of very smart and articulate people, but I think they are taking their hacktivism in the wrong direction. Their Litmus Test for attacks should be: "If I woke up as an ACLU lawyer, what would *I do in this case."
It's kind of sad that, in America and Europe, protests are so sanitized, and furthermore, monitored by the police (cameras, databases, etc.) to an extent it really is kind of fascist and Orwellian. Americans in particular don't really seem to have the guts to go out and protest, due to all the laws (Patriot Act, No Fly list, police brutality and arrests) their previous right-wing government has advanced - they can claim their Constitution is grand, but you really need to have a very well-paid lawyer...In that kind of climate, it's only natural that a group of activists prefers anonymity to open spaces. Suck it up, "civilized" nations. Anonymous is just your own backyard blowback to so much crowd control (in America, thought control is called "patriotism") and so little respect for dissenting voices.
Hey, maybe there isn't much evidence because of the small OpenBSD userbase. Maybe they (Feds) thought OpenBSD would get more attention from, say, foreign governments, when in fact it hasn't got much attention at all. China, for instance, has chosen FreeBSD as the basis for they're "government OS".
But I would contend that it's still pretty tough stuff to get that right. You gotta consider how good your compiler is, how good your C library is, the numerical stability of the algorithms for your platform, etc.In fact, if you think too much about it, you're probably gonna become one über paranoid kind of dude. At least one very well know book on crypto is said to have very buggy code.
As a matter of fact, the US Government has a bunch of Haskell hackers under contract to develop mathematically proven, type-safe crypto protocols. They are Galois
The truth is there aren't that many eyes that can audit crypto code. You need a specialized Maths background (meaning that you can grok Number Theory at graduate level) and you need to understand stuff like numerical stability of algorithms, not to mention proficiency in internet protocols (implementation and design). Oh, also you need to know your OS from the inside out.
It ain't on the same ball park as writing web software or Unix systems programming, I don't think.
What I'm actually thinking - and I've pondered on this before - is that Tor might have been targeted in a similar way.
We don't hear much about Tor because most would-be-perps don't use it (or so called perps, such as the Wikileaks crew) much.If they did, government idiots (namely, senators without a clue) would probably try to outlaw crypto (which is akin to outlawing mathematics - but they are truly stupid, those US Senators - actually, legislators everywhere).
BTW, Theo always rejected any modern programming method. He's a C hacker to the core. He would never allow, for instance, software with sophisticated, safe, type systems in OpenBSD infrastructure (and, in contrast, Microsoft has done this type of analysis on drivers) and seems to reject any method using automated software verification. There's a price to pay for staying in the 70's...
yeah, coz he just sounded dumb.
Or that the Saudis asked the US to bomb Iran.
Or that Hillary asked diplomats to steal credit card info from fellow colleagues.
Or the leak (with video) about US Army personnel not complying with the rules of engagement and killing Reuters reporters.
None of that is important.
What is important is who Assange fucked.
Put a condom over that enemy combatant!
Oh well, blame the feminists who never thought about the consequences of going to the police because of a condomless one night stand. You heartless bitches.
I have a better ancient method:
First part:
Take a roll of string and some glue. Cut the string and glue it on top of the curve. Remember to write down how long the piece of string was.
Then take some more glue and continue adding pieces of string until you fill the whole area. For increased fun you can choose different colors (choose bright colors).
When you are done you count how much string you used. Now for the second part.
Second part:
Pull out brand new string from a roll. As much as the sum total of the pieces you used to fill the area under the curve (which should be a colorful thing). Pin down one extremity and roll it around until you make a circle. Then, calculate the area of the circle!
There! This should be enough for Diabetes Care!
(Now make many more circles, each a different color!)
I'm on a mission...It is to convince doctors I know to shun Excel as it were the Devil...
Excel is a piece of trash and should never be used for serious medical statistics. The statistical community has pointed out - many times - how Excel failed miserably in statistical tests.
It's fine for counting cents or dollars, but doing medical research with it might result actual harm.
Doctors should stick to SPSS. If they're feeling real adventurous, they can do what *everyone* in the statistics community does and use R (or do like the engineers and use Matlab). But don't use Excel! NEVER! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!!!
If you have mod points, please raise Anon's score to 5 - highly informative.
Thanks for the hard work, Anon!
Hey, robosmurf, you haven't yet made it to the Numerical Analysis class and you haven't yet seen Numerical Integration, have ya?