And every time I hear someone who's anti-abortion use the "taking of human life" argument, they paint it as "those evil pro-abortion people are killing babies, the nerve!". They act as if being for abortion is a homicidal position, when it's really completely neutral towards the fetus, and centers on the belief that the fetus is a growth inside the woman's body and should be treated as such.
You see, letting a little passion creep into the debate is not exclusive to any one side.
That's the whole issue at hand, of course. That's an entire debate by itself, my point was just that pro-abortion people need to stop flinging this bs of "they don't want to let women control their bodies", because it just isn't true.
The point is that you and pro-abortionists disagree on whether or not the fetus is part of the woman's body. You consider the fetus separate. They consider the fetus part of her body. Therefore, they are not "distorting the issue" by stating that anti-abortionists want to prevent women from controlling their own bodies, they are simply describing exactly what anti-abortionists are doing in their view.
Think of it this way. If, for the sake of argument, we agree that a fetus is a part of a woman's body and not an independent human being, then how is the anti-abortion stance anything other than preventing a woman from choosing what she can do with her own body?
The entire debate is between the idea that a fetus is an individual human and the idea that a fetus is a part of a woman's body. They are not distorting the debate, that is the debate.
What you said is the equivalent of saying:
Anti-abortion people need to stop flinging this bs of "it's the taking of a human life", because it just isn't true.
This forum is not much different in purpose from email. We're here communicating back and forth with each other using simple text.
I notice, however, that you chose to use both italics and bold in your message. If you see the point of using markup to enhance communication here, why do you not see a point in using markup to enhance communication in an email?
By the way, if it only took you two days to record your music, then it clearly sucks and I don't want to hear it.
I'm kidding, of course. But the last album I was involved with took nine months from start of recording to holding the disc in my hand. Sure, Hawksley Workman can slap together an album in a week (playing all the instruments and producing it, too), but he's a pretty rare case.
We're living in the digital age. As a result, the concept of mailing CDs to radio stations is obsolete. Fewer and fewer stations are even bothering to open those CDs.
Instead, they work with a Digital Music Delivery Service. This makes it faster and easier for an artist to get their music to radio stations, and also provides the ability for the stations to enter into a single, standardized contract with the service that is applicable to all music received through that service. Plus, with the elimination of the CDs, there is nothing to re-sell.
I've been interested in giving that a try, but I still don't expect much from it. It would need a full force feedback cockpit and wrap around displays to really pull off the realism. It's not just about the physics model.
Someday, when I've got a bit of time, I'll check it out.
You might have a point if there was an agreement between the two parties. However, in this case the CDs were unsolicited.
The fact that the recipient can potentially benefit from receiving them is irrelevant. They weren't asked for, there was no agreement between the parties, and therefore they were an unsolicited gift. The recipient can do as they please with them.
What if you can fly a plane in a flight simulator?!
Then you'll do better in a real plane than someone without the flight simulator experience, but you'll still be a long way away from being a real pilot.
Flight Simulator was fun to play before I got my pilot's license, but became really boring after I got my license, as it's just not realistic enough. It looks good, but just doesn't feel the same.
Oddly enough, I almost always miss the runway when landing in Flight Simulator, and sometimes even crash. I think that's mainly because I keep expecting the simulated plane to respond the way the real one would, and it just doesn't.
You missed the point. This is *internet* telephony. It is good in all those situations, 'cause if you're using it, you've got internet access. Period.
There is no excuse for using internet telephony without at least an IM first, since IM is available by definition if you've got access to internet telephony.
Not quite. Internet telephony is much more than just sitting at your computer talking to someone using a headset. You could have, for example, a regular telephone handset connected to a VoIP interface. No need to be sitting at your computer to receive a call. No option to connect via IM first. In fact, the person at the other end could be calling from a traditional phone, meaning they could have absolutely no means to IM you anyway.
Look at the article linked from the summary:
"Junk phone calls at 4am are going to drive you mad because the chances are that antispit software won't be able to intercept the call."
What's the point of the 4 am reference if you're sitting awake at your computer with your IM client running anyway? The point is that they're talking about a phone ringing and waking you up. How does your IM solution work in this situation if the 4 am call is actually legitimate, for example in the hospital scenario I gave previously, and if the VoIP line is your only phone line?
Arrange the usage of internet telephony over e-mail, SMS, or IM before initiating or accepting a call.... If you weren't expecting the call, don't answer it.
That's not so good when an old friend I'd lost contact with passes through town and decides to look me up in the phone book. Or when my girlfriend is traveling through Europe and calls from assorted hostels whenever she gets the opportunity. Or when a relative calls from the hospital pay phone to tell me to get down there right away to say goodbye to Grandma, who probably won't live through the night.
I don't want unexpected calls from spammers/spitters/telemarketers/whatever, but I absolutely want unexpected calls from friends/family/acquaintances.
If you can select "Manual" or "Follow Local Convention" on something, it's fine.
Of course it's opt-in. You opt-in by buying the device. You opt-out by not buying it. Don't forget, we're talking about a patent from a single company, not legislation.
I imagine repairing a tear caused by a key, or a pocketknife, or a rock on the freeway, would be a lot less expensive if the repair consists only of replacing a piece of fabric.
It looks like it's a ridiculously sturdy fabric, so I'm not so sure about how easy it would be to cut it with a pocketknife. Nevertheless, if it did get damaged, I doubt it would be a cheap repair. It looks like a single large piece of fabric (or at least very few large pieces) stretched over the entire car, so "replacing a piece of fabric" to fix a small scratch on the door would actually equate to replacing the whole damn thing. And I suspect you can't just buy a roll of this stuff at Fabric Land.
Context is a necessary aid in understanding, but it's no excuse for not saying what you mean. Their intention may have been to protect political speech, but they clearly chose not to specifically state that, choosing instead to protect all speech, so as to ensure that political speech would be protected.
I don't think this was unintentional, as evidenced by the fact that they were quite specific in much of the rest of the text. In fact, I'd suggest that they wanted to ensure that there was no loophole whereby political speech could be suppressed by claiming it is not political speech, and thereby not protected. So, to cover all their bases, they decided to protect everything.
How do you translate "or abridging the freedom of speech" into "people could criticize the government"? It makes no mention of the government, except in the final point, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", which is a separate bullet point.
In other words, the entirety of the Amendment, as it pertains to freedom of speech, is "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". That's a pretty clear way of saying "the Government can't legally prevent you from saying anything -- period".
Standard disclaimer applies: IANAANHIRTCIIEIJIIDYP (I Am Not An American, Nor Have I Read The Constitution In Its Entirety, I'm Just Interested In Discussing Your Point).
Generally our laws are defined rather broadly. Especially "harrassment" is not exactly defined. Basically the law says when you do something to a person that the other person doesn't want you to do to them, and you don't have a right to do this (like, when you have the right to cross their property) and you keep doing it, you're harrassing.
The question is rather, does the current law not cover such acts?
According to TFA, no: "(l)awmakers are seeking to address cyberbullying with new legislation because there's currently no specific law on the books that deals with it"
If not, why not?
Because laws are often necessarily very specific. You can't just say "it's illegal to harass" someone, because that leaves too much open to interpretation. The law needs to define what constitutes harassment, and the current laws were written before it was possible to harass someone in the ways that technology has now made possible.
Is it not illegal to spread rumors about someone "offline"?
This is about harassment, not just "spreading rumors". And yes, it's illegal to harass someone offline. But again, the law needs to define harassment in order to be effective.
Is it not illegal to call someone constantly and hang up when they pick up?
Harassment via telephone is not new. Harassment via text messaging, instant messaging, MySpace/Facebook/etc is.
Yes, you could bully me from anywhere on the planet.... Why should someone from India bully me? He doesn't even know me at all.
I think the point is more where the victim is, rather than where the bully is. In other words, the bullying can continue even once you're "safe" in your own home. "Old school" bullying ended once you arrived at home.
And so far, I thought we already had stalking laws, they could be beefed up a bit and we're set.
Isn't that what this legislation is trying to do? Beef up the existing laws to ensure they cover the new forms that these actions have started to take?
From TFA: "When signed, the Missouri state law will update existing regulations on harassment and stalking to include instances of those acts over the Internet, text message, or other electronic device."
...stalking (even with no intent to actually interact with the person on any level) is reason enough to get a restraining order slapped around you.
Yes, it is possible to get a restraining order for being stalked, even without immediate physical danger. My bad. However, it's much more difficult to get the restraining order granted. I know someone who has been in that situation and was denied the restraining order because there was no immediate physical danger.
What you're basically saying is, instead of adding "on the internet" to the existing laws, we should add "on the internet" to restraining orders.
The problem is that restraining orders are reactive, whereas laws attempt to be proactive. A law says "you can't do X". A restraining order says "you've been doing X, and there's nothing we can do about that, but now you can't do X anymore". Laws are always in effect, restraining orders have to be applied for -- and can be denied.
Laws are much more effective than restraining orders.
By the way, restraining orders aren't issued simply because someone is being harassed. The person has to be in immediate physical danger.
Oh no, someone is mean to you on a forum! That is a far, FAR cry from someone following you around in the real world and harassing you.
Actually, there's no mention whatsoever of forums in the article. According to the article, the point of this legislation is that it is specifically defining what constitutes "harassment", and that they are specifically targeting repeated harassment using the Internet, text messages, and other electronic devices.
So, this is actually not all that different from being followed around and harassed in the real world. In fact, it is being followed around and harassed in the real world, only the harassment is coming through electronic devices (mostly cell phones).
From TFA: "The problem with cyberbullying is that kids aren't even safe in their own home, because they're being harassed through the computer or cell phones 24/7 potentially".
Disclaimer: I haven't read the actual proposed legislation, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it.
My biggest problem with these anti-online X laws are why we need to specify "on the internet". If all you're adding is "on the internet", then the law shouldn't need to be written in the first place.
I didn't RTFA (well, I skimmed it), and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it occurred to me that maybe the purpose of creating a new law that simply adds "on the internet" to an existing law is to allow for harsher sentencing.
Theoretically, technology allows bullies to escalate their bullying to new levels, harassing their victims unrelentingly, at any hour of the day, and from anywhere. Perhaps updating the law to factor in the heightened level of harassment that is now possible allows judges to increase the sentence accordingly.
I did notice, however, that the article claims that "(l)awmakers are seeking to address cyberbullying with new legislation because there's currently no specific law on the books that deals with it".
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the fact that the servers are currently toast is a bigger hindrance to their record setting attempts.
And every time I hear someone who's anti-abortion use the "taking of human life" argument, they paint it as "those evil pro-abortion people are killing babies, the nerve!". They act as if being for abortion is a homicidal position, when it's really completely neutral towards the fetus, and centers on the belief that the fetus is a growth inside the woman's body and should be treated as such.
You see, letting a little passion creep into the debate is not exclusive to any one side.
The point is that you and pro-abortionists disagree on whether or not the fetus is part of the woman's body. You consider the fetus separate. They consider the fetus part of her body. Therefore, they are not "distorting the issue" by stating that anti-abortionists want to prevent women from controlling their own bodies, they are simply describing exactly what anti-abortionists are doing in their view.
Think of it this way. If, for the sake of argument, we agree that a fetus is a part of a woman's body and not an independent human being, then how is the anti-abortion stance anything other than preventing a woman from choosing what she can do with her own body?
The entire debate is between the idea that a fetus is an individual human and the idea that a fetus is a part of a woman's body. They are not distorting the debate, that is the debate.
What you said is the equivalent of saying:
Anti-abortion people need to stop flinging this bs of "it's the taking of a human life", because it just isn't true.This forum is not much different in purpose from email. We're here communicating back and forth with each other using simple text.
I notice, however, that you chose to use both italics and bold in your message. If you see the point of using markup to enhance communication here, why do you not see a point in using markup to enhance communication in an email?
By the way, if it only took you two days to record your music, then it clearly sucks and I don't want to hear it.
I'm kidding, of course. But the last album I was involved with took nine months from start of recording to holding the disc in my hand. Sure, Hawksley Workman can slap together an album in a week (playing all the instruments and producing it, too), but he's a pretty rare case.
...who's going to spend the six weeks to negotiate an agreement before we agree that you can even look at it?Not necessary. Just call them and make a verbal agreement. Record the call if you want to play it safe.
By doing that, it's no longer unsolicited, and is therefore not a gift. The "not for resale" disclaimer should actually apply in that case.
There exists a solution today, actually.
We're living in the digital age. As a result, the concept of mailing CDs to radio stations is obsolete. Fewer and fewer stations are even bothering to open those CDs.
Instead, they work with a Digital Music Delivery Service. This makes it faster and easier for an artist to get their music to radio stations, and also provides the ability for the stations to enter into a single, standardized contract with the service that is applicable to all music received through that service. Plus, with the elimination of the CDs, there is nothing to re-sell.
I've been interested in giving that a try, but I still don't expect much from it. It would need a full force feedback cockpit and wrap around displays to really pull off the realism. It's not just about the physics model.
Someday, when I've got a bit of time, I'll check it out.
You might have a point if there was an agreement between the two parties. However, in this case the CDs were unsolicited.
The fact that the recipient can potentially benefit from receiving them is irrelevant. They weren't asked for, there was no agreement between the parties, and therefore they were an unsolicited gift. The recipient can do as they please with them.
Then you'll do better in a real plane than someone without the flight simulator experience, but you'll still be a long way away from being a real pilot.
Flight Simulator was fun to play before I got my pilot's license, but became really boring after I got my license, as it's just not realistic enough. It looks good, but just doesn't feel the same.
Oddly enough, I almost always miss the runway when landing in Flight Simulator, and sometimes even crash. I think that's mainly because I keep expecting the simulated plane to respond the way the real one would, and it just doesn't.
You missed the point. This is *internet* telephony. It is good in all those situations, 'cause if you're using it, you've got internet access. Period.
There is no excuse for using internet telephony without at least an IM first, since IM is available by definition if you've got access to internet telephony.
Not quite. Internet telephony is much more than just sitting at your computer talking to someone using a headset. You could have, for example, a regular telephone handset connected to a VoIP interface. No need to be sitting at your computer to receive a call. No option to connect via IM first. In fact, the person at the other end could be calling from a traditional phone, meaning they could have absolutely no means to IM you anyway.
Look at the article linked from the summary:
"Junk phone calls at 4am are going to drive you mad because the chances are that antispit software won't be able to intercept the call."What's the point of the 4 am reference if you're sitting awake at your computer with your IM client running anyway? The point is that they're talking about a phone ringing and waking you up. How does your IM solution work in this situation if the 4 am call is actually legitimate, for example in the hospital scenario I gave previously, and if the VoIP line is your only phone line?
That's not so good when an old friend I'd lost contact with passes through town and decides to look me up in the phone book. Or when my girlfriend is traveling through Europe and calls from assorted hostels whenever she gets the opportunity. Or when a relative calls from the hospital pay phone to tell me to get down there right away to say goodbye to Grandma, who probably won't live through the night.
I don't want unexpected calls from spammers/spitters/telemarketers/whatever, but I absolutely want unexpected calls from friends/family/acquaintances.
Of course it's opt-in. You opt-in by buying the device. You opt-out by not buying it. Don't forget, we're talking about a patent from a single company, not legislation.
It looks like it's a ridiculously sturdy fabric, so I'm not so sure about how easy it would be to cut it with a pocketknife. Nevertheless, if it did get damaged, I doubt it would be a cheap repair. It looks like a single large piece of fabric (or at least very few large pieces) stretched over the entire car, so "replacing a piece of fabric" to fix a small scratch on the door would actually equate to replacing the whole damn thing. And I suspect you can't just buy a roll of this stuff at Fabric Land.
Context is a necessary aid in understanding, but it's no excuse for not saying what you mean. Their intention may have been to protect political speech, but they clearly chose not to specifically state that, choosing instead to protect all speech, so as to ensure that political speech would be protected.
I don't think this was unintentional, as evidenced by the fact that they were quite specific in much of the rest of the text. In fact, I'd suggest that they wanted to ensure that there was no loophole whereby political speech could be suppressed by claiming it is not political speech, and thereby not protected. So, to cover all their bases, they decided to protect everything.
How do you translate "or abridging the freedom of speech" into "people could criticize the government"? It makes no mention of the government, except in the final point, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", which is a separate bullet point.
In other words, the entirety of the Amendment, as it pertains to freedom of speech, is "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". That's a pretty clear way of saying "the Government can't legally prevent you from saying anything -- period".
Standard disclaimer applies: IANAANHIRTCIIEIJIIDYP (I Am Not An American, Nor Have I Read The Constitution In Its Entirety, I'm Just Interested In Discussing Your Point).
Is that so?
According to TFA, no: "(l)awmakers are seeking to address cyberbullying with new legislation because there's currently no specific law on the books that deals with it"
If not, why not?Because laws are often necessarily very specific. You can't just say "it's illegal to harass" someone, because that leaves too much open to interpretation. The law needs to define what constitutes harassment, and the current laws were written before it was possible to harass someone in the ways that technology has now made possible.
Is it not illegal to spread rumors about someone "offline"?This is about harassment, not just "spreading rumors". And yes, it's illegal to harass someone offline. But again, the law needs to define harassment in order to be effective.
Is it not illegal to call someone constantly and hang up when they pick up?Harassment via telephone is not new. Harassment via text messaging, instant messaging, MySpace/Facebook/etc is.
I think the point is more where the victim is, rather than where the bully is. In other words, the bullying can continue even once you're "safe" in your own home. "Old school" bullying ended once you arrived at home.
And so far, I thought we already had stalking laws, they could be beefed up a bit and we're set.Isn't that what this legislation is trying to do? Beef up the existing laws to ensure they cover the new forms that these actions have started to take?
From TFA: "When signed, the Missouri state law will update existing regulations on harassment and stalking to include instances of those acts over the Internet, text message, or other electronic device."
...stalking (even with no intent to actually interact with the person on any level) is reason enough to get a restraining order slapped around you.Yes, it is possible to get a restraining order for being stalked, even without immediate physical danger. My bad. However, it's much more difficult to get the restraining order granted. I know someone who has been in that situation and was denied the restraining order because there was no immediate physical danger.
What you're basically saying is, instead of adding "on the internet" to the existing laws, we should add "on the internet" to restraining orders.
The problem is that restraining orders are reactive, whereas laws attempt to be proactive. A law says "you can't do X". A restraining order says "you've been doing X, and there's nothing we can do about that, but now you can't do X anymore". Laws are always in effect, restraining orders have to be applied for -- and can be denied.
Laws are much more effective than restraining orders.
By the way, restraining orders aren't issued simply because someone is being harassed. The person has to be in immediate physical danger.
Actually, there's no mention whatsoever of forums in the article. According to the article, the point of this legislation is that it is specifically defining what constitutes "harassment", and that they are specifically targeting repeated harassment using the Internet, text messages, and other electronic devices.
So, this is actually not all that different from being followed around and harassed in the real world. In fact, it is being followed around and harassed in the real world, only the harassment is coming through electronic devices (mostly cell phones).
From TFA: "The problem with cyberbullying is that kids aren't even safe in their own home, because they're being harassed through the computer or cell phones 24/7 potentially".
Disclaimer: I haven't read the actual proposed legislation, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it.
I didn't RTFA (well, I skimmed it), and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it occurred to me that maybe the purpose of creating a new law that simply adds "on the internet" to an existing law is to allow for harsher sentencing.
Theoretically, technology allows bullies to escalate their bullying to new levels, harassing their victims unrelentingly, at any hour of the day, and from anywhere. Perhaps updating the law to factor in the heightened level of harassment that is now possible allows judges to increase the sentence accordingly.
I did notice, however, that the article claims that "(l)awmakers are seeking to address cyberbullying with new legislation because there's currently no specific law on the books that deals with it".
It's most likely the third-party apps causing that. I mean, 4 - 5 minutes? That's insane.
My Acer laptop boots to a login prompt within about 30 seconds, and once I'm there, I'm only about 5 - 10 seconds away from using my computer.
There, I fixed that fo