Oooops you're right about restricted/prohibited. I do not fall into either of those classes so sometimes I get them mixed up - although a friend of mine is in the restricted class, regardless, I only have my PAL and an unrestricted license.
And the number of firearms, again, correct. I realize after I posted it that I though that number was off. Frig, I just had a discussion on that over the weekend. My bad.
That's why you're an instructor, you know the details of the whole thing - although for an average citizen, I think I got the basics down maybe the semantics were wrong, alas.
You're right though, the registry is pretty much completely bogus, although, I do have a small bit of trust in the government that they won't misuse it. Call me naive, but seriously, there would be way more backlash if they tried something more stupid than what has already been done.
Your examples are not hateful, that's the point. Hate: To feel hostility or animosity toward.
I think the key word here is "hostility" and/or the incitement of hosility. Either way, I just don't agree with you. I live in Canada (do you?) where we don't have the first amendment to sheild everything one says - which is really the crux of the issue, and I beleive it is not right to incite hateful speech towards any other group or hell, even an individual. Saying someone is an idiot or that you don't like them, or that they can't dance (which is just a stereotype) is not by definition - hateful, plain and simple.
You simply cannot put conditions on free speech. You're not making sense.
Actually you can put conditions on free speech. As another poster whose options I disagree with but respect brought up: Can you yell Fire in a crowded theatre when there is none? The answer is no. You will most deinfately get in hot water for that one. In the interests of free speech do you think that's ok?
I hope there aren't too many others like you
In the interest of a more civil and less hurtful society, I bloody well hope there is.
I appreciate this discourse, it is obvious that we do indeed fall on different sides of the spectrum when it comes to this issue. I myself am not perfect, far from it. Very far from it.
Anyhow, we obviously both want what is best for our society, it's just that we have different viewpoints and opinions on just how we should arrive at that point.
I believe that religious freedom can be sheilded, but only so far. As another poster pointed out, freedom of religious expression likely does cover many aspects of speech. However calling people "sinners" is one thing, calling them "evil" and children eaters is another (a weak example, but you get my point).
As for Academic shielding. I doubt it. Can a Professor at University stand up and claim that the holocaust never happened and that the Jewish people are a bunch of liars and heretics? That Professor could, but I figure he'd lose his tenure pretty quick - as for getting in trouble with the law, maybe, don't know. But again, when it comes to the letter of the law, I cannot make claim one way or the other.
And I'll say it again: Your right to Free Speech stops when you hurt another person or group in any form willfully or intentionaly.
Do you think it's OK to say something hurtful and/or ignorant and defaming in a public discourse against the Jewish people? How about black people (people of African descent)? Maybe people of Asian descent? How about women? Maybe you think it's ok to defame white people and call us a bunch of "Ignorant Racist Redneck Honky Bumbaclots" Hmmm? Hate speech is inciteful of violence, be it emotional, or worse yet - physical, like it or not.
Who do you say should decide what is hate and what is not?
Civil society, laws and those that are our elected forms of goverment. That's who.
how many people have to think I'm worth listening to before I'm a "community leader"?
The minute you stand up on a pulpit, podium, pedestal or otherwise in front of a communications medium and express your views in a hurtful way and at the same time are respected and listened to because of your position in the social structure, that makes you a community leader. As an individual, you are entitled to share your views in private amongst a likeminded or otherwise circle of friends. Take those "hurtful words" into a public medium, and that's where I tend to disagree with you.
but you cannot protect society from hateful ideas by criminalizing speech
Speech already is criminalized in certain forms by acts of Libel and Defamation, there are already laws for that, civil mind you. That is the difference between "hate speech" and the other two forms, the others affects one person, "hate speech" is against an identifiable group of people due to colour, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. All three forms have no place in a democracy or any civil society whatsoever
Hate needs to be met my love & ideas.
Touche. Well, by your words of "love & ideas", you have already shown yourself to be a hippocrite. You previously posted that you think gays are "evil" and "sinners" and that "children need to be protected" from them. Coming from a Christian, that doesn't sound very loving to me, nor are you providing any good ideas to stop the hurtful and defaming speech coming from certain segments of society. Until then, there will be laws to stop that from happening. If they have to go a little over the edge and try and legislate people's acceptance and understanding for other segments of society - so be it.
Anyways, I am not trying to start a flame war here, so on this point were just going to have to agree to disagree.
I don't actually see a problem with Hate Speech Laws trumping the Charter. Free Speech ends when it hurts someone, physically, emotionaly, or mentally. A call to violence is indeed different as it provokes a physical act, but the problem with the heads of church speaking out and calling the gay lifestyle "evil" is that they are (excuse the pun) preaching to the choir. They are community leaders and as such, people listen to them. You speaking out is your own viewpoint, and as much as I think your views are wrong, you are not affecting a bunch of people listening to you intently as a leader of the community.
And your strawman argument, If I were to call you "an ignorant fundie that lived in the dark ages and belives.." (good choice, I like the easter bunny part) that is in no way different than you calling homosexuals evil and sinners! Both acts are defaming, like it or not.
Just because you beleive something that may or may not "come from a higher power" and think that your choice is sanctioned in some way or another because it is written in a book that has no legal standing, and arguable historical accuracy (for the record, I am agnostic, baptised presbyterian mind you) does not give you the right to defame others. Plain and simple.
By making those statements I would say that if you made them in Canada, and were a Canadian Citizen, then yes, you could very well be skirting the line. But that doesn't mean I want to see you locked up in jail.
Hate has no place in an equal and open society. And although it may be called a "Hate Speech Law" doesn't mean you have to "hate" someone to breech it, that's just a blanket naming. It really should be called something else - but either way, the intent of the law is the same - to stop hurtful and/or hate-inducing speech.
Actually being a human gives you no real rights to bash anyone you like. Well, that may be your views, and you may share those with others, but others will respectfully disagree with you, myself included.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada protects free speech, but the anti-hate speech laws trump the Charter, it says to this effect: that it prohibits any speech or text which is "likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age."
We don't have the first amandement like the states. Up here, being more socialist allows the rights of many to outweigh the rights of the few in special cases.
And calling it a sin is not the issue, it's when the Archdiocese in Toronto not only called them sinners but "evil" and "doing irepperrable harm against children", or maybe that was the pope, whatever.
Again, the whole issue is marriage. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state, in the US you do not see this so much, up here you do. Our Prime Minister is a staunch Catholic but he supports the rights of minorities. Which is good and the way it should be. The problem is when you make defaming statements, that's the problem - calling it a "sin" isn't defaming, calling homosexuals "evil" and "a threat to children" is.
Canada does not have "ridiculous" gun laws. I own six personally. To get a gun you have to go on course, nowadays they call is the "Firearms safety course" it teaches you basic gun safety for all long guns, at the end you write a test, you pass the test - you can buy guns with your new license. The license is renewable without further testing. You want handguns, you stay a little longer in the course for the "Prohibited" weapons part, you write a second test, now you can own handguns.
To go Hunting, you need to go on a hunting course, it's called "Hunter Safety" and among other things teaches you about different types of wildlife, how to tell them apart from other wildlife, how to protect yourself and how to avoid shooting other people. You pass the course, you get a license. Pretty simple.
Since we do not allow concealed weapons here in Canada, in order to use your handgun you have to have a range membership and transport is only allowed between your place of residence and the range. That isn't that bad. Up here we use long guns primarily for hunting, and there are no further travel restrictions on those except they have to have trigger locks and be out of sight at all times while travelling. It's not that big of a deal really.
What people get into a hff about is the new "Registration" for guns. It's a little stupid, you have to pay the gov't $25CDN to buy/register/transfer a gun to your name. They then send you a little paper with the serial number (if it's a serialed gun) and make/model/calibre. You haver to carry this paper at all times in case the feds (not the provincials) decide to stop you and question your ownership... Again, not that bad.
Now, if you have over 15 guns the RCMP (feds) can show up at your door at any time and ask to inspect the gun store and ammo store and make sure you are doing things correctly. Again, I own six, I do not find this fifteen limit "surprise raid" thing an issue.
I don't like the feds knowing about each gun I own, but it's not that big of a deal, I use them for hunting, not for causing some armed rebellion.
If anyone has issues about the information I provided, I can provide links if I have to. But anyone who lives in Canada and actually knows the law, and is affected by it knows what I wrote to be true.
Anything you need to know can be found here or here.
As for freedom of religion, your issues about "Hate Crimes" are blown way out of proporation. The issue you are referring to is basic civil righs and equality for all. Gay bashing is not a sport, and the churches have this issue with it. I myself have no problems with gay marriage - Canada is founded on freedoms for all, not just freedoms for the church - if the church wants to do something, fine - don't let it infringe on another minority's rights. The issue is the heads of church basically defaming the gay population which is against the law and the rights of gays are held in the same light as say, the rights of jewish people, or arabs not to be defamed or whatever by any other group.
In Canada we protect the rights of everyone, even if some groups like it or not. Seriously, do you think being a Christian gives you the right to bash gays? If you do, you have some predjudices that need to be worked on buddy.
Unfortunately for most customers/people there is nothing other than Microsoft products. I call them sheeple. And they are not you, not I, but they exist, and they represent the vast majority of the populace out there.
And for the next 5-10 years, Microsoft will always be the dominant player. It got there by shady tactics (OS/2 tricks they played on IBM when marketing Windows 3.x), being paid for a license on every PC sold regardless of whether or not it came with MS (and the OEMs didn't really have a choice, it was "Do this, or we'll yank your OEM"), that is how they got dominant on the majority of PC's. And from what most people know (remember, most people have a very, very short memory) there has only been Windows. You can look at the MSDOJ findings of fact I referenced earlier for insight into those practices.
Here at my work, we use no MS products except Windows. And we have to at this point - we can't change our client OS because our Accounting software is tied to it, we could get away with other WordProcessors, but that's only half the battle: we have research tools, infobases, online tools all of which need the Microsoft/IE combination. I'd try alternative solutions, but the cost/benefit ratio just doesn't make sense yet.
How did we get there? Look back a few years, it's all about the full circle. People have been concentrating their development on the majority leader - and rightly so, but the majoruty leader got there by shady and now deemed illegal tactics. We are seeing this trend change, slowly. But there will still be a large segment of the consumer/producer population that will not support "alternative technologies" for the forseeable future.
And I would most defintaely NOT call you an idiot for your view of the landscape. You are %100 correct, but it's not just the customers - it's the developers as well. I have one company trying to sell me a Litigation Support software, and the stopper is for something as stupid as a database (they refuse to support anything other than MSSQL), they will never get my $$$, as I refuse to put in a Windows server and SQL just to run this damn software... Why can't they support Oracle, PostGres, Pervasive, etc? All of which run on our OS of choice!
Unfortunatlely you are also correct, what we are seeing is one major fundamental flaw or capitalism. But be careful in your statement that "they got where they were by being preferred over competitors" - in the early 90's the competitors got squashed out of the market by them by their OEM licensing deals, the competitors didn't have a leg to stnad on. It was a snowball rolling downhill, they got just enough momentum and then it grew to epidemic proportions - quickly. All for tactics which got them in hot water, albeit, after the fact, and with the US government at the time rejecting the courts and allowing them to continue - relatively unchecked. The major problem is that technology moves faster than the government and the judicial system, what is true one day is a whole new can of worms the next - and by then it's too late.
But if indeed their "monopoly can be broken", then this is an excellent first step - well, at least one in the correct direction. It should have been done years ago in the US v. Microsoft case, and unfortunately if the government had respected and followed the will of the courts, it would have made a serious impact on the Microsoft we know of today.
There are many things that could be done (splitting them into business units like "Operating Systems" and "Office/Applications" - and before you say that's outrageous - look at what was done to AT&T in the 80's) and it produced a greater good for all.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has gone on for too long in this marketplace, bundling applicaiton after applicaiton, which really have nothing to do with the core OS itself, while at the same time disalowing competitors onto their prized "desktop". We have seen Microsoft exploit this in the "Great Browser Wars" only to succumb to it's own security flaws due to it's tieing, and it allowed IE to stagnate and only now after faced with real - new competition (Firefox) - is it trying to update it's browser and start spreading the "grassroots" and corporate FUD (security problems, etc).
It's always been about copying the "look and feel" of other systems, absorbing some technology then integrating it into the OS (NCSA Mosaic), then modifying it to keep up with the Jones' until the main competitiors died off (Netscape, et al) then letting it stagnate into the security/bloat/featureless mess we have today - which coincidently they will not update to add new features unless you buy the latest operating system. It will not change if they allow this to happen with the Media Player. We will come full circle once again.
That is what makes Microsoft so scary, they are so good at playing the system - and more power to them for it, but it is also good to see them being put into check by the appropriate forces.
I am not trying to flame you but - you are a complete idiot when it comes to economics or a troll. I have seen other somewhat intelligent posts from you, but this one actually puts the rest into context. You must be too young to remember the issues that MS has faced already.
Microsoft IS a monopoly. If you don't beleive me, look at the USDOJ findings of fact (specifically Section III, article 33) US vs. Microsoft of maybe this one, or for a slightly slanted, but nonetheless relevant take. I could add other links, but I will stop there for now. It doesn't matter if they have "active and serious competitors" (which would be Apple on a completely different platform, and Linux on x86), they have a large percentage of the marketplace which puts them into a monopoly position, ergo, they have to play by certain rules which are afforded to those in that position.
I have stated this before, Microsoft, regrdless of the fact there may be other Media Players - is using it's position in the marketplace, using it's existing monopoly to leverage it's weight into the new "Media Player" market. That market not only entails the software on the Windows box - and subsequently keeps other operating systems out of the game by tying their media player, drm and codecs to their WIndows operating system. It now also allows them to leverage the umbiquity into other spinoff markets such as hardware media players (dvd players, etc), and distribution of digital media (theatres, etc).
Once they use this position of dominance to weasel their way into these other emerging markets, which is an obvious "next step" which thay have already started, they do nothing other than solidify their Windows buisness. It's using one's dominant position in the market to break into other markets which is what the EU is trying to stop and I commend them for that.
The US tried to do it in regards to the internet browser and did, then the decision was struck down by a certain newly elected government at the time. I am glad that politics aren't getting in the way this time and someone is putting their foot down.
Did the exact same thing here. My old office manager's husband tried to install a brand spankin' new P4 1.8 Ghz chip into their mobo, anyhow, he busted off two pins on the corner. That kind of thing isn't covered under RMA;)
A little paste & solder, a little thin gauge wire and it was sturdy enough to put back into a test pc we had at the office, my repair held - so off I was to the local store to buy me a new mobo and ram.
Suffice to say, one of the cheapest damn upgrades I ever had. I think the chip at the time was a good $350CDN or something like that.
In particular, if you can't shovel snow, Toronto's the place for you, because if it ever snows more than 3 cm, they'll declare a state of emergency and call the army in to shovel your driveway for you.
Oh, it would be so much funnier if it weren't true! Good ol' Mel!!! And I must say, it wasn't really that bad, ok, my car had some issues getting up this one hill on the way to class, but seriously...
CBC - Toronto Calls in the Army
If you read up more on the story, it *is* the device which is triggered when the Air bags are deployed.
The thing records 5 seconds of data, and stops recording the instant the airbags are deployed, thus giving a way to look back and find out why
.
No Air bags, no retention of data.
It is indeed a slipperly slope that they record anything, but in todays litigious world, I'd rather be vindicated by having someone proven that they are lying when they are pointing the finger at me. I think it is a small price to pay.
You can't apply your logic to everywhere. Try working for a bunch of lawyers. If I try to impose a limitation on what they can install to their PC, yeah, I wouldn't be employed too darn long I'll tell you that.
The best I have been able to do is install a firewall on the mail server, stop those little nasty's from making their way in via email - and you know what, I look like God (or whichever deity you believe in) for it.
Unfortunately, as much as I want to block the desktops from extra apps beyond my image, I can't. I can control the possible viruses via centralized/desktop antivirus and on the mail server before they hit our network, but thats about it. If something happens, I just reimage and let the profile reload from the server and be on my way. I don't even bother with AdAware/Spybot or whatever anymore. Reimage, thats it. 15 minutes and I am out of the cube, hell, most times I can start the image process right from my desk while drinking coffee, and log in remotely when done to verify.
It's a fact of life... not every environment can be tightly controlled, nor should it really, if you have backup plans in place, you should be able to allow the users a little fun with their desktop - as long as they are fully aware that if anything, even in the slightest goes wrong, you reimage back to square one without so much as a second thought.
Now with the insults.. You obviously cannot forumlate a logical argument to counter my points, so you choose this route of attack. Sad.
I didn't insult you - I merely questioned. But yours comes afwully close to insulting me.
I can formulate a logical argument just fine, but I no longer feel the need as you are completely stuck in your midset, even with the documented history of the matter. I can budge, but you haven't proven to me why I should. I am sorry, but I am speaking what I have thought for a long time, and obviously two high courts in two separate jurisdictions agree with my point of view. Alas, you hold the minorit view. I can't be bothered coming up with more of an argument when you won't even let what I said sink in anyhow. Sometimes a debate just has to end.
Ok - this will be the last reply I do, you are using nothing but circular logic and you obviously can't see outside the closed little shell you've encased yourself in. I won't try to reason with those that are obviously not open to reason because there is no point.
Hmm.. So the users are too stupid to install anything else? Tell that to all the boxes I see with Real Player and Quicktime because Windows Media Player is not satisfactory for them.
Yes they are. By users I said I do not refer to You and I. And I also did not exclude everybody, just the largest majority.
The technologies are avaliable. They are installed all the time by users who need them. Its not Microsoft's job to help Apple by installing Quicktime for you.
You're right they are available. You are putting more faith into users than you should be - do you even work in IT, do you even really know what you are talking about, is your head stuck that far into the sand?
I asked for reasons, not for you to pass the buck. The courts have said all sorts of things, including that blacks are not people. That does not make them right in every instance.
I didn't pass the buck, I did give you a reason. And obviously a bunch of other companies who deal with this for a living have also given reasons, I am not going to rehash the past - go read a book or something for your "reasons" they are out there - do what you claim is so easy to do and SEARCH for them. So basically - going by your logic, give me ONE real, substatiative, provable reason that they should be allowed to include their WMP? Specious and circular answers do not count.
Morally? How so?
Think about it.
OSX ships their own apps. Shall we bring Apple to court?
Uhhh, yeah. OSX comes bundled with both Safari AND IE. That's just one off the top of my head.
What if I make a Linux distribution and only include XMMS and not Real Player? Do I need to go to court?
No, but you don't own %95 of the market. If you did - yes.
Its not Microsoft's job to ensure that they do either. Or maybe you were brainwashed in your Economics class to think so.
I took economics, and your arguing sematics anyhow. It is NOT Microsoft's job to ensure they do, but it IS Microsoft's job to NOT run afoul of anti-trust. What they are doing is bundling everything including the kitchen sink in a bid to crush their competitiors. When Microsoft builds code, they tie it to the operating system so tightly that it works better. When rivals build code they have two choices: (1) License MS codebase to get better compatibility (and thus give up all rights to your software - case in point, Citrix/Terminal Services); (2) keep your software to yourselves and deal with incompatibility because you do not have access ot the codebase.
There is nothing wrong with bundling media players and browsers with Windows. If there are better alternatives, users will seek them out.
WTF? Are you kidding, what users? You, me? Yes, we probably would and do. Problem is that we make up a small majority of users. My mom doesn't know how to install software, and yours probably doesn't either. That goes for 80-90% or users. By MS tying in software, they *know* people are not going to install alternatives.
Developers also "know" that WMP is likely to be installed on all these desktops so they build for it. That also opens up another can of worms. And by having the technologies on the desktop it open other markets for them.
How this is anti-competitive, I do not know. Users have choices still. How this is abuse, I do not see.
The courts have ruled it to be anti-competitive, and although I do not have the strongest grasp on all the legal ramifications of their actions, I do know that the idea behind their actions is wrong. Morally, and legally. You can't argue with the legal side. They have been convicted of same.
What you are asking to do is to force Microsoft to ship a product that would be inferior (funcionality wise) to operating systems such as Linux (most distributions include all sorts of apps), Mac OS, and others that bundle media players and other applications.
You just enforced my point friend. Linux ships MULTIPLE apps, OSX ships MULTIPLE apps. Miscoroft ships ONE app, and it is their own. And further to that point, how would it be inferior if they were forced to bundle multpile apps as you have succinctly stated above.
You can't excuse a convicted monopolist. I don't care how much you beleive they should be allowed to do this, maybe they should, but they are using their monopoly position to further proceed into other markets - that is illegal, and that is my point.
The other companies *did* have a foothold in the market, or maybe you are too young and brainwashed to remember the glory days.
You're right it *isnt* MS's job to help out other rivals. But it is their job to keep their monopoly from crushing others. read: Anti-competitive tactics are a no-no.
Problem is that once MS started bundling IE, WMP, etc. into the OS, it gave users little reason to go out and find another. They have done it with IE and were convicted of it in the States, albeit weakly. Once you have a single defacto player/browser/pick your software on the desktop, which a monoploy has created and abused, the end user, ie: mom and pop, have no need to go out and get another, forcing the rivals out of business or out of money. Don't forget, Microsoft no longer cares about IE. The only reason they care about WMP is that they are now trying to leverage the dominance into other markets such as digital distribution of movies and whatnot. That sir, is anti-competitive behaviour. I'm just glad the EU has the balls to do something about it.
Dude. I wasn't arguing with you... merely clarifying the point with a few more pieces of information. So yes, I *was* agreeing with you.
Whether it be Advanced Server, or Server or whatever, it's still Microsoft, thats the point. It's not SCO. Whether it be four servers, or twenty-seven, again, moot.
Clustering, yup, he said that too - sorry, I am a Novell guy, and as much as I used to work extensively with NT4/2000 servers (and Exchange, proxy, ISA and all that other stuff) up till last year, and still have a couple where I am now, I never once touched an Advanced server. So, basically my point here is I forgot that only Advanced server had clustering, or else I would have put that down to further clarify your point. Didn't.
The corp stores and Franchisees where I worked (Ok, it was 4 years ago) all were DOS and all used the same backend system. The terminals are one of what used to be four distinct variety's all made by Soroc, except for the really, really old ones (circa 1994) which actually had a TRS-80 inline for the kitchen. I have yet to see a Windows one, but if they are out there, they are likely in the corp stores cause the franchisees unless starting new, are too cheap to install/upgrade them unless when they run out of buttons and can't program them efficiently anymore, and even then it's pulling teeth. I am sure that is one point we can both agree on.
The corp stores always have the newest tech, except for the newly started franchisees. So yes, you are right, they likely *aren't* all on the same systems, but when they report sales and do brower, they are all talking to the same machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooops you're right about restricted/prohibited. I do not fall into either of those classes so sometimes I get them mixed up - although a friend of mine is in the restricted class, regardless, I only have my PAL and an unrestricted license.
And the number of firearms, again, correct. I realize after I posted it that I though that number was off. Frig, I just had a discussion on that over the weekend. My bad.
That's why you're an instructor, you know the details of the whole thing - although for an average citizen, I think I got the basics down maybe the semantics were wrong, alas.
You're right though, the registry is pretty much completely bogus, although, I do have a small bit of trust in the government that they won't misuse it. Call me naive, but seriously, there would be way more backlash if they tried something more stupid than what has already been done.
Your examples are not hateful, that's the point. Hate: To feel hostility or animosity toward.
I think the key word here is "hostility" and/or the incitement of hosility. Either way, I just don't agree with you. I live in Canada (do you?) where we don't have the first amendment to sheild everything one says - which is really the crux of the issue, and I beleive it is not right to incite hateful speech towards any other group or hell, even an individual. Saying someone is an idiot or that you don't like them, or that they can't dance (which is just a stereotype) is not by definition - hateful, plain and simple.
You simply cannot put conditions on free speech. You're not making sense.
Actually you can put conditions on free speech. As another poster whose options I disagree with but respect brought up: Can you yell Fire in a crowded theatre when there is none? The answer is no. You will most deinfately get in hot water for that one. In the interests of free speech do you think that's ok?
I hope there aren't too many others like you
In the interest of a more civil and less hurtful society, I bloody well hope there is.
I am sorry, I reread your post, and I apologize.
I appreciate this discourse, it is obvious that we do indeed fall on different sides of the spectrum when it comes to this issue. I myself am not perfect, far from it. Very far from it.
Anyhow, we obviously both want what is best for our society, it's just that we have different viewpoints and opinions on just how we should arrive at that point.
That, is the very nature of a true democracy.
To start IANAL.
I believe that religious freedom can be sheilded, but only so far. As another poster pointed out, freedom of religious expression likely does cover many aspects of speech. However calling people "sinners" is one thing, calling them "evil" and children eaters is another (a weak example, but you get my point).
As for Academic shielding. I doubt it. Can a Professor at University stand up and claim that the holocaust never happened and that the Jewish people are a bunch of liars and heretics? That Professor could, but I figure he'd lose his tenure pretty quick - as for getting in trouble with the law, maybe, don't know. But again, when it comes to the letter of the law, I cannot make claim one way or the other.
I'll say it again: you are against free speech.
And I'll say it again: Your right to Free Speech stops when you hurt another person or group in any form willfully or intentionaly.
Do you think it's OK to say something hurtful and/or ignorant and defaming in a public discourse against the Jewish people? How about black people (people of African descent)? Maybe people of Asian descent? How about women? Maybe you think it's ok to defame white people and call us a bunch of "Ignorant Racist Redneck Honky Bumbaclots" Hmmm? Hate speech is inciteful of violence, be it emotional, or worse yet - physical, like it or not.
Who do you say should decide what is hate and what is not?
Civil society, laws and those that are our elected forms of goverment. That's who.
how many people have to think I'm worth listening to before I'm a "community leader"?
The minute you stand up on a pulpit, podium, pedestal or otherwise in front of a communications medium and express your views in a hurtful way and at the same time are respected and listened to because of your position in the social structure, that makes you a community leader. As an individual, you are entitled to share your views in private amongst a likeminded or otherwise circle of friends. Take those "hurtful words" into a public medium, and that's where I tend to disagree with you.
but you cannot protect society from hateful ideas by criminalizing speech
Speech already is criminalized in certain forms by acts of Libel and Defamation, there are already laws for that, civil mind you. That is the difference between "hate speech" and the other two forms, the others affects one person, "hate speech" is against an identifiable group of people due to colour, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. All three forms have no place in a democracy or any civil society whatsoever
Hate needs to be met my love & ideas.
Touche. Well, by your words of "love & ideas", you have already shown yourself to be a hippocrite. You previously posted that you think gays are "evil" and "sinners" and that "children need to be protected" from them. Coming from a Christian, that doesn't sound very loving to me, nor are you providing any good ideas to stop the hurtful and defaming speech coming from certain segments of society. Until then, there will be laws to stop that from happening. If they have to go a little over the edge and try and legislate people's acceptance and understanding for other segments of society - so be it.
Anyways, I am not trying to start a flame war here, so on this point were just going to have to agree to disagree.
You are so incredibly wrong on that point that I just cannot express how wrong you are.
I guess it just boils down to dissenting viewpoints, plain and simple.
See my post to the other poster above you .
I won't bother retyping my position.
I don't actually see a problem with Hate Speech Laws trumping the Charter. Free Speech ends when it hurts someone, physically, emotionaly, or mentally. A call to violence is indeed different as it provokes a physical act, but the problem with the heads of church speaking out and calling the gay lifestyle "evil" is that they are (excuse the pun) preaching to the choir. They are community leaders and as such, people listen to them. You speaking out is your own viewpoint, and as much as I think your views are wrong, you are not affecting a bunch of people listening to you intently as a leader of the community.
And your strawman argument, If I were to call you "an ignorant fundie that lived in the dark ages and belives.." (good choice, I like the easter bunny part) that is in no way different than you calling homosexuals evil and sinners! Both acts are defaming, like it or not.
Just because you beleive something that may or may not "come from a higher power" and think that your choice is sanctioned in some way or another because it is written in a book that has no legal standing, and arguable historical accuracy (for the record, I am agnostic, baptised presbyterian mind you) does not give you the right to defame others. Plain and simple.
By making those statements I would say that if you made them in Canada, and were a Canadian Citizen, then yes, you could very well be skirting the line. But that doesn't mean I want to see you locked up in jail.
Hate has no place in an equal and open society. And although it may be called a "Hate Speech Law" doesn't mean you have to "hate" someone to breech it, that's just a blanket naming. It really should be called something else - but either way, the intent of the law is the same - to stop hurtful and/or hate-inducing speech.
Actually being a human gives you no real rights to bash anyone you like. Well, that may be your views, and you may share those with others, but others will respectfully disagree with you, myself included.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada protects free speech, but the anti-hate speech laws trump the Charter, it says to this effect: that it prohibits any speech or text which is "likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age."
We don't have the first amandement like the states. Up here, being more socialist allows the rights of many to outweigh the rights of the few in special cases.
And calling it a sin is not the issue, it's when the Archdiocese in Toronto not only called them sinners but "evil" and "doing irepperrable harm against children", or maybe that was the pope, whatever.
Again, the whole issue is marriage. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state, in the US you do not see this so much, up here you do. Our Prime Minister is a staunch Catholic but he supports the rights of minorities. Which is good and the way it should be. The problem is when you make defaming statements, that's the problem - calling it a "sin" isn't defaming, calling homosexuals "evil" and "a threat to children" is.
Canada does not have "ridiculous" gun laws. I own six personally. To get a gun you have to go on course, nowadays they call is the "Firearms safety course" it teaches you basic gun safety for all long guns, at the end you write a test, you pass the test - you can buy guns with your new license. The license is renewable without further testing. You want handguns, you stay a little longer in the course for the "Prohibited" weapons part, you write a second test, now you can own handguns.
To go Hunting, you need to go on a hunting course, it's called "Hunter Safety" and among other things teaches you about different types of wildlife, how to tell them apart from other wildlife, how to protect yourself and how to avoid shooting other people. You pass the course, you get a license. Pretty simple.
Since we do not allow concealed weapons here in Canada, in order to use your handgun you have to have a range membership and transport is only allowed between your place of residence and the range. That isn't that bad. Up here we use long guns primarily for hunting, and there are no further travel restrictions on those except they have to have trigger locks and be out of sight at all times while travelling. It's not that big of a deal really.
What people get into a hff about is the new "Registration" for guns. It's a little stupid, you have to pay the gov't $25CDN to buy/register/transfer a gun to your name. They then send you a little paper with the serial number (if it's a serialed gun) and make/model/calibre. You haver to carry this paper at all times in case the feds (not the provincials) decide to stop you and question your ownership... Again, not that bad.
Now, if you have over 15 guns the RCMP (feds) can show up at your door at any time and ask to inspect the gun store and ammo store and make sure you are doing things correctly. Again, I own six, I do not find this fifteen limit "surprise raid" thing an issue.
I don't like the feds knowing about each gun I own, but it's not that big of a deal, I use them for hunting, not for causing some armed rebellion.
If anyone has issues about the information I provided, I can provide links if I have to. But anyone who lives in Canada and actually knows the law, and is affected by it knows what I wrote to be true.
Anything you need to know can be found here or here. As for freedom of religion, your issues about "Hate Crimes" are blown way out of proporation. The issue you are referring to is basic civil righs and equality for all. Gay bashing is not a sport, and the churches have this issue with it. I myself have no problems with gay marriage - Canada is founded on freedoms for all, not just freedoms for the church - if the church wants to do something, fine - don't let it infringe on another minority's rights. The issue is the heads of church basically defaming the gay population which is against the law and the rights of gays are held in the same light as say, the rights of jewish people, or arabs not to be defamed or whatever by any other group.
In Canada we protect the rights of everyone, even if some groups like it or not. Seriously, do you think being a Christian gives you the right to bash gays? If you do, you have some predjudices that need to be worked on buddy.
Unfortunately for most customers/people there is nothing other than Microsoft products. I call them sheeple. And they are not you, not I, but they exist, and they represent the vast majority of the populace out there.
And for the next 5-10 years, Microsoft will always be the dominant player. It got there by shady tactics (OS/2 tricks they played on IBM when marketing Windows 3.x), being paid for a license on every PC sold regardless of whether or not it came with MS (and the OEMs didn't really have a choice, it was "Do this, or we'll yank your OEM"), that is how they got dominant on the majority of PC's. And from what most people know (remember, most people have a very, very short memory) there has only been Windows. You can look at the MSDOJ findings of fact I referenced earlier for insight into those practices.
Here at my work, we use no MS products except Windows. And we have to at this point - we can't change our client OS because our Accounting software is tied to it, we could get away with other WordProcessors, but that's only half the battle: we have research tools, infobases, online tools all of which need the Microsoft/IE combination. I'd try alternative solutions, but the cost/benefit ratio just doesn't make sense yet.
How did we get there? Look back a few years, it's all about the full circle. People have been concentrating their development on the majority leader - and rightly so, but the majoruty leader got there by shady and now deemed illegal tactics. We are seeing this trend change, slowly. But there will still be a large segment of the consumer/producer population that will not support "alternative technologies" for the forseeable future.
And I would most defintaely NOT call you an idiot for your view of the landscape. You are %100 correct, but it's not just the customers - it's the developers as well. I have one company trying to sell me a Litigation Support software, and the stopper is for something as stupid as a database (they refuse to support anything other than MSSQL), they will never get my $$$, as I refuse to put in a Windows server and SQL just to run this damn software... Why can't they support Oracle, PostGres, Pervasive, etc? All of which run on our OS of choice!
Unfortunatlely you are also correct, what we are seeing is one major fundamental flaw or capitalism. But be careful in your statement that "they got where they were by being preferred over competitors" - in the early 90's the competitors got squashed out of the market by them by their OEM licensing deals, the competitors didn't have a leg to stnad on. It was a snowball rolling downhill, they got just enough momentum and then it grew to epidemic proportions - quickly. All for tactics which got them in hot water, albeit, after the fact, and with the US government at the time rejecting the courts and allowing them to continue - relatively unchecked. The major problem is that technology moves faster than the government and the judicial system, what is true one day is a whole new can of worms the next - and by then it's too late.
No prob, no offence intended.
But if indeed their "monopoly can be broken", then this is an excellent first step - well, at least one in the correct direction. It should have been done years ago in the US v. Microsoft case, and unfortunately if the government had respected and followed the will of the courts, it would have made a serious impact on the Microsoft we know of today.
There are many things that could be done (splitting them into business units like "Operating Systems" and "Office/Applications" - and before you say that's outrageous - look at what was done to AT&T in the 80's) and it produced a greater good for all.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has gone on for too long in this marketplace, bundling applicaiton after applicaiton, which really have nothing to do with the core OS itself, while at the same time disalowing competitors onto their prized "desktop". We have seen Microsoft exploit this in the "Great Browser Wars" only to succumb to it's own security flaws due to it's tieing, and it allowed IE to stagnate and only now after faced with real - new competition (Firefox) - is it trying to update it's browser and start spreading the "grassroots" and corporate FUD (security problems, etc).
It's always been about copying the "look and feel" of other systems, absorbing some technology then integrating it into the OS (NCSA Mosaic), then modifying it to keep up with the Jones' until the main competitiors died off (Netscape, et al) then letting it stagnate into the security/bloat/featureless mess we have today - which coincidently they will not update to add new features unless you buy the latest operating system. It will not change if they allow this to happen with the Media Player. We will come full circle once again.
That is what makes Microsoft so scary, they are so good at playing the system - and more power to them for it, but it is also good to see them being put into check by the appropriate forces.
I am not trying to flame you but - you are a complete idiot when it comes to economics or a troll. I have seen other somewhat intelligent posts from you, but this one actually puts the rest into context. You must be too young to remember the issues that MS has faced already.
Microsoft IS a monopoly. If you don't beleive me, look at the USDOJ findings of fact (specifically Section III, article 33) US vs. Microsoft of maybe this one, or for a slightly slanted, but nonetheless relevant take. I could add other links, but I will stop there for now. It doesn't matter if they have "active and serious competitors" (which would be Apple on a completely different platform, and Linux on x86), they have a large percentage of the marketplace which puts them into a monopoly position, ergo, they have to play by certain rules which are afforded to those in that position.
I have stated this before, Microsoft, regrdless of the fact there may be other Media Players - is using it's position in the marketplace, using it's existing monopoly to leverage it's weight into the new "Media Player" market. That market not only entails the software on the Windows box - and subsequently keeps other operating systems out of the game by tying their media player, drm and codecs to their WIndows operating system. It now also allows them to leverage the umbiquity into other spinoff markets such as hardware media players (dvd players, etc), and distribution of digital media (theatres, etc).
Once they use this position of dominance to weasel their way into these other emerging markets, which is an obvious "next step" which thay have already started, they do nothing other than solidify their Windows buisness. It's using one's dominant position in the market to break into other markets which is what the EU is trying to stop and I commend them for that.
The US tried to do it in regards to the internet browser and did, then the decision was struck down by a certain newly elected government at the time. I am glad that politics aren't getting in the way this time and someone is putting their foot down.
Did the exact same thing here. My old office manager's husband tried to install a brand spankin' new P4 1.8 Ghz chip into their mobo, anyhow, he busted off two pins on the corner. That kind of thing isn't covered under RMA ;)
A little paste & solder, a little thin gauge wire and it was sturdy enough to put back into a test pc we had at the office, my repair held - so off I was to the local store to buy me a new mobo and ram.
Suffice to say, one of the cheapest damn upgrades I ever had. I think the chip at the time was a good $350CDN or something like that.
In particular, if you can't shovel snow, Toronto's the place for you, because if it ever snows more than 3 cm, they'll declare a state of emergency and call the army in to shovel your driveway for you.
Oh, it would be so much funnier if it weren't true! Good ol' Mel!!! And I must say, it wasn't really that bad, ok, my car had some issues getting up this one hill on the way to class, but seriously... CBC - Toronto Calls in the Army
Never, ever seen the chasing beaver one before, but in the course of trying to find it, many funny memories came back from all those other ones...
Chasing Beaver
Other good Molson Commercials
What a good start to the long weekend! Cheers!
I wish I had mod points +1 funny ;)
If you read up more on the story, it *is* the device which is triggered when the Air bags are deployed.
The thing records 5 seconds of data, and stops recording the instant the airbags are deployed, thus giving a way to look back and find out why
. No Air bags, no retention of data.
It is indeed a slipperly slope that they record anything, but in todays litigious world, I'd rather be vindicated by having someone proven that they are lying when they are pointing the finger at me. I think it is a small price to pay.
I agree with the other posters to this comment.
You can't apply your logic to everywhere. Try working for a bunch of lawyers. If I try to impose a limitation on what they can install to their PC, yeah, I wouldn't be employed too darn long I'll tell you that.
The best I have been able to do is install a firewall on the mail server, stop those little nasty's from making their way in via email - and you know what, I look like God (or whichever deity you believe in) for it.
Unfortunately, as much as I want to block the desktops from extra apps beyond my image, I can't. I can control the possible viruses via centralized/desktop antivirus and on the mail server before they hit our network, but thats about it. If something happens, I just reimage and let the profile reload from the server and be on my way. I don't even bother with AdAware/Spybot or whatever anymore. Reimage, thats it. 15 minutes and I am out of the cube, hell, most times I can start the image process right from my desk while drinking coffee, and log in remotely when done to verify.
It's a fact of life... not every environment can be tightly controlled, nor should it really, if you have backup plans in place, you should be able to allow the users a little fun with their desktop - as long as they are fully aware that if anything, even in the slightest goes wrong, you reimage back to square one without so much as a second thought.
Ok. I am breaking my promise.
Now with the insults.. You obviously cannot forumlate a logical argument to counter my points, so you choose this route of attack. Sad. I didn't insult you - I merely questioned. But yours comes afwully close to insulting me.
I can formulate a logical argument just fine, but I no longer feel the need as you are completely stuck in your midset, even with the documented history of the matter. I can budge, but you haven't proven to me why I should. I am sorry, but I am speaking what I have thought for a long time, and obviously two high courts in two separate jurisdictions agree with my point of view. Alas, you hold the minorit view. I can't be bothered coming up with more of an argument when you won't even let what I said sink in anyhow. Sometimes a debate just has to end.
So you concede the argument.
Yes I concede. You win.
Ok - this will be the last reply I do, you are using nothing but circular logic and you obviously can't see outside the closed little shell you've encased yourself in. I won't try to reason with those that are obviously not open to reason because there is no point.
Hmm.. So the users are too stupid to install anything else? Tell that to all the boxes I see with Real Player and Quicktime because Windows Media Player is not satisfactory for them.
Yes they are. By users I said I do not refer to You and I. And I also did not exclude everybody, just the largest majority.
The technologies are avaliable. They are installed all the time by users who need them. Its not Microsoft's job to help Apple by installing Quicktime for you.
You're right they are available. You are putting more faith into users than you should be - do you even work in IT, do you even really know what you are talking about, is your head stuck that far into the sand?
I asked for reasons, not for you to pass the buck. The courts have said all sorts of things, including that blacks are not people. That does not make them right in every instance.
I didn't pass the buck, I did give you a reason. And obviously a bunch of other companies who deal with this for a living have also given reasons, I am not going to rehash the past - go read a book or something for your "reasons" they are out there - do what you claim is so easy to do and SEARCH for them. So basically - going by your logic, give me ONE real, substatiative, provable reason that they should be allowed to include their WMP? Specious and circular answers do not count.
Morally? How so?
Think about it.
OSX ships their own apps. Shall we bring Apple to court? Uhhh, yeah. OSX comes bundled with both Safari AND IE. That's just one off the top of my head.
What if I make a Linux distribution and only include XMMS and not Real Player? Do I need to go to court?
No, but you don't own %95 of the market. If you did - yes.
Solitare... Please. That game sucks anyhow.
Like I said... I am done.
Its not Microsoft's job to ensure that they do either. Or maybe you were brainwashed in your Economics class to think so.
I took economics, and your arguing sematics anyhow. It is NOT Microsoft's job to ensure they do, but it IS Microsoft's job to NOT run afoul of anti-trust. What they are doing is bundling everything including the kitchen sink in a bid to crush their competitiors. When Microsoft builds code, they tie it to the operating system so tightly that it works better. When rivals build code they have two choices: (1) License MS codebase to get better compatibility (and thus give up all rights to your software - case in point, Citrix/Terminal Services); (2) keep your software to yourselves and deal with incompatibility because you do not have access ot the codebase.
There is nothing wrong with bundling media players and browsers with Windows. If there are better alternatives, users will seek them out.
WTF? Are you kidding, what users? You, me? Yes, we probably would and do. Problem is that we make up a small majority of users. My mom doesn't know how to install software, and yours probably doesn't either. That goes for 80-90% or users. By MS tying in software, they *know* people are not going to install alternatives.
Developers also "know" that WMP is likely to be installed on all these desktops so they build for it. That also opens up another can of worms. And by having the technologies on the desktop it open other markets for them.
How this is anti-competitive, I do not know. Users have choices still. How this is abuse, I do not see.
The courts have ruled it to be anti-competitive, and although I do not have the strongest grasp on all the legal ramifications of their actions, I do know that the idea behind their actions is wrong. Morally, and legally. You can't argue with the legal side. They have been convicted of same.
What you are asking to do is to force Microsoft to ship a product that would be inferior (funcionality wise) to operating systems such as Linux (most distributions include all sorts of apps), Mac OS, and others that bundle media players and other applications.
You just enforced my point friend. Linux ships MULTIPLE apps, OSX ships MULTIPLE apps. Miscoroft ships ONE app, and it is their own. And further to that point, how would it be inferior if they were forced to bundle multpile apps as you have succinctly stated above.
You can't excuse a convicted monopolist. I don't care how much you beleive they should be allowed to do this, maybe they should, but they are using their monopoly position to further proceed into other markets - that is illegal, and that is my point.
The other companies *did* have a foothold in the market, or maybe you are too young and brainwashed to remember the glory days.
You're right it *isnt* MS's job to help out other rivals. But it is their job to keep their monopoly from crushing others. read: Anti-competitive tactics are a no-no.
Problem is that once MS started bundling IE, WMP, etc. into the OS, it gave users little reason to go out and find another. They have done it with IE and were convicted of it in the States, albeit weakly. Once you have a single defacto player/browser/pick your software on the desktop, which a monoploy has created and abused, the end user, ie: mom and pop, have no need to go out and get another, forcing the rivals out of business or out of money. Don't forget, Microsoft no longer cares about IE. The only reason they care about WMP is that they are now trying to leverage the dominance into other markets such as digital distribution of movies and whatnot. That sir, is anti-competitive behaviour. I'm just glad the EU has the balls to do something about it.
Dude. I wasn't arguing with you... merely clarifying the point with a few more pieces of information. So yes, I *was* agreeing with you.
Whether it be Advanced Server, or Server or whatever, it's still Microsoft, thats the point. It's not SCO. Whether it be four servers, or twenty-seven, again, moot.
Clustering, yup, he said that too - sorry, I am a Novell guy, and as much as I used to work extensively with NT4/2000 servers (and Exchange, proxy, ISA and all that other stuff) up till last year, and still have a couple where I am now, I never once touched an Advanced server. So, basically my point here is I forgot that only Advanced server had clustering, or else I would have put that down to further clarify your point. Didn't.
The corp stores and Franchisees where I worked (Ok, it was 4 years ago) all were DOS and all used the same backend system. The terminals are one of what used to be four distinct variety's all made by Soroc, except for the really, really old ones (circa 1994) which actually had a TRS-80 inline for the kitchen. I have yet to see a Windows one, but if they are out there, they are likely in the corp stores cause the franchisees unless starting new, are too cheap to install/upgrade them unless when they run out of buttons and can't program them efficiently anymore, and even then it's pulling teeth. I am sure that is one point we can both agree on.
The corp stores always have the newest tech, except for the newly started franchisees. So yes, you are right, they likely *aren't* all on the same systems, but when they report sales and do brower, they are all talking to the same machine.