Meh, by that metric you consider noise nuisance laws to be censorship. Because you can't use a blowhorn at midnight in a residential neighborhood. That's not censorship. Vulgarity is not censored by the US government, you just can't say it everywhere. Whereas in Germany, you can't publicly deny the holocaust anywhere. The censorship is trying to repress any alternate ideas.
Censorship in Germany is trying to suppress ideas. There are no ideas being suppressed in the US.
I guess from the perspective of an academic:
1) They got into science presumably because they want to do science, not run a journal.
2) Running a journal is a lot of work for no extra pay
3) The university pays for their Elsevier subscription anyway, so they get access to all the other papers already (and non-PhDs don't do science anyway).
I'm still disappointed that you haven't developed some way to measure whether one country has more free speech than another. I'd like to think you have such a metric before you start rating countries.
This one is on Linux, but it's not as bad as the headline makes it seem. You need write access to a shared drive over Samba for it to be effective. Wannacry iirc could attack clients, not just servers, and write access wasn't necessary.
I'll be honest, if you're giving remote anonymous write access to your Samba share on the open internet, you should probably stop doing that. Figure out another way to achieve that goal.
but the right to produce whatever art I want is just as important - even if that 'art' is just BDSM porn. As is the right to broadcast that art through any medium that's willing to without interference from the government.
That's a little extreme. A corporation is largely a kind of tax shelter. If the tax shelter went away, the company itself would still be there, and people would still work together in a similar way, but finances would be tougher.
So it's not that the government sponsored the entity, but rather the entity existed and interfaces with the government through the corporation legal fiction. But companies would exist even without government.
The 'narrow' limitations in Germany against holocaust denial is specifically designed to destroy certain political ideologies. It is indeed a tool of oppression, although oppression against an ideology I don't like at all.
The key for freedom of speech is that you need to be able to get your ideas out to people who want to hear them. That doesn't mean people have to listen to you, or that you can wake them up in the middle of the night with a blowhorn. The second key to freedom of speech is to be able to let people know problems with the government. If you can't present your ideas for how the government should be, then it's a serious limitation. As long as you are able to talk about changing the government, then the citizenry will be able to change the laws if they collectively want to (and you will have the chance to convince them).
The holocaust denial laws we are talking about here are mostly harmless, but I was interested in seeing what kind of measurement you were using to see who had 'more' or 'less' free speech. How do you measure that? It's an interesting question.
No, you're confused. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean, and will never mean, "I can say whatever I want wherever I want." You personally will probably never have a chance to say much on television, but that doesn't mean you don't have free speech.
You've taken the slippery slope fallacy to a whole new level by not just assuming that any reduction must lead to absolute loss of a right,
There is no place in the world ever in history that had absolute loss of freedom of speech. Even in the Soviet Union, people had freedom of speech until they wanted to say something that was forbidden.
It kind of does matter.......for example, Germany is now making huge attempts to switch to renewable energy. Not because it's cheaper (or even because it's achievable) but because enough of the population wants it enough to vote based on it.
Intelligence agencies have lost credibility by lying all the time. It's no wonder there are leakers like Snowden: no self-aware person would feel confident following the leadership in the NSA or CIA or FBI.
Let's be honest though: there has never been a time in history when the CIA or FBI were particularly competent.
Slashdot Mirror
Savings is idle money and is out of the economy.
This is only true if you save your money under the bed.
I don't think the target has ever been Russia so much as middle-east (and latin America) dictators.
Russia's back was broken on December 26, 1991.
So if the judge says it's justified, then it's ok?
There is no censorship in the world that has ever existed that was not justified.
No, you are wrong. Suppressing ideas is when censorship begins to cause real problems.
Dang it, I'm so ignorant.
Meh, by that metric you consider noise nuisance laws to be censorship. Because you can't use a blowhorn at midnight in a residential neighborhood. That's not censorship. Vulgarity is not censored by the US government, you just can't say it everywhere. Whereas in Germany, you can't publicly deny the holocaust anywhere. The censorship is trying to repress any alternate ideas.
Censorship in Germany is trying to suppress ideas. There are no ideas being suppressed in the US.
The CIA intentionally runs psyops campaigns against US
I don't think the CIA is supposed to run psyops campaigns against the US. Against foreign governments, sure.
I have nothing to say other than if those people don't get hacked today, they'll get hacked tomorrow.
I guess from the perspective of an academic:
1) They got into science presumably because they want to do science, not run a journal.
2) Running a journal is a lot of work for no extra pay
3) The university pays for their Elsevier subscription anyway, so they get access to all the other papers already (and non-PhDs don't do science anyway).
Is there anywhere that is posted the security practices you now use? That would be interesting to read about.
I'm still disappointed that you haven't developed some way to measure whether one country has more free speech than another. I'd like to think you have such a metric before you start rating countries.
This one is on Linux, but it's not as bad as the headline makes it seem. You need write access to a shared drive over Samba for it to be effective. Wannacry iirc could attack clients, not just servers, and write access wasn't necessary.
I'll be honest, if you're giving remote anonymous write access to your Samba share on the open internet, you should probably stop doing that. Figure out another way to achieve that goal.
but the right to produce whatever art I want is just as important - even if that 'art' is just BDSM porn. As is the right to broadcast that art through any medium that's willing to without interference from the government.
What about "hate art?"
Corporations are government sponsored entities.
That's a little extreme. A corporation is largely a kind of tax shelter. If the tax shelter went away, the company itself would still be there, and people would still work together in a similar way, but finances would be tougher.
So it's not that the government sponsored the entity, but rather the entity existed and interfaces with the government through the corporation legal fiction. But companies would exist even without government.
The 'narrow' limitations in Germany against holocaust denial is specifically designed to destroy certain political ideologies. It is indeed a tool of oppression, although oppression against an ideology I don't like at all.
The key for freedom of speech is that you need to be able to get your ideas out to people who want to hear them. That doesn't mean people have to listen to you, or that you can wake them up in the middle of the night with a blowhorn. The second key to freedom of speech is to be able to let people know problems with the government. If you can't present your ideas for how the government should be, then it's a serious limitation. As long as you are able to talk about changing the government, then the citizenry will be able to change the laws if they collectively want to (and you will have the chance to convince them).
The holocaust denial laws we are talking about here are mostly harmless, but I was interested in seeing what kind of measurement you were using to see who had 'more' or 'less' free speech. How do you measure that? It's an interesting question.
No, you're confused. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean, and will never mean, "I can say whatever I want wherever I want." You personally will probably never have a chance to say much on television, but that doesn't mean you don't have free speech.
You've taken the slippery slope fallacy to a whole new level by not just assuming that any reduction must lead to absolute loss of a right,
There is no place in the world ever in history that had absolute loss of freedom of speech. Even in the Soviet Union, people had freedom of speech until they wanted to say something that was forbidden.
In reality, most of these countries have rather MORE free speech than America does.
Oh yeah? I'd like to see how you figure that.
It kind of does matter.......for example, Germany is now making huge attempts to switch to renewable energy. Not because it's cheaper (or even because it's achievable) but because enough of the population wants it enough to vote based on it.
If the people of those countries feel those laws are bad, they can - through the democratic process - try to change the law
If there's no free speech, then there's no democratic process.
Intelligence agencies have lost credibility by lying all the time. It's no wonder there are leakers like Snowden: no self-aware person would feel confident following the leadership in the NSA or CIA or FBI.
Let's be honest though: there has never been a time in history when the CIA or FBI were particularly competent.
Yeah, I probably won't use the term p-hacking in the future, it causes too much confusion.
That's the kind of attitude you commonly see among C# programmers.
Me? I've worked in construction, and I enjoy swinging a hammer. Low pay, sawdust in the eyes, and the danger keeps me out of it.
Yeah, I was hoping to read how they created the most delicious tomato possible. I guess that's harder than just increasing yields.
I don't know what the GGP way up there refers to as p-hacking, but I use it as a shorthand for incorrectly calculating the probabilities.
Did you even read the papers I linked to?