This is like making a racist joke and then saying "Relax, I am of the same race..." and expecting that being of the same genre that you mocked makes it okay. Its amazing how that works.
And yet it does work, if you go by people's reactions. I didn't design humans, I just work with what's given to me.
I think the hosts should charge their guests $100 to come in.
Then just before serving drinks, the host springs a EULA that the guest needs to sign, or else he gets booted out the front door.
If the party is on a Tuesday, then in the middle of their festivities they need to sit still for half and hour while ADP comes in and upgrades the security system.
I just pity the poor guest who only paid the basic $100 to get in. The bathroom is only available to those who paid $299 to get in. Poor schmucks.
The other point is that prosecuting under the guise of a hate crime can devalue the real crime. I don't care why they selected someone's house to rob/burn/etc, all reasons should be treated the same : equally bad. Yet we try to differentiate the crimes by assigning severity based on what they were thinking or what we think they were thinking?
I've read a pretty good point about this (sorry can't find a link). Hate speech laws create unequal protection under the law: members of particular groups get additional protection from crimes.
That violates the U.S. Constitution's "Equal Protection" clause.
If they're willing to submit it to something like the Open Invention Network, then I'd agree. (I'm not sure OIN is the right group, since they're Linux-oriented.)
If they won't, then I stick by my "evil" claim. (Or at least, "probably evil".)
RTFS. It's a design patent, not a software (utility) patent.
I'm not sure that distinction matters in this case. Designers are directly limited, but they'd use software to implement the idea. Software developers who make web pages are limited, despite this being a design patent.
Or... it's a cunning ploy to show how idiotic Patents are in this day-and-age.
I hope so, but I doubt it. It's less-obviously idiotic than a lot of other software patents out there. If Google wanted to make that point, I think that would/could have been more effective.
I'm what I figure is a pretty average web user, in terms of frequency and what I access. I pretty much just use Firefox 3.5.
At this point, I almost never find myself wishing that my browser had some new feature or some bug fix. The browser has pretty well melted into the background at this point.
Are many people in my shoes jonesing for additional browser improvements? Or is that mostly limited to, for example, web developers or users of browsers other than Firefox?
There can be prejudice without bigotry. But it's hard to imagine bigotry without prejudice.
I think I have an example. In The Bell Curve, the authors argue that there might be a statistical case for certain racial stereotypes' validity.
If that's true, then one could be a racist (which I think could be considered a form of bigotry), but it wouldn't be prejudice, because it was based on ample data.
However, because The Bell Curve is based on statistics, you could still argue that it's prejudicial to think that a randomly chosen member of a given race definitely has some particular characteristic.
It sounds like you're saying that all such moral judgments are dogmatic, and therefore based on no evidence, and therefore hasty. Is that correct?
Not to over-complicate things, but your claim that "personal experience frequently reverses their position" makes the discussion stickier, I think.
First, they might have changed their position about gays deserving to be shunned. But that's a somewhat separate issue than changing their position that practicing homosexuality is morally wrong. Obviously the two issues are related, but they're not identical.
A second they might soften their stance is that they might still hold that practiced homosexuality is morally wrong, but lack the willingness (or strength of conviction) to be confrontational about it when face-to-face with a gay person.
My main point is that if someone softens his stance about gay people after meeting one, it might or might not be a repudiation of his belief that (a) homosexuality is wrong, and/or (b) homosexuality ought to be shunned/punished/etc.
Do people confuse the term prejudice with bigotry and/or moral judgment?
It seems to me that a strict definition of "prejudice" would be the drawing of a conclusion before sufficient evidence had been considered. If someone had a problem with Turing's homosexuality per se, and he really was a homosexual, then their judgment of him wouldn't be hasty.
On the other hand, if what they really dislike is effeminate behavior, for example, and they merely assumed that Turing was effeminate simply because he was gay, that would strike me as an overly hasty conclusion, and thus be "prejudice".
But if the complaint is that Turing's detractors disliked him simply because he was gay, that strikes me as a case of bigotry, or of a moral judgment that's unpopular by current norms.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to be pretty nerdy to consider installing windows on 15-20 of your closest friends laptops a "party."
More like pretty sadistic
You see those as mutually exclusive? Sounds like someone doesn't read the Boston Phoenix classified ads.
[Relax, it's just a joke. Linux is my main OS.]
This is like making a racist joke and then saying "Relax, I am of the same race..." and expecting that being of the same genre that you mocked makes it okay. Its amazing how that works.
And yet it does work, if you go by people's reactions. I didn't design humans, I just work with what's given to me.
In contrast to the Linux roll-out party, which is free but takes place under an overpass and is hosted by homeless people.
[Relax, it's just a joke. Linux is my main OS.]
I think the hosts should charge their guests $100 to come in.
Then just before serving drinks, the host springs a EULA that the guest needs to sign, or else he gets booted out the front door.
If the party is on a Tuesday, then in the middle of their festivities they need to sit still for half and hour while ADP comes in and upgrades the security system.
I just pity the poor guest who only paid the basic $100 to get in. The bathroom is only available to those who paid $299 to get in. Poor schmucks.
The other point is that prosecuting under the guise of a hate crime can devalue the real crime. I don't care why they selected someone's house to rob/burn/etc, all reasons should be treated the same : equally bad. Yet we try to differentiate the crimes by assigning severity based on what they were thinking or what we think they were thinking?
I've read a pretty good point about this (sorry can't find a link). Hate speech laws create unequal protection under the law: members of particular groups get additional protection from crimes.
That violates the U.S. Constitution's "Equal Protection" clause.
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
I disagree. The problem is that "hate speech" can be so broadly interpreted, as to stifle debate.
What if, in pre-WWII Germany, it was considered "hate speech" to say that it was morally wrong to be a member of the Nazi party?
Or in the U.S. it was considered "hate speech" to say that the ideals of the Republican Party sucked.
Or in Afghanistan to say that denigrating Al Quaeda was considered speech that incites violence?
Deine Mutter ist eine Schlampe und du bist ein schwein.
Vergessen Sie nicht, das Wort zu profitieren "Schwein".
Google only acquiring the patent is NOT evil.
If they're willing to submit it to something like the Open Invention Network, then I'd agree. (I'm not sure OIN is the right group, since they're Linux-oriented.)
If they won't, then I stick by my "evil" claim. (Or at least, "probably evil".)
RTFS. It's a design patent, not a software (utility) patent.
I'm not sure that distinction matters in this case. Designers are directly limited, but they'd use software to implement the idea. Software developers who make web pages are limited, despite this being a design patent.
I was about to say how you shouldn't be surprised, because U.S. public companies are required to seek to maximize profits.
But then I found this article, which seems to contradict that. Interesting.
Or... it's a cunning ploy to show how idiotic Patents are in this day-and-age.
I hope so, but I doubt it. It's less-obviously idiotic than a lot of other software patents out there. If Google wanted to make that point, I think that would/could have been more effective.
In retaliation, goatse has now patented mooning, and also all images of anuses.
That's not evil, that's a public service.
That is all.
Now billboard ad budgets are going to include the cost of lubricating the road :(
I'm what I figure is a pretty average web user, in terms of frequency and what I access. I pretty much just use Firefox 3.5.
At this point, I almost never find myself wishing that my browser had some new feature or some bug fix. The browser has pretty well melted into the background at this point.
Are many people in my shoes jonesing for additional browser improvements? Or is that mostly limited to, for example, web developers or users of browsers other than Firefox?
Only one episode[0], but it would have the highest ratings ever, even on reruns...
[0] How many times can you send a ship into the sun, after all?
Not sure they'd get that far. Hairspray is flammable.
...and put all the lawyers, hairdressers and managers in it?
So that we're free of them, or so that we can have the best reality show ever?
Did they evaluate Windows right after installation, or after it got infected? :)
War really does lead to some of our race's biggest advances.
Although they did fail to consider the motivating potential of porn as well. Stupid Shadows...
Just the thought makes me all tingly down there!
There can be prejudice without bigotry. But it's hard to imagine bigotry without prejudice.
I think I have an example. In The Bell Curve, the authors argue that there might be a statistical case for certain racial stereotypes' validity.
If that's true, then one could be a racist (which I think could be considered a form of bigotry), but it wouldn't be prejudice, because it was based on ample data.
However, because The Bell Curve is based on statistics, you could still argue that it's prejudicial to think that a randomly chosen member of a given race definitely has some particular characteristic.
But typically they have no evidence at all.
It sounds like you're saying that all such moral judgments are dogmatic, and therefore based on no evidence, and therefore hasty. Is that correct?
Not to over-complicate things, but your claim that "personal experience frequently reverses their position" makes the discussion stickier, I think.
First, they might have changed their position about gays deserving to be shunned. But that's a somewhat separate issue than changing their position that practicing homosexuality is morally wrong. Obviously the two issues are related, but they're not identical.
A second they might soften their stance is that they might still hold that practiced homosexuality is morally wrong, but lack the willingness (or strength of conviction) to be confrontational about it when face-to-face with a gay person.
My main point is that if someone softens his stance about gay people after meeting one, it might or might not be a repudiation of his belief that (a) homosexuality is wrong, and/or (b) homosexuality ought to be shunned/punished/etc.
It's typically prejudice anyway.
- He's gay, and gay is bad.
- How do you know gay is bad?
- Well... it is!
But if you accept my narrow definition of "prejudice", I don't see why you consider such a conversation to be prejudice.
The "Well... it is!" justification strikes me as dogmatism, not prejudice.
Or it might be: Go ahead and persecute gays, because a persecuted gay man (helped) invent computers!
BTW, it's probably more fair to attribute modern computers to John von Neumann or Charles Babbage or Konrad Zuse, not Alan Turing.
Do people confuse the term prejudice with bigotry and/or moral judgment?
It seems to me that a strict definition of "prejudice" would be the drawing of a conclusion before sufficient evidence had been considered. If someone had a problem with Turing's homosexuality per se, and he really was a homosexual, then their judgment of him wouldn't be hasty.
On the other hand, if what they really dislike is effeminate behavior, for example, and they merely assumed that Turing was effeminate simply because he was gay, that would strike me as an overly hasty conclusion, and thus be "prejudice".
But if the complaint is that Turing's detractors disliked him simply because he was gay, that strikes me as a case of bigotry, or of a moral judgment that's unpopular by current norms.