Yes. And the absurdity of criminalizing thought is approximately on a par with the absurdity of making a crime more of a crime because it is decided the motivation was hate. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. The pain is no worse, the medical care required is no greater, based on the motivation. Beating someone up because you hate them is NOT more evil than beating them up for purposes of robbery.
There is only one thing wrong with your reasoning. There is no "pretending" that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." It is a TRUISM. Hate speech causes no physical harm directly because it CANNOT. Injurious ACTIONS do. If the hate speech leads to injurious actions, prosecute the actions, not the speech.
First the part I disagree with. I categorically reject ANYONE'S moral or legal authority to tell me what I may think (because that is what your words say). About ANYTHING. This includes (for the sake of argument) racism. If I have racist opinions which are internal to my thoughts and perhaps discussed with my own family and friends, it is no one's business, and let he who would make it his business to limit my thoughts beware. Now, racist actions and racist public expressions are another matter. There is some threshold at which these are subject to sanction, due to the doctrine of clear and present danger, and at least arguably the doctrine of extreme obnoxiousness. But this threshold is pretty high. You have no right not to be offended if I say anyone who likes rap music or gospel music is an idiot, and you have no right not to be offended if I remark that gosh-darn whitey has always got his foot on the brothers. And I in turn have no right not to be offended if you then remark that I am a racist. And in this connection, racism is just a stand-in for any kind of opinion.
Now for the part I heartily agree with: EVERYTHING ELSE you say. I could not agree more about your pr0n statements. And I could not agree more with your reasoning about hate-speech restrictions. (I am assuming there is some doctrine under which I will be enjoined from or punished for marching into a certain neighborhood with a large group of like-minded hooligans screaming epithets about their ethnicity or religion - this doctrine would doubtless be a simple one of endangering the general peace).
I have profound sympathy with the citizens of all foreign lands on which these pernicious obscenities such as DMCA have spread. But I must tell the citizens of these foreign lands this: look to your own corruptocracies, and not the US corruptocracy, as the guilty parties in this matter. The US does not have the power to dictate legislation to foreign lands.
Agree about those horrible exports, but methinks their sale abroad is too easy. That's my gentle way of hinting that corrupt institutions abound in various countries.
On the contrary, from my point of view, the Democrats are much bigger on censorship (such as so-called "hate speech", AKA opinions) and political correctness than the Republicans, but let's not fight. These opposing fundamental viewpoints are really not arguable effectively; i.e., stating this one way or the other will never sway anyone on the other side. Can we just agree that it is very gratifying that both sides of the aisle joined together on this?
The fuel gets close to running out after 12 hours. It's really bad news to run out of fuel. Without engine power you have no steerageway on the airship and she is out of control vertically and horizontally. Also there is then no way to control the envelope pressure, which has to be kept between delicate limits. Little things like that. There is no real provision for crew rest, meals, and such like. This is a really tiny airship. It is only about 1/40 the size of the Hindenburg.
The largest airships of the 1930s, including the US Navy Akron and Macon, could stay out for one week without refuelling. They had proper facilities for the crew, who stood watches like on a surface ship.
Give the man a cigar. I was struggling through all the other suggestions, every single one of them involving unacceptably horrible tradeoffs, and finally get to this post, the only idea that is not just mind numbingly brain dead. I don't even use OSX any more (finally cured that brain disease), and I'm gonna check this out.
Forget the comparison of years of age. "Javascript" and "mature" are not words which in any sense could ever be considered compatible. After one hundred years, Javascript will still not be a mature language. It is crap by its nature.
Shall we just call it a banana republic instead of fixating on it not being third world? They shouldn't feel singled out, because the US is also rapidly turning into a banana republic.
Anti nuclear environ*MENTAL*ists are an existential threat to the ability of the human race to maintain a state of civilization, and an intolerable impediment to progress. They should be destroyed as a political force. With extreme prejudice. Using any amount of force necessary.
You want to take the server out of service overnight? Because if you try that trick on a live running filesystem, you are asking for corruption on the output side. And no, I don't know an alternative in this case.
It's an interesting thought. The American "Revolution" was not so much a revolution as a war of independence (as was the American "Civil" War). One succeeded (with important outside help), and one failed. Both were clearly different from real revolutions such as the French Revolution and the October Revolution. I am not sure what bearing, if any, this has on your remark about bloodless revolutions. I think the reason that bloodless revolutions, if successful, seldom have return engagements, is simply that the status quo side is not very committed - else they would not have been bloodless in the first place.
Yeah, right. Do that and you're not going to get a settlement offer. You'll have a pair of brass knuckles walk up to you and get beaten to within an inch of your life. Or if you're unlikely you'll get a 45 slug in your kneecap.
Of the two doors described, I'll go for door number 3.
Your door number 1 is clearly a loser for having the student learn anything much.
Your door number 2 seeks to bankrupt the student's family and seeks to make the student's life a living hell in return for the student making the principle's life a living hell. I find that both cruel and counterproductive. It might arguably be the thing to do if the student was an experienced adult, but not as a minor.
But neither should the student nor their family be excused from this damaging attack with a mere suspension.
In the best of all possible worlds, my door number 3 would have the student mandated to do some work after school to think about and rectify the situation. The page which is a cruel defamatory hatchet piece on the teacher would have to be modified to make it clear it was a prank which went wrong, a prank that is now regretted by the author. And the student should have to create their own page (if they do not already have one), prominently describing how the student went astray, regrets the fruits of the wrongdoing, and seeks now to make amends and conduct themself as a decent citizen.
Well I don't know if "people" are stupid, but you sure are, Bub. Reagan pulled us out of a godawful economic train wreck known as the Carter administration. He did this while also TERMINATING the Soviet Union because they couldn't come close to matching American productivity. It was imbeciles such as Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and now Obama who have wrecked the US economy by exporting all production and building a collossal all encompassing welfare state.
Twits like you who belittle Reagan's intellect obviously have never listened to those who knew him personally during that period. People from both sides of the political spectrum. They uniformly found him a physically and mentally very active and vital individual.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And the absurdity of criminalizing thought is approximately on a par with the absurdity of making a crime more of a crime because it is decided the motivation was hate. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. The pain is no worse, the medical care required is no greater, based on the motivation. Beating someone up because you hate them is NOT more evil than beating them up for purposes of robbery.
There is only one thing wrong with your reasoning. There is no "pretending" that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." It is a TRUISM. Hate speech causes no physical harm directly because it CANNOT. Injurious ACTIONS do. If the hate speech leads to injurious actions, prosecute the actions, not the speech.
First the part I disagree with. I categorically reject ANYONE'S moral or legal authority to tell me what I may think (because that is what your words say). About ANYTHING. This includes (for the sake of argument) racism. If I have racist opinions which are internal to my thoughts and perhaps discussed with my own family and friends, it is no one's business, and let he who would make it his business to limit my thoughts beware. Now, racist actions and racist public expressions are another matter. There is some threshold at which these are subject to sanction, due to the doctrine of clear and present danger, and at least arguably the doctrine of extreme obnoxiousness. But this threshold is pretty high. You have no right not to be offended if I say anyone who likes rap music or gospel music is an idiot, and you have no right not to be offended if I remark that gosh-darn whitey has always got his foot on the brothers. And I in turn have no right not to be offended if you then remark that I am a racist. And in this connection, racism is just a stand-in for any kind of opinion.
Now for the part I heartily agree with: EVERYTHING ELSE you say. I could not agree more about your pr0n statements. And I could not agree more with your reasoning about hate-speech restrictions. (I am assuming there is some doctrine under which I will be enjoined from or punished for marching into a certain neighborhood with a large group of like-minded hooligans screaming epithets about their ethnicity or religion - this doctrine would doubtless be a simple one of endangering the general peace).
I have profound sympathy with the citizens of all foreign lands on which these pernicious obscenities such as DMCA have spread. But I must tell the citizens of these foreign lands this: look to your own corruptocracies, and not the US corruptocracy, as the guilty parties in this matter. The US does not have the power to dictate legislation to foreign lands.
This is just too intriguing a question not to have answered. Can anyone provide some pointers on how this happened?
Agree about those horrible exports, but methinks their sale abroad is too easy. That's my gentle way of hinting that corrupt institutions abound in various countries.
Excuse me; what?
On the contrary, from my point of view, the Democrats are much bigger on censorship (such as so-called "hate speech", AKA opinions) and political correctness than the Republicans, but let's not fight. These opposing fundamental viewpoints are really not arguable effectively; i.e., stating this one way or the other will never sway anyone on the other side. Can we just agree that it is very gratifying that both sides of the aisle joined together on this?
Admirable to ask this question. Vigilance is always required.
In the case of this bill, the text appears to be straightforward, well targeted, reasonably concise, and free from extraneous tack-ons.
Check it out: Full text of bill at Thomas
I hope that URL will last, but the cgi looks suspiciously transient. If it stops working, just google "hr 2765 text".
Well, there is at least one dumbfuck stupidass moderator, anyway.
Only stupid people THINK they like glossy, because they are too dumb to realize it is crippling their experience.
Anyone with an ounce of brains will ONLY stand for matte.
Period.
Those are yet vaporware.
The fuel gets close to running out after 12 hours. It's really bad news to run out of fuel. Without engine power you have no steerageway on the airship and she is out of control vertically and horizontally. Also there is then no way to control the envelope pressure, which has to be kept between delicate limits. Little things like that. There is no real provision for crew rest, meals, and such like. This is a really tiny airship. It is only about 1/40 the size of the Hindenburg.
The largest airships of the 1930s, including the US Navy Akron and Macon, could stay out for one week without refuelling. They had proper facilities for the crew, who stood watches like on a surface ship.
Nearly all of it. That is the way the corruptocracy works.
Give the man a cigar. I was struggling through all the other suggestions, every single one of them involving unacceptably horrible tradeoffs, and finally get to this post, the only idea that is not just mind numbingly brain dead. I don't even use OSX any more (finally cured that brain disease), and I'm gonna check this out.
Forget the comparison of years of age. "Javascript" and "mature" are not words which in any sense could ever be considered compatible. After one hundred years, Javascript will still not be a mature language. It is crap by its nature.
Shall we just call it a banana republic instead of fixating on it not being third world? They shouldn't feel singled out, because the US is also rapidly turning into a banana republic.
Son, they've been promising that we'd have fusion "real soon now" since *I* was a kid in the early 1950's.
Anti nuclear environ*MENTAL*ists are an existential threat to the ability of the human race to maintain a state of civilization, and an intolerable impediment to progress. They should be destroyed as a political force. With extreme prejudice. Using any amount of force necessary.
You want to take the server out of service overnight? Because if you try that trick on a live running filesystem, you are asking for corruption on the output side. And no, I don't know an alternative in this case.
It's an interesting thought. The American "Revolution" was not so much a revolution as a war of independence (as was the American "Civil" War). One succeeded (with important outside help), and one failed. Both were clearly different from real revolutions such as the French Revolution and the October Revolution. I am not sure what bearing, if any, this has on your remark about bloodless revolutions. I think the reason that bloodless revolutions, if successful, seldom have return engagements, is simply that the status quo side is not very committed - else they would not have been bloodless in the first place.
Yeah, right. Do that and you're not going to get a settlement offer. You'll have a pair of brass knuckles walk up to you and get beaten to within an inch of your life. Or if you're unlikely you'll get a 45 slug in your kneecap.
Congratulations for living in a country that does not have a corrupt legal system. Wish I could say the same.
Of the two doors described, I'll go for door number 3.
Your door number 1 is clearly a loser for having the student learn anything much.
Your door number 2 seeks to bankrupt the student's family and seeks to make the student's life a living hell in return for the student making the principle's life a living hell. I find that both cruel and counterproductive. It might arguably be the thing to do if the student was an experienced adult, but not as a minor.
But neither should the student nor their family be excused from this damaging attack with a mere suspension.
In the best of all possible worlds, my door number 3 would have the student mandated to do some work after school to think about and rectify the situation. The page which is a cruel defamatory hatchet piece on the teacher would have to be modified to make it clear it was a prank which went wrong, a prank that is now regretted by the author. And the student should have to create their own page (if they do not already have one), prominently describing how the student went astray, regrets the fruits of the wrongdoing, and seeks now to make amends and conduct themself as a decent citizen.
Well I don't know if "people" are stupid, but you sure are, Bub. Reagan pulled us out of a godawful economic train wreck known as the Carter administration. He did this while also TERMINATING the Soviet Union because they couldn't come close to matching American productivity. It was imbeciles such as Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and now Obama who have wrecked the US economy by exporting all production and building a collossal all encompassing welfare state.
Twits like you who belittle Reagan's intellect obviously have never listened to those who knew him personally during that period. People from both sides of the political spectrum. They uniformly found him a physically and mentally very active and vital individual.