If true, that changes things. Seems then that this was a targeted attempt at causing distress. I'm fine with a prosecution for this, but wouldn't be if he were simply posting on his Facebook wall or any group not specifically related to the Jones case.
Why even a prosecution? How about a "Hey, Facebook, remove this stupid post, NOW, please."
If someone can be arrested for having a sick sense of humor, police won't many other cases to work henceforth.
So the first thing that happens with any tragedy is that people make jokes about it.... Some people use it as a form of therapy. It's part of our coping mechanism.
I fail to see why a 20 yo man in Lancashire, a couple of hundred miles away from the murder and unrelated to the victim, requires such therapy.
Since when has it been a human right to be offensive?
That's like asking a religious question about denomination.
Some find it acceptable and morbidly amusing, some just morbidly amusing. Some find it acceptable but not amusing, and some find it just plain not amusing and unacceptable.
Now where do the two words "Human Rights" come into play here? Oh, yeah. That's what it's about.
Limiting jokes is over the line and just plain ridiculous. Unless we're supposed to be robotic in nature, there is no removal of humor, EVER.
There might have been a historical LACK of it in ancient times, but who knows? Maybe some of the cave drawings had humor embedded. Anyhow... Away from the podium I walk.
What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo have waiting in the wings that will get to the Obama administration's target of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025?
"Getting rid of the Obama administration politically and financially."
First, on-line, no one is going to punch you in the face for a rude comment. It doesn't happen much IRL, but everyone knows the possibility exists. Second, what you say online is less likely to have social consequences because you are often conversing with people you will never meet IRL. Third, misunderstandings happen more often online because it is easy to misinterpret quickly written posts without non-verbal communication (body language) to add clarification.
Yours is the best one I've seen yet. Body language should be #1 in my opinion, but you're spot-on!
and the profit motive at work.. it really brings a tear to the eye when I consider how well unregulated private industry can fail to solve these problems that governments just waste money on!
The worst part is they fired him for allegedly tuning his back on the trio who say he never did such a thing. To bad the camera's were not working to prove it.
The cameras were. The drives storing the footage just had a weird problem because of surrounding radiation causing a meltdown of the internal platters.. The rest of the drives are fine, so they can still be tagged as evidence etc etc... Just no data. Darn.
Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?
Admittedly, he didn't shoot anyone, which he was apparently entitled to do, but at the same time, he actually stopped any further mischief and was the only person (aside from the protesters) who didn't embarrass the whole nation.
It's a pity Joseph Heller isn't around to write his life story or something.
My first thought is that when a name comes to the forefront, disavow all knowledge. If not possible, blame that person for the failure and shit-can them immediately.
"Get only positive results or never get tenure" is a policy that dooms us to this exact course. Publishing is no longer a consequence of having a brilliant idea, but rather a means to an ends(keeping your job). The academic community needs to find another metric for researcher quality other than papers published. It's costing everyone the truth.
This sounds an awful lot like something teachers told me in grade school:
"Show me you're busy working on something or I'll send you to the office."
Then, an awful lot like something I heard when working during the dotcom era:
"We need to look like we're doing busy work or we'll all get canned."
...The US is absurd: you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, but you need one on a pedal bike ?!?
My guess is the behind-the-scenes discussions that happened regarding this involved children:
Gov 1: "This will require children to wear helmets." Gov 2: "What happens when adults don't have to, and children rebel because of the status symbol effect based on age?" Gov 3: "Well let's come up with a plan to make it look like a positive thing for kids even though it's not required by adults." Gov 2: ".......? Are you joking? You really think kids will buy that crap?" Gov 3: "True, true. Okay... How do we solve this?" Gov 1: "It's almost lunch time and I don't feel like thinking about this. It hurts. Screw it. All people, adult and child, will have to wear helmets." [All people mumble about being hungry] Gov 1: "It's settled. Let's eat, already."
Forgot to insert the word "bicycle" into the sentences. Sorry. Was in a rush:)
Motorcycles are big-person-only toys and kids can't ride them so the law doesn't apply the same.
...The US is absurd: you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, but you need one on a pedal bike ?!?
My guess is the behind-the-scenes discussions that happened regarding this involved children:
Gov 1: "This will require children to wear helmets." Gov 2: "What happens when adults don't have to, and children rebel because of the status symbol effect based on age?" Gov 3: "Well let's come up with a plan to make it look like a positive thing for kids even though it's not required by adults." Gov 2: ".......? Are you joking? You really think kids will buy that crap?" Gov 3: "True, true. Okay... How do we solve this?" Gov 1: "It's almost lunch time and I don't feel like thinking about this. It hurts. Screw it. All people, adult and child, will have to wear helmets." [All people mumble about being hungry] Gov 1: "It's settled. Let's eat, already."
The real problem is that I'm an adult and I can decide for myself whether or not I will wear a helmet. The government doesn't need to make this decision for me.
Please differentiate this from seatbelt law.
The seatbelt law does not say "adults get to make the decision whether or not they want to wear one." It also doesn't "hurt other people" to not wear your own seatbelt. So what is the difference? Are you against that, as well?
Personally, I'm a pro-Darwin. Let people make the choices they want, as long as those choices don't harm others (sadness as a result of death or injurt does not count as "harm").
Funnily enough, they solved the problem of the nobility by introducing inheritance tax (the idea of which goes back to at least Plato - prevent families from growing to wield too much power by adding friction over the generations).
Where is the mechanism here to prevent corporations from growing too large and powerful?
You only correct that AFTER it happens, not before.
There's no money in 'BEFORE' action. C'mon. Get with the times.;)
The video did not cause gmail to be blocked any more than the video caused terrorist attacks against US embassies. This is getting ridiculous. I mean, yes we joke that Iranian government is terribly inept, but would they really be so thick as to think blocking gmail had any meaningful impact on those who created/supported the video? The video is just serving as a gigantic red herring. More likely Iran had a real purpose behind the brief blockade, and throwing "The Video" out there as a reason is an attempt to distract from that reason.
I don't know about you, but if someone has severe reactions toward something I put out and can't even remain calm enough to argue, I would feel my extreme [video / print / speech / text] got it's message across. Also, when it gets such a pissed response that people spread the information more quickly and thoroughly and even the spreading methods get blocked, I would have a self-importance glazing moment.
I learned when I was a kid how to prevent amplified reactions, and that's to not react. But what's logic got to do with this kind of junk?:)
All censorship is subject to special interests. By its very nature there are always at least two interested parties: those in the party who want to prevent a message from being communicated, and those in the party who are prevented from hearing the message. I suppose it's technically possible for those two parties to be identical, but that's usually called "willful ignorance" rather than "censorship."
Since he was solely responsible for this prevention AND it making public news, I will vote for this wonderful man who, single-handedly, removed third party terrorism potential from American soil.
It's a good thing, too, because no one has ever seen or heard of those drones before, whose specifications aren't available online. Surely another country couldn't make their own. Thanks, O'Bama, oh savior of American Freedom!
... individuals filling their vacant cranial cavities with individual streams of Youtube cat videos, Justin Bieber vomiting, and other individualized streams of pablum should not be competing for use of the nation's RF spectrum...
Wouldn't it be hilarious if they gave those who lease the spectrum to them free service, with which usage will ultimately use a large chunk of the available bandwidth (active data use), which will let the end amount of bandwidth be somewhat similar to that of the large service providers today?
"New, fast, 20mbps data* available. * Mileage may vary. Real-time bandwidth tests show end speed at roughly 1-2mbps."
Slashdot Mirror
If true, that changes things. Seems then that this was a targeted attempt at causing distress. I'm fine with a prosecution for this, but wouldn't be if he were simply posting on his Facebook wall or any group not specifically related to the Jones case.
Why even a prosecution? How about a "Hey, Facebook, remove this stupid post, NOW, please."
If someone can be arrested for having a sick sense of humor, police won't many other cases to work henceforth.
So the first thing that happens with any tragedy is that people make jokes about it. ... Some people use it as a form of therapy. It's part of our coping mechanism.
I fail to see why a 20 yo man in Lancashire, a couple of hundred miles away from the murder and unrelated to the victim, requires such therapy.
I fail to see how you understand psychology.
Since when has it been a human right to be offensive?
That's like asking a religious question about denomination.
Some find it acceptable and morbidly amusing, some just morbidly amusing. Some find it acceptable but not amusing, and some find it just plain not amusing and unacceptable.
Now where do the two words "Human Rights" come into play here? Oh, yeah. That's what it's about.
Limiting jokes is over the line and just plain ridiculous. Unless we're supposed to be robotic in nature, there is no removal of humor, EVER.
There might have been a historical LACK of it in ancient times, but who knows? Maybe some of the cave drawings had humor embedded. Anyhow... Away from the podium I walk.
...I know - and almost everybody else know - that Great Britain is famous for its "stiff upper lip", but isn't this going way overboard ??
Trying to outdo the U.S. again, eh, chaps?
What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo have waiting in the wings that will get to the Obama administration's target of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025?
"Getting rid of the Obama administration politically and financially."
First, on-line, no one is going to punch you in the face for a rude comment. It doesn't happen much IRL, but everyone knows the possibility exists.
Second, what you say online is less likely to have social consequences because you are often conversing with people you will never meet IRL.
Third, misunderstandings happen more often online because it is easy to misinterpret quickly written posts without non-verbal communication (body language) to add clarification.
Yours is the best one I've seen yet. Body language should be #1 in my opinion, but you're spot-on!
and the profit motive at work.. it really brings a tear to the eye when I consider how well unregulated private industry can fail to solve these problems that governments just waste money on!
I tidied that up a bit.
The worst part is they fired him for allegedly tuning his back on the trio who say he never did such a thing. To bad the camera's were not working to prove it.
The cameras were. The drives storing the footage just had a weird problem because of surrounding radiation causing a meltdown of the internal platters.. The rest of the drives are fine, so they can still be tagged as evidence etc etc... Just no data. Darn.
Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?
Admittedly, he didn't shoot anyone, which he was apparently entitled to do, but at the same time, he actually stopped any further mischief and was the only person (aside from the protesters) who didn't embarrass the whole nation.
It's a pity Joseph Heller isn't around to write his life story or something.
My first thought is that when a name comes to the forefront, disavow all knowledge. If not possible, blame that person for the failure and shit-can them immediately.
Later, rinse, repeat.
"Get only positive results or never get tenure" is a policy that dooms us to this exact course. Publishing is no longer a consequence of having a brilliant idea, but rather a means to an ends(keeping your job). The academic community needs to find another metric for researcher quality other than papers published. It's costing everyone the truth.
This sounds an awful lot like something teachers told me in grade school:
"Show me you're busy working on something or I'll send you to the office."
Then, an awful lot like something I heard when working during the dotcom era:
"We need to look like we're doing busy work or we'll all get canned."
"short bus"
"All censorship is subject to 'short bus' interests."
Got it. Thanks! :D
...The US is absurd: you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, but you need one on a pedal bike ?!?
My guess is the behind-the-scenes discussions that happened regarding this involved children:
Gov 1: "This will require children to wear helmets."
Gov 2: "What happens when adults don't have to, and children rebel because of the status symbol effect based on age?"
Gov 3: "Well let's come up with a plan to make it look like a positive thing for kids even though it's not required by adults."
Gov 2: ".......? Are you joking? You really think kids will buy that crap?"
Gov 3: "True, true. Okay... How do we solve this?"
Gov 1: "It's almost lunch time and I don't feel like thinking about this. It hurts. Screw it. All people, adult and child, will have to wear helmets."
[All people mumble about being hungry]
Gov 1: "It's settled. Let's eat, already."
Forgot to insert the word "bicycle" into the sentences. Sorry. Was in a rush :)
Motorcycles are big-person-only toys and kids can't ride them so the law doesn't apply the same.
...The US is absurd: you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, but you need one on a pedal bike ?!?
My guess is the behind-the-scenes discussions that happened regarding this involved children:
Gov 1: "This will require children to wear helmets."
Gov 2: "What happens when adults don't have to, and children rebel because of the status symbol effect based on age?"
Gov 3: "Well let's come up with a plan to make it look like a positive thing for kids even though it's not required by adults."
Gov 2: ".......? Are you joking? You really think kids will buy that crap?"
Gov 3: "True, true. Okay... How do we solve this?"
Gov 1: "It's almost lunch time and I don't feel like thinking about this. It hurts. Screw it. All people, adult and child, will have to wear helmets."
[All people mumble about being hungry]
Gov 1: "It's settled. Let's eat, already."
The real problem is that I'm an adult and I can decide for myself whether or not I will wear a helmet. The government doesn't need to make this decision for me.
Please differentiate this from seatbelt law.
The seatbelt law does not say "adults get to make the decision whether or not they want to wear one." It also doesn't "hurt other people" to not wear your own seatbelt. So what is the difference? Are you against that, as well?
Personally, I'm a pro-Darwin. Let people make the choices they want, as long as those choices don't harm others (sadness as a result of death or injurt does not count as "harm").
Funnily enough, they solved the problem of the nobility by introducing inheritance tax (the idea of which goes back to at least Plato - prevent families from growing to wield too much power by adding friction over the generations).
Where is the mechanism here to prevent corporations from growing too large and powerful?
You only correct that AFTER it happens, not before.
There's no money in 'BEFORE' action. C'mon. Get with the times. ;)
Finally, a judge with any common sense?
He's out in no time. Common sense can't last.
The video did not cause gmail to be blocked any more than the video caused terrorist attacks against US embassies. This is getting ridiculous. I mean, yes we joke that Iranian government is terribly inept, but would they really be so thick as to think blocking gmail had any meaningful impact on those who created/supported the video? The video is just serving as a gigantic red herring. More likely Iran had a real purpose behind the brief blockade, and throwing "The Video" out there as a reason is an attempt to distract from that reason.
I don't know about you, but if someone has severe reactions toward something I put out and can't even remain calm enough to argue, I would feel my extreme [video / print / speech / text] got it's message across. Also, when it gets such a pissed response that people spread the information more quickly and thoroughly and even the spreading methods get blocked, I would have a self-importance glazing moment.
I learned when I was a kid how to prevent amplified reactions, and that's to not react. But what's logic got to do with this kind of junk? :)
All censorship is subject to special interests. By its very nature there are always at least two interested parties: those in the party who want to prevent a message from being communicated, and those in the party who are prevented from hearing the message. I suppose it's technically possible for those two parties to be identical, but that's usually called "willful ignorance" rather than "censorship."
Please define "special."
I at least think my ISP sends their bills the fastest. Not sure about the "pipe" speed though.
Mine sends promotions for lower-level packages than the one I'm already using, and paying out the ass for, with a longer "contract period" faster.
Since he was solely responsible for this prevention AND it making public news, I will vote for this wonderful man who, single-handedly, removed third party terrorism potential from American soil.
It's a good thing, too, because no one has ever seen or heard of those drones before, whose specifications aren't available online. Surely another country couldn't make their own. Thanks, O'Bama, oh savior of American Freedom!
*gag*
That's why they've been selling belt holsters for mobile phones all of these years!
Careful now, you might be labeled a "terrorist" for posting a comment like that online. *gag*
... individuals filling their vacant cranial cavities with individual streams of Youtube cat videos, Justin Bieber vomiting, and other individualized streams of pablum should not be competing for use of the nation's RF spectrum...
I did a quick correct on that line for ya.
Fired all their techs. All that's left is suits and lawyers.
"Suits and lawyers."
I love the ring of that.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if they gave those who lease the spectrum to them free service, with which usage will ultimately use a large chunk of the available bandwidth (active data use), which will let the end amount of bandwidth be somewhat similar to that of the large service providers today?
"New, fast, 20mbps data* available.
* Mileage may vary. Real-time bandwidth tests show end speed at roughly 1-2mbps."
Just food for thought :)