Yup. Fear of civil suits does far more than government regulation ever will. I really feel for the people who want the government to hold their hand through everything. They never see what the other hand is doing.
With the sheer volume of ads on craigslist, how can anybody expect them to moderate everything on there. Isn't it easier and far more just for craigslist to take a neutural stance and let the justice system do it's job on a neutural basis. It's my understanding anyway that service providers are not responsible of the content of their websites anyway if they do not provide content under the safe harbor provisions of the communications decency act. Craigslist has already been granted immunity for hosting descriminatory housing ads. I'd be willing to bet they can get out of this too using the same legislation.
Depends. I've been ordering from them for a good while and haven't had a problem... Then again, I haven't had to return anything (I've heard there can be problems there). I think a lot of customer satisfaction has to do with luck. Sometimes, even at the best places, you get a bad egg or a service person having a bad day.
Vorbis is ironically very very successful in xbox games and windows games in general. It seems even M$ has a hard time arguing the quality is superior.
False dichotomy. People use those things to cope with lives, hidden feelings, or situations that are already shit. Treating addiction as a disease is treating a symptom.
I do understand addiction. I'm just not a fan of the disease concept.
So let's take your first claim that an addict is completely out of control over his or her use, that a person is powerless over a substance in front of them. Consider this experiment, where heroin addicts are given heroin and also given aid in getting their lives back on track. Similar to results in Vancouver and the UK, the "addicts" quit of their own accord. Similar results have been found with alcohol (see section on loss of control). Why I don't like the concept? It provides the excuse for forced treatment or incarceration for victimless crimes under AA's cancerous idea that a person is powerless, that addiction is progressive and always fatal. All dogma spewed out of Bill Wilson's drunk cultic ass. So called "god inspired" horseshit that has somehow supplanted science in the addiction industry. Anybody who dares speak against the disease concept is persecuted against as a heretic (see last section).
I don't have "fears" of AA. I understand it perfectly well. Probably better than you ever will, and it disgusts the hell out of me. It's government sponsored dogma masquerading as science.
And if we want to get into personal anecdote, i've had three friends who have been serious addicts. Two were heroin addicts who up and quit (and are still "sober", though they still drink somethings which is an NA heresy). The third was a meth addict who first caused me to look closer at AA. At the time I thought it to be somehow science... I knew little about it. Anyway. He quit on his own and is still sober after several years. Perhaps you want to spit on his recovery like so many other AA members and imply he was never really an addict. Well. Unlike AA members, he didn't need some flying spaghetti monster to quit.
And yes, I fully admit i'm bitter towards the 12 steppers, but not without good reason. As for the rest of your assumptions about addiction, I suggest you read a book like Stanton Peele's "Diseasing of America", Charles Bufe's "AA, cult or cure"... there are many on the subject.
oh. and the lawyer quoted in the article above also wrote "For all the lofty quotes about free speech in Canadian jurisprudence, the reality is that our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world.".
Well. Here is a Canadian defamation attorney's opinion on the matter. He writes "Libel law developed in an ancient era which we would today consider backward, tyrannical and repressive. It is rooted in 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism."...
or perhaps we should visit Hill vs. the 'Church' of Scientology. It's rare that I would ever agree with a cult, but in this instance, I think Canada should have come to a similar conclusion as NYT v. Sullivan (actual malice standard... very different than common law malice). Sure, the COS in all probability acted with actual malice (even though that's hard to prove), but free speech is more important than one case. I understand why the canadian judges made the decision they did... I just don't agree with it. I think it was shortsighted.
He shouldn't have made promises if there was a possibility he couldn't keep them... and what exactly has been preventing him from following through on his promises to deconstruct the bush "war on terror" legacy. Face it. He lied.
The problem is that you're guilty until proven innocent in Canada. It has nothing to do with being responsible for your actions. I'm not advocating defamation here. I'm just saying that when the onus is on you to prove everything you say true, it can make things difficult and chill free speech, especially in certain cases where you witnessed something, for example, and all you have as proof is your word. It means you can get thrown in *jail* for telling the truth which is not a possibility in the United States where the onus is reversed and defamation is a civil matter.
In Canada you also don't differentiate between public and private figures in defamation actions, meaning that you don't have the "actual malice" standard. This makes it very easy for public figures with money to oppress those who don't have it. Agree or not, I think your system is flawed in this regard.
Or does this sound like a cheap stunt to cook up funding for "cyber warface" and somesuch. Virus my butt... Some idiot probably tripped over a server power cord, sent half the FBI down, and now the bozos in charge are trying to use it as an excuse to get more taxpayer cash.
You would break his property? For his own good, you say? Who are you to make that judgement? People have a right to live their lives the way they want even if it harms them. The only thing you should be concerned about is if his video game playing somehow harms you (and offense does not constitute harm).
It's not right to interfere with a person's free will. The roomate is the owner of himself and he has the right to do what he wants with his life. You have no right to interfere, even if he is destryoing himself. In all likelyhood, he'll pull out of it.
You have almost the same amount of distain towards the 12 steppers as I do. I think I love you.
Oh. But the one thing you're wrong about is that AA does not actually help people. Statistically, it's about as good as no treatment at all and there are studies to suggest that it actually causes an increase in binge drinking (due to convincing people that they are powerless over their actions).
Least destructive? Sadly, no. when you consider that "the 12 steps were delivered by god to bill wilson" has stagnated any and all rational alternative treatments, religion has actually done quite a bit of harm. If you want to help a person quit something simply emphasize that they have the power to do it themselves if they want to. No flying spaghetti monster is ever going to help.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Fear of civil suits does far more than government regulation ever will. I really feel for the people who want the government to hold their hand through everything. They never see what the other hand is doing.
Wisdom of the masses, apparently.
"Erotic services" is a very wide category encompassing everything from "fuck buddies" to porn acting. Could you think of a better name?
I really need to use to learn to proffread my posts. Far to used to phpbb.
True, but it is ironic that game developers are choosing to use vorbis rather than windows media.
With the sheer volume of ads on craigslist, how can anybody expect them to moderate everything on there. Isn't it easier and far more just for craigslist to take a neutural stance and let the justice system do it's job on a neutural basis. It's my understanding anyway that service providers are not responsible of the content of their websites anyway if they do not provide content under the safe harbor provisions of the communications decency act. Craigslist has already been granted immunity for hosting descriminatory housing ads. I'd be willing to bet they can get out of this too using the same legislation.
Thanks for the recommendation. I might try them next time I shop online.
Depends. I've been ordering from them for a good while and haven't had a problem... Then again, I haven't had to return anything (I've heard there can be problems there). I think a lot of customer satisfaction has to do with luck. Sometimes, even at the best places, you get a bad egg or a service person having a bad day.
Bah. The government has nothing to hide. There is plenty of oversight. Trust them!
Vorbis is ironically very very successful in xbox games and windows games in general. It seems even M$ has a hard time arguing the quality is superior.
False dichotomy. People use those things to cope with lives, hidden feelings, or situations that are already shit. Treating addiction as a disease is treating a symptom.
I do understand addiction. I'm just not a fan of the disease concept.
So let's take your first claim that an addict is completely out of control over his or her use, that a person is powerless over a substance in front of them. Consider this experiment, where heroin addicts are given heroin and also given aid in getting their lives back on track. Similar to results in Vancouver and the UK, the "addicts" quit of their own accord. Similar results have been found with alcohol (see section on loss of control). Why I don't like the concept? It provides the excuse for forced treatment or incarceration for victimless crimes under AA's cancerous idea that a person is powerless, that addiction is progressive and always fatal. All dogma spewed out of Bill Wilson's drunk cultic ass. So called "god inspired" horseshit that has somehow supplanted science in the addiction industry. Anybody who dares speak against the disease concept is persecuted against as a heretic (see last section).
I don't have "fears" of AA. I understand it perfectly well. Probably better than you ever will, and it disgusts the hell out of me. It's government sponsored dogma masquerading as science.
And if we want to get into personal anecdote, i've had three friends who have been serious addicts. Two were heroin addicts who up and quit (and are still "sober", though they still drink somethings which is an NA heresy). The third was a meth addict who first caused me to look closer at AA. At the time I thought it to be somehow science... I knew little about it. Anyway. He quit on his own and is still sober after several years. Perhaps you want to spit on his recovery like so many other AA members and imply he was never really an addict. Well. Unlike AA members, he didn't need some flying spaghetti monster to quit.
And yes, I fully admit i'm bitter towards the 12 steppers, but not without good reason. As for the rest of your assumptions about addiction, I suggest you read a book like Stanton Peele's "Diseasing of America", Charles Bufe's "AA, cult or cure"... there are many on the subject.
oh. and the lawyer quoted in the article above also wrote "For all the lofty quotes about free speech in Canadian jurisprudence, the reality is that our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world.".
Well. Here is a Canadian defamation attorney's opinion on the matter. He writes "Libel law developed in an ancient era which we would today consider backward, tyrannical and repressive. It is rooted in 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism."...
or perhaps we should visit Hill vs. the 'Church' of Scientology. It's rare that I would ever agree with a cult, but in this instance, I think Canada should have come to a similar conclusion as NYT v. Sullivan (actual malice standard... very different than common law malice). Sure, the COS in all probability acted with actual malice (even though that's hard to prove), but free speech is more important than one case. I understand why the canadian judges made the decision they did... I just don't agree with it. I think it was shortsighted.
He shouldn't have made promises if there was a possibility he couldn't keep them... and what exactly has been preventing him from following through on his promises to deconstruct the bush "war on terror" legacy. Face it. He lied.
The problem is that you're guilty until proven innocent in Canada. It has nothing to do with being responsible for your actions. I'm not advocating defamation here. I'm just saying that when the onus is on you to prove everything you say true, it can make things difficult and chill free speech, especially in certain cases where you witnessed something, for example, and all you have as proof is your word. It means you can get thrown in *jail* for telling the truth which is not a possibility in the United States where the onus is reversed and defamation is a civil matter.
In Canada you also don't differentiate between public and private figures in defamation actions, meaning that you don't have the "actual malice" standard. This makes it very easy for public figures with money to oppress those who don't have it. Agree or not, I think your system is flawed in this regard.
Or does this sound like a cheap stunt to cook up funding for "cyber warface" and somesuch. Virus my butt... Some idiot probably tripped over a server power cord, sent half the FBI down, and now the bozos in charge are trying to use it as an excuse to get more taxpayer cash.
How do they know it's even a virus. "virus" is often a silly excuse for "embarrassing human error".
One click buying. What could possibly go wrong there.
Ask him why he wants to spend his time away from reality. It's his choice, but maybe somebody who cares can talk him out of it.
Just stopping IS a choice you have. Read Stanton Peele on this. Many people do quit on their own.
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html
You would break his property? For his own good, you say? Who are you to make that judgement? People have a right to live their lives the way they want even if it harms them. The only thing you should be concerned about is if his video game playing somehow harms you (and offense does not constitute harm).
It's not right to interfere with a person's free will. The roomate is the owner of himself and he has the right to do what he wants with his life. You have no right to interfere, even if he is destryoing himself. In all likelyhood, he'll pull out of it.
You have almost the same amount of distain towards the 12 steppers as I do. I think I love you.
Oh. But the one thing you're wrong about is that AA does not actually help people. Statistically, it's about as good as no treatment at all and there are studies to suggest that it actually causes an increase in binge drinking (due to convincing people that they are powerless over their actions).
Least destructive? Sadly, no. when you consider that "the 12 steps were delivered by god to bill wilson" has stagnated any and all rational alternative treatments, religion has actually done quite a bit of harm. If you want to help a person quit something simply emphasize that they have the power to do it themselves if they want to. No flying spaghetti monster is ever going to help.