Freedom of speech applies to everyone, else you don't have it. The First Amendment only (in theory) protects your freedom of speech from government reprisal. However, anytime someone faces consequences for their speech, whether from the government or private parties, it interferes with their freedom of speech, primarily through self-censorship.
Remember, government has never stopped someone from speaking their mind. That's entirely self-censorship. Even regimes which would execute you for your speech relied on self-censorship rather than having you followed by someone who would cover your mouth if you said the wrong thing. Private parties use exactly the same method to suppress speech as the most repressive regimes -- encouraging self-censorship because speech has consequences.
I offer to solve all of Mr Persson's problems caused by excessive money. I can solve them all by tomorrow, for the low low price of 2.5 billion dollars.
; relevance does/should not take into account "paid a bunch to Google".
No, but "paid a bunch to Google" probably correlates to "has a bunch of money" which probably correlates to "relevance/popularity". Although it would be interesting to know if Google has finally decided to commit search engine suicide by replacing relevant results with sponsored ones.
Why do you hate our economy? Ask yourself this: Which will increase the GDP more: 1) A few broadband connections whose total monthly price is $BIGNUM 2) A lot more broadband connections but at a lower total cost due to competition
Clearly if you want to maximize a mostly worthless financial measurement, you want few products at outrageous prices.
GP is right, if we really wanted to we could use a heat pump to collect and condense Earth's thermal energy, and radiate it into space (energy radiated is proportional to temperature to the fourth power). Literal space heaters. Of course, the craziest environmentalist's most expensive idea would be cheaper than air conditioning the planet.
The guy who ran a website for cheaters was always open about that fact.
On the other hand he was less than honest about how many actual women were on the site. (Fewer than 15,000 vs millions of clearly fake profiles) and also less than honest about what a "paid delete" actually paid for.
[...]
If that's your idea of honesty and transparency, I don't know what you think counts as "dishonest".
OK then tell me which presidential candidate in the history of American politics, has ever admitted that some of his campaign promises might be for entertainment purposes only.
One issue of course would be that the voting registry (which is public already and contains who voted and is time stamped, so also in what order) could very easily be used to guesstimate matching up specific people with specific votes, as the roll is going to be in chronological order as well. I'm not totally familiar with Kansas law, but there's a good chance they're legally supposed to have a secret ballot.
Secret ballots are primarily supposed to be secret from the government.
' Their website admits that 'some of the users may be there for "entertainment purposes."'
Not to confuse those with the 'professional' cheaters.
Actually, I'd have more respect for the "professional cheaters". Not only do they get paid, but it is less likely that they're hiding it from their spouse.
So, this Sgt is being honest, and likely will get his hand slapped for it. I work with public IT. Public organizations have contracts with vendors and vendors upcharge like crazy to sell these items, and none of the technical staff can do anything about it, and that's assuming the entity's IT isn't outsourced. This is just one more place where graft exists to line the pockets of donors/supporters/whatever.
If only there were a dedicated group of people trained to hunt down such criminals (bribes, embezzlement).
The trouble is when the CEO says "don't bother with security", and his underlings have to obey or get fired, then the CEO claims he can't be blamed for the actions of his underlings. Of course, the way the CEO says "don't bother with security" is by setting spending and productivity requirements, such that no spending can actually be done on security else you get fired for lack of productivity.
Of course, it's much harder to punish the people actually responsible for the bad practices if they're part of a corporation. Especially if they plan ahead how to diffuse the responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, it doesn't make sense unless it's used as a filter rather than as a sponge. Which it is.
It probably wouldn't hurt to have a big massive warning pop up if you try to CC, reply all, or forward to more than a dozen people.
Malware, sure, but intelligent?
Freedom of speech applies to everyone, else you don't have it. The First Amendment only (in theory) protects your freedom of speech from government reprisal. However, anytime someone faces consequences for their speech, whether from the government or private parties, it interferes with their freedom of speech, primarily through self-censorship.
Remember, government has never stopped someone from speaking their mind. That's entirely self-censorship. Even regimes which would execute you for your speech relied on self-censorship rather than having you followed by someone who would cover your mouth if you said the wrong thing. Private parties use exactly the same method to suppress speech as the most repressive regimes -- encouraging self-censorship because speech has consequences.
Not true. "Nuke" is usually associated with food.
Not put to death, but non-believers do deserve to be eternally tortured.
I offer to solve all of Mr Persson's problems caused by excessive money. I can solve them all by tomorrow, for the low low price of 2.5 billion dollars.
; relevance does/should not take into account "paid a bunch to Google".
No, but "paid a bunch to Google" probably correlates to "has a bunch of money" which probably correlates to "relevance/popularity". Although it would be interesting to know if Google has finally decided to commit search engine suicide by replacing relevant results with sponsored ones.
Why do you hate our economy? Ask yourself this: Which will increase the GDP more:
1) A few broadband connections whose total monthly price is $BIGNUM
2) A lot more broadband connections but at a lower total cost due to competition
Clearly if you want to maximize a mostly worthless financial measurement, you want few products at outrageous prices.
That's too bad -- I wanted to give him a piece of my mind.
Face recognition cameras installed on every intersection. Only for tracking the immigrants, honest.
Coward! I myself am planning to use the peroxide fish as a source of oxygen so I don't need to breathe.
And don't you tell me not to hold my breath.
You should replace it with the fu command.
Entropy won't stop your refrigerator from working either.
GP is right, if we really wanted to we could use a heat pump to collect and condense Earth's thermal energy, and radiate it into space (energy radiated is proportional to temperature to the fourth power). Literal space heaters. Of course, the craziest environmentalist's most expensive idea would be cheaper than air conditioning the planet.
... when they figure out how to make it into a bug zapper.
Easy, just claim the drone has a microphone.
The guy who ran a website for cheaters was always open about that fact.
On the other hand he was less than honest about how many actual women were on the site. (Fewer than 15,000 vs millions of clearly fake profiles) and also less than honest about what a "paid delete" actually paid for.
[...]
If that's your idea of honesty and transparency, I don't know what you think counts as "dishonest".
OK then tell me which presidential candidate in the history of American politics, has ever admitted that some of his campaign promises might be for entertainment purposes only.
One issue of course would be that the voting registry (which is public already and contains who voted and is time stamped, so also in what order) could very easily be used to guesstimate matching up specific people with specific votes, as the roll is going to be in chronological order as well. I'm not totally familiar with Kansas law, but there's a good chance they're legally supposed to have a secret ballot.
Secret ballots are primarily supposed to be secret from the government.
I think we should hear APK hosts file guy's thoughts about this issue.
Wasn't some "Lord of Hosts" or something mentioned in the Bible? I, for one, welcome our new hosts files overlords. Or was that someone else?
' Their website admits that 'some of the users may be there for "entertainment purposes."'
Not to confuse those with the 'professional' cheaters.
Actually, I'd have more respect for the "professional cheaters". Not only do they get paid, but it is less likely that they're hiding it from their spouse.
Shit happens, deal with it.
Cause if you don't, we'll use DNA analysis to find and fine you.
So, this Sgt is being honest, and likely will get his hand slapped for it. I work with public IT. Public organizations have contracts with vendors and vendors upcharge like crazy to sell these items, and none of the technical staff can do anything about it, and that's assuming the entity's IT isn't outsourced. This is just one more place where graft exists to line the pockets of donors/supporters/whatever.
If only there were a dedicated group of people trained to hunt down such criminals (bribes, embezzlement).
BRB, I think someone is trying to talk to me.
Posted from my iAntisocial.
The trouble is when the CEO says "don't bother with security", and his underlings have to obey or get fired, then the CEO claims he can't be blamed for the actions of his underlings. Of course, the way the CEO says "don't bother with security" is by setting spending and productivity requirements, such that no spending can actually be done on security else you get fired for lack of productivity.
Of course, it's much harder to punish the people actually responsible for the bad practices if they're part of a corporation. Especially if they plan ahead how to diffuse the responsibility.