It's about the welfare-stereotype. Actuallly a good example of how how Charlie works. They use what's in the news and transform it into a tasteless absurdity.
See here... http://www.quora.com/What-was-...
Charlie Hebdo is a cultural icon in France. Besides that, if you don't follow french politics/discourse you won't get most of their jokes. Here's an interview with R. Crumb which puts some perspective on the issue: http://observer.com/2015/01/le...
the gist of it:
Q: These guys were not trying not to offend, and that’s what an American media-conditioned mind cannot understand. The idea that yes, you offend those who abuse power.
A: [Laughs.] No, they can’t.
What's ironic for me is that the articles over the last couple of days have been a lot more interesting to me than in recent weeks, while I fully support the FUCK BETA protest, it's a real shame that we're missing out on some interesting discussion.
That's the price you have to pay for revolting against the overlords.
I, for one, do not welcome our new beta.
As far as I know there was never a Austrian presence in either Rome or Greece. Well, okay, the Holy Roman Empire, but that was German right? Anyway, take a trip around Vienna and you will see wall to wall neo-classical architecture.
It's called culture. When people see something somewhere else that they like, they either steal it (if it isn't nailed down) or go home and copy it.
For about 400 years most of today's Austria was part of the Roman Empire. So it's the other way round. Noricum (a celtic kingdom - roughly Austria) was incorporated into the Roman Empire in 16 BC and supplied Roman Armies with weaponry (Noric Steel). Apart of that 'detail' I think your point stands.
"One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm."
Bertrand Russel, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920)
"One strength of the communist system of the East is that it has some of the character of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion. Unless the concept of peace based on law gathers behind it the force and zeal of a religion, it can hardly hope to succeed."
Albert Einstein, "Atomic War or Peace" part II (1947)
Soviet-communism was sort of a quasi-religion that replaced "paradise in heaven" with "paradise on earth". Symbols of the church or religion were replaced with symbols of state commuinism in order to appeal to illiterate peasants. Stalin's purges murdered many communists/socialists/anarchists and Stalin himself was educated in an Orthodox seminary.
Quoting wikipedia:
The German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch) establishes that someone is guilty of Volksverhetzung if the person
in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace
incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population
So yes, if you are saying I love Hitler and let's kill some Arabs in Berlin, you are in conflict with the law, which - in liberal/western european democraties - tries to protect his citizens against organised attempts to commit mass murder.
What TFA describes as the reason for detention would be protected in the UK and Germany.
Do you see the difference in the reasoning in countries like UK or Germany compared to Saudi-Arabia? They are fundamentally opposed in terms where your freedom is limited. A concept of human rights and secular law on one side and a concept of religious law / God's law on the other.
Might well be that.de and the euro blows up, but germany still has a large industrial base compared to the uk and any other european country. let's revisit in five years. And while it's ontopic language and syntax has not much to do with it.
.
The full-year data place Germany as the world's number two exporter behind China which posted exports worth a total €1.43 billion and a trade surplus of €117 billion in 2011.
Having skimmed over the document, it tries to connect an assumption with linguistic terms and formulas in order prove this assumption. It's a work of one who excels at cocktail parties or executive meetings without real scientific value.
You are right on spot. "Morgen regnet es" is just a short form of "Morgen wird es regnen"/"Tomorrow it will rain". "Morgen"/"Tomorrow" places this in the future, leaving out the "wird"/"will". The phrase emphasises a bit that it will rain because it's obvious.
Agreed regarding semi-totalitarian states like China or Iran.
Nowadays the opposition in western and western-oriented countries usually doesn't get crushed about issues of free speech, the government is aware of the danger of such accusations.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky is serving a 14 year prison sentence for fraud. He supported the opposition in Russia.
A Ukrainian court sentenced Tymoshenko to seven years in prison after she was found guilty of abuse of office when brokering the 2009 gas deal with Russia.
Martin Luther King, Jr was imprisoned because of a non-violent protest, disrupting traffic or so...
Clinton's impeachment was based on lying...
I am rambling and should get some work get done...
The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?
Yes, and oppose it equally -- through speech, not violence.
-GiH
Thank you. This is why I am still on slashdot, people reading comments and actually commenting in a thoughtful way.
Historical experience tells us that any attempt to shut down discussion will be abused. If we allow the government to set limits, they will set the limits in a way that benefits the government, and not the people. Therefore, there must be no limits.
I sympathise with your statement, but a government or a state has the duty to ensure the safety and freedom of all citizens and non-citizens who live in their area of control. Incitement to hatred or crime is such a danger and thus the government has to act and limit those actions of speech. There must be a debate over this limits.
So all those who called for the death of Osama Bin Laden should have gone to jail for that?
He should have stand trial, if possible. That was not the case. If somebody with executive power in the government issued a shoot-to-kill order, this person as well should have to face a trial. There was no declaration of war to Pakistan. If my neighbour tells me Bin Laden should be killed right away, I try to explain why this is not the best idea, but my neighbour should not go to jail because she has no power to issue those orders. If my neighbour repeatedly says "I am gonna kill this parasite at the other of the street" there should be consequences.
If we ever have another world war, it will be because of too much censorship, not too little.
Agreed. There's one raging, because a lot of the footsoldiers in Quaida/Taliban/etc are cut off from the wealth of information the world has to offer and a notion that god might be an idea invented by humans. The only answer I can think of is access to education and the basic concepts of human rights, as well as economic well being. In western countries the free flow of information kinda works.
You misunderstand. Defending speech != defending idea. Besides, how will you know if an idea will affect anything or not unless you allow it to be expressed in free speech?
We know how ideas were put to work in Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic's constitution guaranteed individual rights such as the freedom of speech and assembly to each citizen. After that catastrophe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been declared and countries like France or Germany set limits to free speech.
A party should have a right to discuss such a law; it's that discussion that's being defended, not the law itself.
I am aware of that, I just think that there are limits to what is tolerable to discuss in order to have a worthwhile discussion or discourse, based on historical experience and the western "unalienable rights". I won't defend somebody who says "kill $foo" and there will be a better world. So to avoid to "build world" again like after WWII, we shut down the threat to freedom. There's a reason for jails in FreeBSD and in society.
Check your facts. Algebra started circa 1800 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_algebra
While there was important contribution from the Islamic World, it has nothing to do with Islam. Math works perfectly well without Religion.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "
Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.
The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?
That makes no sense at all. Of course you can license your code to others under the GPL and still use it in your own proprietary products. You're not limited by the terms under which you license your code to others. That's like accusing Microsoft of hypocrisy for mass-duplicating their own software while also pressing piracy charges.
The point is that if others contributed to your GPL'ed code, you have to get their permission to use the code in a closed-source environment. With a BSD license you don't have to worry about this. With the GPL it's hard to change the license, if there are a lot of contributors. Just take a look at the discussion about the Linux Kernel und GPL 3.0. Getting the consent of all copyright-holders in order to upgrade to 3.0 would be a nightmare.
2) I feel like I'm being "forced" to buy the latest upgrade of Wikipedia when they set up these pleas for donations, since the performance of my encyclopedia directly depends on these fund drives.
see the answer to 1)
In Germany wikipedia.de-DVDs were distributed through IT-Magazins, those DVD-ISOs are also available for download.
Slashdot Mirror
It's about the welfare-stereotype. Actuallly a good example of how how Charlie works. They use what's in the news and transform it into a tasteless absurdity.
See here... http://www.quora.com/What-was-...
Charlie Hebdo is a cultural icon in France. Besides that, if you don't follow french politics/discourse you won't get most of their jokes. Here's an interview with R. Crumb which puts some perspective on the issue: http://observer.com/2015/01/le...
the gist of it:
Q: These guys were not trying not to offend, and that’s what an American media-conditioned mind cannot understand. The idea that yes, you offend those who abuse power.
A: [Laughs.] No, they can’t.
What's ironic for me is that the articles over the last couple of days have been a lot more interesting to me than in recent weeks, while I fully support the FUCK BETA protest, it's a real shame that we're missing out on some interesting discussion.
That's the price you have to pay for revolting against the overlords. I, for one, do not welcome our new beta.
Seconded.
As far as I know there was never a Austrian presence in either Rome or Greece. Well, okay, the Holy Roman Empire, but that was German right? Anyway, take a trip around Vienna and you will see wall to wall neo-classical architecture.
It's called culture. When people see something somewhere else that they like, they either steal it (if it isn't nailed down) or go home and copy it.
For about 400 years most of today's Austria was part of the Roman Empire. So it's the other way round. Noricum (a celtic kingdom - roughly Austria) was incorporated into the Roman Empire in 16 BC and supplied Roman Armies with weaponry (Noric Steel). Apart of that 'detail' I think your point stands.
hubhost!middlehost!edgehost!user@uucpgateway.somedomain.example.com
'nuff said.
If you have downloaded music using this website you may have committed a criminal offence which carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years
Seriously, is SOCA known for taking down sites? On there website they have
Have you received correspondence purporting to be from SOCA and want to verify its authenticity?
http://www.soca.gov.uk/contact-soca
It kinda sounds fishy to me.. Anyway now they're collecting tons of IP-addresses of Slashdotters who can't resist to click on links.
"One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm."
Bertrand Russel, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920)
"One strength of the communist system of the East is that it has some of the character of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion. Unless the concept of peace based on law gathers behind it the force and zeal of a religion, it can hardly hope to succeed."
Albert Einstein, "Atomic War or Peace" part II (1947)
Soviet-communism was sort of a quasi-religion that replaced "paradise in heaven" with "paradise on earth". Symbols of the church or religion were replaced with symbols of state commuinism in order to appeal to illiterate peasants. Stalin's purges murdered many communists/socialists/anarchists and Stalin himself was educated in an Orthodox seminary.
Wow, that's a compelling argument. I'd put it a step above "You are a doody head" and a step below "Nuh uh".
I suggest you go to Sweden and preach how you find homosexuality to be abhorrent and against "God's" will.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets
So here's your example about homosexuality and "God's" will. Those damn Britains are against free speech!
Or maybe go to Germany and say really love Hitler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
Quoting wikipedia:
The German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch) establishes that someone is guilty of Volksverhetzung if the person
in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace
So yes, if you are saying I love Hitler and let's kill some Arabs in Berlin, you are in conflict with the law, which - in liberal/western european democraties - tries to protect his citizens against organised attempts to commit mass murder.
What TFA describes as the reason for detention would be protected in the UK and Germany.
Do you see the difference in the reasoning in countries like UK or Germany compared to Saudi-Arabia? They are fundamentally opposed in terms where your freedom is limited. A concept of human rights and secular law on one side and a concept of religious law / God's law on the other.
Might well be that .de and the euro blows up, but germany still has a large industrial base compared to the uk and any other european country. let's revisit in five years. And while it's ontopic language and syntax has not much to do with it.
.
The full-year data place Germany as the world's number two exporter behind China which posted exports worth a total €1.43 billion and a trade surplus of €117 billion in 2011.
Correlation does not show causation.
Having skimmed over the document, it tries to connect an assumption with linguistic terms and formulas in order prove this assumption. It's a work of one who excels at cocktail parties or executive meetings without real scientific value.
You are right on spot. "Morgen regnet es" is just a short form of "Morgen wird es regnen"/"Tomorrow it will rain". "Morgen"/"Tomorrow" places this in the future, leaving out the "wird"/"will". The phrase emphasises a bit that it will rain because it's obvious.
Agreed regarding semi-totalitarian states like China or Iran. Nowadays the opposition in western and western-oriented countries usually doesn't get crushed about issues of free speech, the government is aware of the danger of such accusations. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is serving a 14 year prison sentence for fraud. He supported the opposition in Russia. A Ukrainian court sentenced Tymoshenko to seven years in prison after she was found guilty of abuse of office when brokering the 2009 gas deal with Russia. Martin Luther King, Jr was imprisoned because of a non-violent protest, disrupting traffic or so... Clinton's impeachment was based on lying... I am rambling and should get some work get done...
The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?
Yes, and oppose it equally -- through speech, not violence. -GiH
Thank you. This is why I am still on slashdot, people reading comments and actually commenting in a thoughtful way.
Historical experience tells us that any attempt to shut down discussion will be abused. If we allow the government to set limits, they will set the limits in a way that benefits the government, and not the people. Therefore, there must be no limits.
I sympathise with your statement, but a government or a state has the duty to ensure the safety and freedom of all citizens and non-citizens who live in their area of control. Incitement to hatred or crime is such a danger and thus the government has to act and limit those actions of speech. There must be a debate over this limits.
So all those who called for the death of Osama Bin Laden should have gone to jail for that?
He should have stand trial, if possible. That was not the case. If somebody with executive power in the government issued a shoot-to-kill order, this person as well should have to face a trial. There was no declaration of war to Pakistan. If my neighbour tells me Bin Laden should be killed right away, I try to explain why this is not the best idea, but my neighbour should not go to jail because she has no power to issue those orders. If my neighbour repeatedly says "I am gonna kill this parasite at the other of the street" there should be consequences.
If we ever have another world war, it will be because of too much censorship, not too little.
Agreed. There's one raging, because a lot of the footsoldiers in Quaida/Taliban/etc are cut off from the wealth of information the world has to offer and a notion that god might be an idea invented by humans. The only answer I can think of is access to education and the basic concepts of human rights, as well as economic well being. In western countries the free flow of information kinda works.
You misunderstand. Defending speech != defending idea. Besides, how will you know if an idea will affect anything or not unless you allow it to be expressed in free speech?
We know how ideas were put to work in Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic's constitution guaranteed individual rights such as the freedom of speech and assembly to each citizen. After that catastrophe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been declared and countries like France or Germany set limits to free speech.
A party should have a right to discuss such a law; it's that discussion that's being defended, not the law itself.
I am aware of that, I just think that there are limits to what is tolerable to discuss in order to have a worthwhile discussion or discourse, based on historical experience and the western "unalienable rights". I won't defend somebody who says "kill $foo" and there will be a better world. So to avoid to "build world" again like after WWII, we shut down the threat to freedom. There's a reason for jails in FreeBSD and in society.
Check your facts. Algebra started circa 1800 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_algebra While there was important contribution from the Islamic World, it has nothing to do with Islam. Math works perfectly well without Religion.
Is that you Voltaire?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.
The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?
For what it's worth, there's FTPS and FTPES. So you can secure FTP-Conntections since quite a time.
If you are the product, you are entitled to be sold. Money goes to the producer. Or Trader. They will feed you well, if you incorporate value.
1) I don't have a permanent copy of it on a DVD, like I would for Encarta
you may download the database to solve your problem: Wikipedia:Database_download
2) I feel like I'm being "forced" to buy the latest upgrade of Wikipedia when they set up these pleas for donations, since the performance of my encyclopedia directly depends on these fund drives.
see the answer to 1)
In Germany wikipedia.de-DVDs were distributed through IT-Magazins, those DVD-ISOs are also available for download.