religion... for some reason it seems to survive change pretty well
People like to have a religious conviction, which is why it survives change so well. Whether this is a good thing or not is not important.
Religion can be a powerful force for helping to build/control a society - those with religious convictions tend to be less violent towards those who profess the same convictions. Having a social structure is what has enabled us to be so successful as an organism. You can argue that religion has caused a lot of suffering and violence as well, but it is hard to determine whether the greater "harm" or the greater "good" has come of religion.
Occasionally, in the past, organised religions have tried to supress branches of science or particular scientific theories, because it appears to those in charge of said organisations that they contradict the teachings of the religion in question. Sometimes, when the scientific theory / branch is followed through, the religion will be modified to take account of it.
This is of course not entirely dissimilar to the scientific progress. I would argue that sometimes the religions are more stubborn and slow to believe the new theories / allow the branches to be officially not dooming those scientists that work in them to Hell(TM), than the scientific community as a whole is to absorbing these new ideas. I say sometimes, because the scientific community is also capable of being closed-minded to new theories on occasion.
Organised religions which have become corrupted in some way are advantaged by having their followers unable or unwilling to think for themselves, as the absence of discussion about the correct direction for the church will occur. This leaves the current power-holders in charge, and allows for the pillaging of the open purses of their followers. I certainly won't accuse any specific churches of being in this situation, but it is certainly possible and has very likely occurred in the past. Hence the 'sheep' analogy, which is widely used to describe those who follow others without giving their course some thought.
I hope this explanation is illuminatory without being ungenerous.
Is the opinion being expressed going to be in any way better informed than a soundbite on the issue from the janitor who sweeps the floors after the awards ceremony is over would be?
Free speach doesn't and shouldn't require that the speaker be in some way 'qualified'. If you don't want to hear the actors' opinions, don't watch the Oscars. Who's being honoured here, anyway?
The only cure for free speech is more free speech. How would you feel if before your big court case a judge told you you couldn't tell your side of the story to the media because he said so?
That happens all the time, and should happen all the time. A matter that is sub judice is very often not allowed to be discussed outside the court; partially because of the danger of prejudicing a future jury.
If you're asking if it's wrong to take things from a corporation - no, I don't think it is. It's illegal, but not wrong, and hopefully some day laws will come into parity with the reality: People matter, corporations don't.
Corporations are made of people - the shareholders. If you are taking something from a corporation, you are depriving people who own shares in that corporation. Many retirement investments - and in fact, state pension schemes - contain shares in their portfolio. Just because you can't see the people, doesn't mean you're not taking things from people.
If sales of an album overall go up after it's shared online, then enough people are like the grandparent poster to make the RIAA's stance ridiculous. I've been told it is the case that sales trend upwards in this circumstance, but I don't know for certain whether it's true. I do know the RIAA don't even consider that argument.
In NZ, we don't get a lot of the good TV series shown here. When they are, they are usually at 3.00pm on a Sunday afternoon, they get moved around frequently and not well advertised, they're usually 2 years behind the original US showing and they're never repeated. I can occasionally download an episode I've missed. Given that it's possible to make money out of free-to-air TV, it must be possible to release a legally downloadable version, complete with advertisements. I wish that the idiot studio executives would realise this. If they encode something with exceptional quality (instead of the rather crappy quality of ripped videotapes) and take the time to get a lot of compression, many people would put up with the advertisements and download the smaller, better, legal copy. If they only put the episode up after a delay of a few weeks, people wouldn't skip the original broadcast in favour of the download. If you space the advertisements right, people won't bother to FF past them. I simply don't understand why this approach wouldn't work.
Maybe I should patent the idea. That might make someone want to do it just so they can fight the patent, since that seems to be the latest sport...
A market unrestricted by law would be a riot. 'Customers' would be there to take whatever they could get, and 'Vendors' would be trying to force them to pay for it. Nobody would be guaranteed rights to something they had just purchased, because those are concepts enshrined in law.
There are already specific laws and penalties for attacking that infrastructure. They are what should apply in this case. If the penalties aren't sufficiently severe, increase them. Don't make up an extra charge for the purpose. Inciting 18 people to call 911 repeatedly for a few days (even though the 'people' in this instance are computers) is approximately what he did. Those 18 people incited an additional 3. That's conspiracy as well as attacking the infrastructure. Use those crimes, and quit messing about with terrorism accusations.
we're not "giving up" these freedoms, they're being taken from us.
How many large-scale protests/demonstrations occurred when the laws were being passed? How many people even wrote to their congresscritter? There are ways for the people to signal their government, even outside election years. How many people looked at the opinions of their other elected representatives in the election years that have happened since 11 September, and voted against those that were taking these freedoms away? The people bear some responsibility for the actions of their government, if they don't do whatever they legally can to prevent or at least discourage those actions.
1) Hijack all TLDs 2) Profit! 3) Everyone protests 4) Raise awareness of site-finder 5) Profit! 6) People forget 7) site-finder not doing so well 8) Sue ICANN 9) Everyone protests 10) Raise awareness of site-finder 11) Profit! 12) ???
I was very sceptical about acupunture until I tried it for severe back pain BUT it really works. Much better pain relief than the drugs with no side effects.
For you. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same result. One of the most frustrating things that can happen to a chronic pain patient is their friends telling them that visualization - or whatever else is currently in vogue - will make everything better for them.
The treatment is designed to get to them beyond the point where they are unable to process what's currently going on, not to make them feel better about what happened. If your memories suddenly take over completely when you're walking across a road, the consequences to you are pretty severe. So someone suffering in this degree can't safely cross a road. The therapy would be designed to enable them to continue processing 'current input' rather than being completely overwhelmed by the memory.
Speaking with the limited perspective of an outsider, I don't think that Americans are actually all that free.
TV networks are forbidden to use language that's used every day by a large number of people, apparently in order to protect other people - and more especially, their children - from hearing that language. (Never mind that they hear it on the playground anyway.)
If you have any opinions on religion, or abortion, and you are ever heard to speak on them without the careful alteration of a PR expert, you can forget ever running for public office.
It looks to me as though the appearance of truth is more important than actual truth when it comes to politics and law (if those two things are even separate.) Someone with enough money and anything that even looks like a valid case can apparently sue you until you're too poor to defend against it any more.
And when you've read British tabloids (I'm not British, BTW) you'll have a new appreciation for what 'freedom of the press' actually means. Those guys can (and do) print anything! The more ridiculous seeming, the better!
This is just what it looks like from the outside, though, so I can't know if it's accurate.
All the bounces that go to someguyyouknow@msn.com should tip him off that he's got a problem. Possibly they might even clog his connection some. But they should inconvenience him just as much as he's inconveniencing others, so he might get off his a*se and fix the problem.
A US company has been contracted by NASA to think about the possibilities, and they're considering impacts in the US and amongst its allies. How strange.
Slashdot Mirror
People like to have a religious conviction, which is why it survives change so well. Whether this is a good thing or not is not important.
Religion can be a powerful force for helping to build/control a society - those with religious convictions tend to be less violent towards those who profess the same convictions. Having a social structure is what has enabled us to be so successful as an organism. You can argue that religion has caused a lot of suffering and violence as well, but it is hard to determine whether the greater "harm" or the greater "good" has come of religion.
This is of course not entirely dissimilar to the scientific progress. I would argue that sometimes the religions are more stubborn and slow to believe the new theories / allow the branches to be officially not dooming those scientists that work in them to Hell(TM), than the scientific community as a whole is to absorbing these new ideas. I say sometimes, because the scientific community is also capable of being closed-minded to new theories on occasion.
Organised religions which have become corrupted in some way are advantaged by having their followers unable or unwilling to think for themselves, as the absence of discussion about the correct direction for the church will occur. This leaves the current power-holders in charge, and allows for the pillaging of the open purses of their followers. I certainly won't accuse any specific churches of being in this situation, but it is certainly possible and has very likely occurred in the past. Hence the 'sheep' analogy, which is widely used to describe those who follow others without giving their course some thought.
I hope this explanation is illuminatory without being ungenerous.
I have yet to see any evidence of this.
Free speach doesn't and shouldn't require that the speaker be in some way 'qualified'. If you don't want to hear the actors' opinions, don't watch the Oscars. Who's being honoured here, anyway?
That happens all the time, and should happen all the time. A matter that is sub judice is very often not allowed to be discussed outside the court; partially because of the danger of prejudicing a future jury.
Corporations are made of people - the shareholders. If you are taking something from a corporation, you are depriving people who own shares in that corporation. Many retirement investments - and in fact, state pension schemes - contain shares in their portfolio. Just because you can't see the people, doesn't mean you're not taking things from people.
In NZ, we don't get a lot of the good TV series shown here. When they are, they are usually at 3.00pm on a Sunday afternoon, they get moved around frequently and not well advertised, they're usually 2 years behind the original US showing and they're never repeated. I can occasionally download an episode I've missed. Given that it's possible to make money out of free-to-air TV, it must be possible to release a legally downloadable version, complete with advertisements. I wish that the idiot studio executives would realise this. If they encode something with exceptional quality (instead of the rather crappy quality of ripped videotapes) and take the time to get a lot of compression, many people would put up with the advertisements and download the smaller, better, legal copy. If they only put the episode up after a delay of a few weeks, people wouldn't skip the original broadcast in favour of the download. If you space the advertisements right, people won't bother to FF past them. I simply don't understand why this approach wouldn't work.
Maybe I should patent the idea. That might make someone want to do it just so they can fight the patent, since that seems to be the latest sport...
A market unrestricted by law would be a riot. 'Customers' would be there to take whatever they could get, and 'Vendors' would be trying to force them to pay for it. Nobody would be guaranteed rights to something they had just purchased, because those are concepts enshrined in law.
Was there an advance that I missed?
Remember that the cost of dispatching emergency services has to be factored in.
There are already specific laws and penalties for attacking that infrastructure. They are what should apply in this case. If the penalties aren't sufficiently severe, increase them. Don't make up an extra charge for the purpose. Inciting 18 people to call 911 repeatedly for a few days (even though the 'people' in this instance are computers) is approximately what he did. Those 18 people incited an additional 3. That's conspiracy as well as attacking the infrastructure. Use those crimes, and quit messing about with terrorism accusations.
How many large-scale protests/demonstrations occurred when the laws were being passed? How many people even wrote to their congresscritter? There are ways for the people to signal their government, even outside election years. How many people looked at the opinions of their other elected representatives in the election years that have happened since 11 September, and voted against those that were taking these freedoms away? The people bear some responsibility for the actions of their government, if they don't do whatever they legally can to prevent or at least discourage those actions.
1) Hijack all TLDs
2) Profit!
3) Everyone protests
4) Raise awareness of site-finder
5) Profit!
6) People forget
7) site-finder not doing so well
8) Sue ICANN
9) Everyone protests
10) Raise awareness of site-finder
11) Profit!
12) ???
Aren't you still better off when you get an error web page and the browser still has exactly what you typed in the address bar?
Quite true. The phrase ought to have been '10 time less unlikely' but people are often confused by probabilities.
IANAPsychiatrist.
The US must be the most law-abiding. They have the most lawyers! QED
From what I understand the Feb 14th is the incident we're discussing. There isn't a prior.
TV networks are forbidden to use language that's used every day by a large number of people, apparently in order to protect other people - and more especially, their children - from hearing that language. (Never mind that they hear it on the playground anyway.)
If you have any opinions on religion, or abortion, and you are ever heard to speak on them without the careful alteration of a PR expert, you can forget ever running for public office.
It looks to me as though the appearance of truth is more important than actual truth when it comes to politics and law (if those two things are even separate.) Someone with enough money and anything that even looks like a valid case can apparently sue you until you're too poor to defend against it any more.
And when you've read British tabloids (I'm not British, BTW) you'll have a new appreciation for what 'freedom of the press' actually means. Those guys can (and do) print anything! The more ridiculous seeming, the better!
This is just what it looks like from the outside, though, so I can't know if it's accurate.
All the bounces that go to someguyyouknow@msn.com should tip him off that he's got a problem. Possibly they might even clog his connection some. But they should inconvenience him just as much as he's inconveniencing others, so he might get off his a*se and fix the problem.
No, he left 10 times as much of the coke in the glass.
A US company has been contracted by NASA to think about the possibilities, and they're considering impacts in the US and amongst its allies. How strange.
Funny and insightful! Oh, moderators...!