Obviously, this is IANAL territory, but I disagree that the hate crime is irrelevant.
As a white male, if another white male is assaulted due to a personal issue between the assailant and the victim, I am not threatened. A normal assault punishment is applied as society's method of saying "hey, it's wrong to assault people."
But if the victim is assaulted because he is white, there is the crime of the assault, and the added threat that additional assaults will take place. Thus, the need for a punishment that addresses this additional threat and in theory, defuses it.
The intimidation factor that you credit the effectiveness of hate crimes to can only exsist if the underlying law against murder is not properly enforced. A "hate crime" can't serve as a warning if the perpetrator can't repeat the offence.
I understand your point when the crime in question is a murder, but what if the victim isn't murdered, but 'merely' assaulted? In this scenario, the punishment for general assault would not take into account the intent to terrorize the community. With hate crime legislation in place, the threat to the community is additionally punished.
at a minimum, if any given end-user doesn't have the time or ability to look at the source of each piece of code, there is a worldwide community of individuals who can pool their time and ability to dive into the source, and if anything suspicious or odd is going on, there's a good chance (at least compared to closed-source) that it will be found and reported. So even the Linux newbs who don't know source code from morse code still benefit.
(disclaimer: naturally, it's not completely so rosy. Any given grandma isn't going to be looking up this information, but I think the point is still valid)
Opposes hate crime legislation, as a crime is a crime is a crime, by statute. I'm pretty sure if you kill someone, the thing they would care about is their being dead, not what was going through your head when you did it.
The difference between a murder and a murder conducted as a hate crime is that in the latter, the murder has an additional purpose in that it's perpetrated to serve as a warning toward members of the attacked group.
I.e.: A hate crime committed against a homosexual is supposed to serve as a warning to other homosexuals in the community.
A hate crime committed toward an African American, is supposed to serve as a warning to other African Americans -- think of a lynching, where the body is left hanging for public display.
Thus, there actually is a difference in murdering an individual, and also hoping that said murder will serve as a "Fags go home", or "Know your place nigger" warning statement. Not to throw a word around that is often used incorrectly, but it's a form of terrorism against those communities -- not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime. (That's using the definition of terrorism as an act that is supposed to instill fear and intimidation into a group of individuals)
Why would I care? Because my private matters, whether it be a credit card number, the status of an illness, or the fact that my house will be vacant while I'm on vacation, are none of anyone's business?
What about when I receive a call? How do I know if the conversation is going to turn from mundane to private?
What on earth makes you think other people would want to listen to your phone conversations?
Gee, I dunno, most people's internet traffic is pretty fucking boring, but it doesn't stop the script kiddies from firing up their favorite wireless sniffer and eavesdropping. Why ever would I be concerned about someone eavesdropping on a phone call? Is that seriously the most sound "counterargument" you could come up with?
Just because the screen is black doesn't mean the device is off.
and that's totally acceptable. A user shouldn't be able to just glance at their phone to determine if it's off, or if it's "sleeping", but not sleeping so soundly that it won't rack up a $4800 bill.
Defective by design, my friend.
Oh, do fuck off. This has nothing to do with adult stem cells being just as good as fetal stem cells, but how am I supposed to argue against someone whose head is so far up their ass that they think babies are "killed" for stem cells? Seriously, you're fucking useless and should've been aborted while your parents had the chance.
Yeah! If you don't like the policy, you should just leave! It would be totally silly and unreasonable to see if the policy can be changed, right? And it would be even sillier and even more unreasonable to get the word out to other people who might not be aware of the new policy, right?
You seem to holding the opinion that protest == whining. Yeah, people could just leave, -or- livejournal could just change their policy. So tell me, why is -your- way the right way?
1. Linux vs. Microsoft market share matters. Most Linux users couldn't give a hoot whether you are using Linux or not. If you can't handle Linux, stay in Windows. No sweat off my brow...
Are you saying that with a straight face? On Slashdot? ha! Of course market share matters. If linux is to be successful on the desktop, it needs to increase its market share. In order to increase its market share, it's going to have to work to make the transition from windows easy
2. Linux has to be compatible with everything Windows but the reverse isn't true. Try the reverse and installing Windows as a second OS and see how far you get getting them both working without special hacks.
Again, this goes back to the market share. Windows HAS the market share, hence they don't NEED to provide any transition options. Linux, on the otherhand, is TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE SWITCH. Ubuntu (and friends) are in a very different position than Windows. How do you not get that?
3. That the general user is unwilling to learn new skills hence will always be in Windows. This is the most insidious, and quite frankly insulting, statement I've ever heard out of Redmond.
Years of desktop support say otherwise. There is a majority (not all, but a majority) of users who do not want to learn the different between a monitor, a computer, or a hard drive. There is a majority of users who get stumped by a frozen program and don't want to learn how to End Task. There is a majority of users who can be instructed verbally, or with detailed screenshot instructions, who refuse to learn simple, simple tasks for themselves.
4. The install process dictates the "user friendliness" of the entire distribution. In general, people don't spend all their time installing an OS be it Microsoft, Linux, OSX, whatever... I installed my OS (Gentoo) exactly once in 2000 and haven't had to do it since. Can you say the same about your Windows install?
Since Windows 2000, I have never had to perform an OS installation of Microsoft's product -- yes, that was a ridiculous issue pre-2000, but it's been a thing of the past for 7 years, friend (caveat: I haven't played with Vista yet).
In short, install process != entire experience No shit, sherlock. And no one ever said that. The new user post-install problems are well documented.
To somehow suggest that the failure of Microsoft to inter-operate nicely with other OSes is the fault of those OSes is the height of hypocrisy. Who is converting from another OS to Microsoft? Who is trying to break into the market share? You need to re-analyze your "false assumptions".
Also, a P.S.: Fuck off for making me defend Microsoft. I need a shower.
First of all, burning an American flag is already illegal...
Do you think if you just make shit up people won't check? Flag burning is still very much legal.
In my book, drug addicts are the most significant problem we deal with today in the country. In Oregon, according to the last article I read, 80% of all property crime in the state was methamphetamine related. Since we disagree, are drug laws asinine or not?
And the common argument there is, because of the fruitless War on Drugs, drug prices are artificially expensive and addicts then resort to theft. Couple that with social values that keep the poor in poverty, and the rich ever richer, the drug problem has remained stagnant regardless of how much money has been thrown at the "War" and how much jail-time has been prescribed.
Fix poverty, and you'll improve the drug problem. Stick with the mindset that poverty is caused by laziness, and we stay stagnant. Got it?
Sample 1,000 people who've had their liberty severely curtailed by some scofflaw, and see if they don't think this is a jolly good idea.
Sample 1000 people who've had their liberty severely curtailed by some overzealous, god-complexed, and/or prejudiced cop, and see if they don't think this is a jolly good idea. Or do you live in some magical fantasy-land where cops don't harass innocent people?
Is one worse than the other? I'd wager that the one that has a lot of potential for government abuse is the worst of the two. So how is it oh so horrible that the ACLU wants to check in and ensure that (at a minimum) checks are put into place on this? (You do understand that protesting this is a form of making sure that it's at least regulated, right?) Or would you rather the government just go ahead and monitor everyone cause we have nothing to hide in public? Such as trips to abortion clinics, strip clubs, political affiliations, etc?
The cellular targets on bacteria are very different than those for mammals. It's uncommon for viriuses to jump species. It's even more rare to jump to another phylum. Jumping kingdoms is practically miraculous.
But that isn't taking into account that humans have a symbiotic relationship with some bacteria.
"The microbes that live in the human body are quite ancient," says NYU Medical Center microbiologist Dr. Martin Blaser, a pioneer in gut microbe research. "They've been selected (through evolution) because they help us."
The FDA has already approved bacteriophages to be used in a variety of settings, so there's probably a pretty good safety record.
But FDA approval can also be done in error
And please, don't misunderstand the non-lethal aspect of the technology. Non-lethal doesn't mean harmless.These rounds would likely cause bruises and sometimes breaks of the skin. I guess it's still better then being dead.
Acquantances of Victoria Snelgrove might disagree with your definition of non-lethal.
I wasn't saying that all debt is caused by immaturity. I was specifically responding to the comment Credit is newspeak for "debt", in which no, I don't believe using credit is going to necessarily mean you're going to go into debt.
Only if you say it is. I use my credit card for the majority of my purchases, but I don't have any credit card debt. How do I manage this crazy feat?!? I use my credit card only if I have (or will have) the funds available in cash by the payment due date. Credit is only "newspeak for debt" if you're too immature to use it responsibly. But if you can use them responsibly, you get the added benefit of getting 2-3% of your expenditures back if you pick the right rewards card, and you're not lugging cash around all over. So really, you're just punishing yourself.
I learned how to make martinis, tie a bow-tie, and properly wear a suit.
How were you wearing suits prior to this? Were you putting your pants over your head?
And that governments, law enforcement entities, and municipalities have increasing access to and leverage technologies to become more effective at the jobs with which they are charged by the public?
Britain's increased surveillance measures sure did prevent the London bombings in 2005, now didn't they?
The bigger point you seem to be missing is that though the public wants their law enforcement to be effective, they wish to limit this effectiveness from intruding on their private lives.
Actually, it's #4 as "they", Opie and Anthony, didn't actual say any of the offensive material in question. The offensive material in question was said by a guest.
"drop my naked nutrient-rich matter into a vertical hole and plant a tree."
Well, the safer way would be something like Capsula Mundi:
Capsula Mundi is a design for a biodegradable coffin made from starch plastic that holds the deceased in a fetal position...
Capsula Mundi is planted in the earth like a seed. Above it, to signal the presence of occupied space, is a shallow concave circle dug out of the ground. In the center of which, a tree is planted, the essence of it chosen in life by the dead one, the care of this tree is the responsibility of everyone. The aim is ecological burial, literally a more natural way to decay.
"In my current building the restrooms are wired with motion sensors but if you have to sit still and concentrate for longer than 5 minutes the lights go out."
Why do you need to concentrate? You ought to try going to the restroom when your body is telling you "hey, I need to use the restroom". Do you just randomly hit the head during the day and figure "well, if I concentrate long enough, something oughtta pop out!"?
Slashdot Mirror
No, they just blow up abortion clinics, but somehow, that's not labeled "terrorism".
As a white male, if another white male is assaulted due to a personal issue between the assailant and the victim, I am not threatened. A normal assault punishment is applied as society's method of saying "hey, it's wrong to assault people."
But if the victim is assaulted because he is white, there is the crime of the assault, and the added threat that additional assaults will take place. Thus, the need for a punishment that addresses this additional threat and in theory, defuses it.
Not sure if this is the best example, but it's my first relevant find regarding a court ruling on threats: One who attempts to threaten violence and put another in fear should not be exempt from prosecution simply because "only a fortuity, not intended by the defendant," prevented the completion of the criminal threat, Chief Justice Ronald George said.
I understand your point when the crime in question is a murder, but what if the victim isn't murdered, but 'merely' assaulted? In this scenario, the punishment for general assault would not take into account the intent to terrorize the community. With hate crime legislation in place, the threat to the community is additionally punished.
at a minimum, if any given end-user doesn't have the time or ability to look at the source of each piece of code, there is a worldwide community of individuals who can pool their time and ability to dive into the source, and if anything suspicious or odd is going on, there's a good chance (at least compared to closed-source) that it will be found and reported. So even the Linux newbs who don't know source code from morse code still benefit. (disclaimer: naturally, it's not completely so rosy. Any given grandma isn't going to be looking up this information, but I think the point is still valid)
The difference between a murder and a murder conducted as a hate crime is that in the latter, the murder has an additional purpose in that it's perpetrated to serve as a warning toward members of the attacked group. I.e.: A hate crime committed against a homosexual is supposed to serve as a warning to other homosexuals in the community. A hate crime committed toward an African American, is supposed to serve as a warning to other African Americans -- think of a lynching, where the body is left hanging for public display. Thus, there actually is a difference in murdering an individual, and also hoping that said murder will serve as a "Fags go home", or "Know your place nigger" warning statement. Not to throw a word around that is often used incorrectly, but it's a form of terrorism against those communities -- not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime. (That's using the definition of terrorism as an act that is supposed to instill fear and intimidation into a group of individuals)
Why would I care? Because my private matters, whether it be a credit card number, the status of an illness, or the fact that my house will be vacant while I'm on vacation, are none of anyone's business?
What about when I receive a call? How do I know if the conversation is going to turn from mundane to private?
Gee, I dunno, most people's internet traffic is pretty fucking boring, but it doesn't stop the script kiddies from firing up their favorite wireless sniffer and eavesdropping. Why ever would I be concerned about someone eavesdropping on a phone call? Is that seriously the most sound "counterargument" you could come up with?
and that's totally acceptable. A user shouldn't be able to just glance at their phone to determine if it's off, or if it's "sleeping", but not sleeping so soundly that it won't rack up a $4800 bill.
Defective by design, my friend.
(Quicktime only, but worth it) Get Happy.
Oh, do fuck off. This has nothing to do with adult stem cells being just as good as fetal stem cells, but how am I supposed to argue against someone whose head is so far up their ass that they think babies are "killed" for stem cells? Seriously, you're fucking useless and should've been aborted while your parents had the chance.
Yeah! If you don't like the policy, you should just leave! It would be totally silly and unreasonable to see if the policy can be changed, right? And it would be even sillier and even more unreasonable to get the word out to other people who might not be aware of the new policy, right? You seem to holding the opinion that protest == whining. Yeah, people could just leave, -or- livejournal could just change their policy. So tell me, why is -your- way the right way?
1. Linux vs. Microsoft market share matters. Most Linux users couldn't give a hoot whether you are using Linux or not. If you can't handle Linux, stay in Windows. No sweat off my brow...
Are you saying that with a straight face? On Slashdot? ha! Of course market share matters. If linux is to be successful on the desktop, it needs to increase its market share. In order to increase its market share, it's going to have to work to make the transition from windows easy
2. Linux has to be compatible with everything Windows but the reverse isn't true. Try the reverse and installing Windows as a second OS and see how far you get getting them both working without special hacks.
Again, this goes back to the market share. Windows HAS the market share, hence they don't NEED to provide any transition options. Linux, on the otherhand, is TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE SWITCH. Ubuntu (and friends) are in a very different position than Windows. How do you not get that?
3. That the general user is unwilling to learn new skills hence will always be in Windows. This is the most insidious, and quite frankly insulting, statement I've ever heard out of Redmond.
Years of desktop support say otherwise. There is a majority (not all, but a majority) of users who do not want to learn the different between a monitor, a computer, or a hard drive. There is a majority of users who get stumped by a frozen program and don't want to learn how to End Task. There is a majority of users who can be instructed verbally, or with detailed screenshot instructions, who refuse to learn simple, simple tasks for themselves.
4. The install process dictates the "user friendliness" of the entire distribution. In general, people don't spend all their time installing an OS be it Microsoft, Linux, OSX, whatever... I installed my OS (Gentoo) exactly once in 2000 and haven't had to do it since. Can you say the same about your Windows install?
Since Windows 2000, I have never had to perform an OS installation of Microsoft's product -- yes, that was a ridiculous issue pre-2000, but it's been a thing of the past for 7 years, friend (caveat: I haven't played with Vista yet).
In short, install process != entire experience
No shit, sherlock. And no one ever said that. The new user post-install problems are well documented.
To somehow suggest that the failure of Microsoft to inter-operate nicely with other OSes is the fault of those OSes is the height of hypocrisy.
Who is converting from another OS to Microsoft? Who is trying to break into the market share? You need to re-analyze your "false assumptions".
Also, a P.S.: Fuck off for making me defend Microsoft. I need a shower.
Do you think if you just make shit up people won't check? Flag burning is still very much legal.
In my book, drug addicts are the most significant problem we deal with today in the country. In Oregon, according to the last article I read, 80% of all property crime in the state was methamphetamine related. Since we disagree, are drug laws asinine or not?
And the common argument there is, because of the fruitless War on Drugs, drug prices are artificially expensive and addicts then resort to theft. Couple that with social values that keep the poor in poverty, and the rich ever richer, the drug problem has remained stagnant regardless of how much money has been thrown at the "War" and how much jail-time has been prescribed.
Fix poverty, and you'll improve the drug problem. Stick with the mindset that poverty is caused by laziness, and we stay stagnant. Got it?
Sample 1000 people who've had their liberty severely curtailed by some overzealous, god-complexed, and/or prejudiced cop, and see if they don't think this is a jolly good idea. Or do you live in some magical fantasy-land where cops don't harass innocent people? Is one worse than the other? I'd wager that the one that has a lot of potential for government abuse is the worst of the two. So how is it oh so horrible that the ACLU wants to check in and ensure that (at a minimum) checks are put into place on this? (You do understand that protesting this is a form of making sure that it's at least regulated, right?) Or would you rather the government just go ahead and monitor everyone cause we have nothing to hide in public? Such as trips to abortion clinics, strip clubs, political affiliations, etc?
But that isn't taking into account that humans have a symbiotic relationship with some bacteria.
"The microbes that live in the human body are quite ancient," says NYU Medical Center microbiologist Dr. Martin Blaser, a pioneer in gut microbe research. "They've been selected (through evolution) because they help us."
The FDA has already approved bacteriophages to be used in a variety of settings, so there's probably a pretty good safety record.
But FDA approval can also be done in error
Acquantances of Victoria Snelgrove might disagree with your definition of non-lethal.
I wasn't saying that all debt is caused by immaturity. I was specifically responding to the comment Credit is newspeak for "debt", in which no, I don't believe using credit is going to necessarily mean you're going to go into debt.
Only if you say it is. I use my credit card for the majority of my purchases, but I don't have any credit card debt. How do I manage this crazy feat?!? I use my credit card only if I have (or will have) the funds available in cash by the payment due date. Credit is only "newspeak for debt" if you're too immature to use it responsibly. But if you can use them responsibly, you get the added benefit of getting 2-3% of your expenditures back if you pick the right rewards card, and you're not lugging cash around all over. So really, you're just punishing yourself.
but why did the judge specifically reference RAM, and not just say "hey dipshit, turn on logging"?
I learned how to make martinis, tie a bow-tie, and properly wear a suit. How were you wearing suits prior to this? Were you putting your pants over your head?
Right, because the government would decline the opportunity to legitimately say "Hey look everyone! We just stopped 10 bombings! Big Brother Works!"
Britain's increased surveillance measures sure did prevent the London bombings in 2005, now didn't they? The bigger point you seem to be missing is that though the public wants their law enforcement to be effective, they wish to limit this effectiveness from intruding on their private lives.
Actually, it's #4 as "they", Opie and Anthony, didn't actual say any of the offensive material in question. The offensive material in question was said by a guest.
Capsula Mundi is a design for a biodegradable coffin made from starch plastic that holds the deceased in a fetal position... Capsula Mundi is planted in the earth like a seed. Above it, to signal the presence of occupied space, is a shallow concave circle dug out of the ground. In the center of which, a tree is planted, the essence of it chosen in life by the dead one, the care of this tree is the responsibility of everyone. The aim is ecological burial, literally a more natural way to decay.
Why do you need to concentrate? You ought to try going to the restroom when your body is telling you "hey, I need to use the restroom". Do you just randomly hit the head during the day and figure "well, if I concentrate long enough, something oughtta pop out!"?