House Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'
It is extremely telling that we do not hear anything like this from Congress on issues that actually matter, such as environmental pollution, sweatshops and child labor in third-world countries, the IMF and the World Bank attempting to privatise, among everything else, the water systems of those same countries, electronic voting, the war in Iraq, violation of the Geneva conventions, and the list goes on.
No, we only hear this kind of forceful talk when the issue benefits corporations and business interests. We get our Congress going after universities, because some students download music for free. What kind of priorities are these? I would have to say that this is just one example, of many, that categorically proves who controls the government now. This government is not ours, and it does not have our interests anywhere near the top of its list. This is a government begging to be radically altered or overthrown.
No, online "harassment" should not have anything to do with the legal system. How can you not see how utterly stupid that assertion is? There are already methods which have been in place since the advent of MUDs, moderated forums, et cetera, to deal with this kind of thing. It's why most online games and forums have an "ignore" feature. If that does not solve the problem, then it should be taken up with the moderators or administrators of the game. The person in question will be punished, or depending on the situation, banned from the forum/MUD/et cetera. If the mods or admins refuse to do this, the solution is still quite simple: leave. You are not by any means forced to play only one MUD or frequent only one forum of interest. Find another, where the mods and administrators are responsible people. The person who "harassed" you, or "virtually raped" (despite that phrase not even making any fucking sense) has no way to follow you around in cyberspace, unless they are extremely dedicated. If they are, and they find you again, hopefully you have chosen your new venue well, and the admins or mods are responsible enough to do the right thing.
Saying that this kind of thing should go through our legal systems is just ludicrous. To "legally" ban someone from an online venue is simply unenforceable. Besides that, you are advocating tying up the system (even moreso than it is already) with pointless cases, taking valuable time away from the prosecution of those who deserve it (murderers, actual rapists). How many people, do you suppose, will abuse this? Bring baseless claims in the hope of banning a foe from a MUD for life, or get that "annoying bastard" on a forum who always disagrees with them shaken up with a "warning?"
This trend of outlawing, or seeking to outlaw, things such as "hate speech" (I hate that fucking phrase), and now attempting to ban online "harassment" or "virtual rape" (if that phrase catches on, I'll fucking hate it just as much) is rather disquieting to me. I suppose people just want to be able to pretend that there is no hate in the world, and that everyone loves everyone else equally. While this is something that should most definitely be strived for, passing laws to ban dissension and open hatred are just insane. It's like attempting to plug up a raging river with a cork: pointless, stupid, and any reasonable person should question your sanity for even suggesting it.
I have to take issue with some of your statements here.
Yes, we call them totalitarian states, and an unhealthy number of them have been communist.
It seems to me that you may be painting an ideology with a broad brush. I think you should really delve deeper into the specific reasons for this. The abject failure of traditional communism was due to the governmental side of things. The ideology itself seeks to maintain a classless and stateless social organization, which is based upon common ownership of the means of production. All of the past incarnations which claimed to be communism have certainly not placed economic power in the hands of the people. By far, the ruling regimes used the idea of communism as a means to keep the populace in line; a way to make the people believe that they had some control. However, because the people had absolutely no say in their government, which was the true possessor of the means of production, it was all in actuality one great lie. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, and even moreso in the case of communism. The only forms of communism to ever really be practiced have been Stalinist "Marxism" (in Soviet Russia, ideology defines YOU! Sorry, I know that was lame.) and Maoism (in the PRC). Maoism is, for all intents and purposes, a Chinese variation of Stalinist "Marxism." Neither of these can be considered socialist by any stretch of the word.
Contrast this with Trotskyism, which is, in a nutshell, a form of democratic socialism. The February Revolution in Russia established a liberal and socialist provisional government which could be safely called Trotskyist. Lenin then led the October Revolution, establishing, in effect, a dictatorship (although he proclaimed it to be a temporary one). Stalin began his rise to power around this time and, after Lenin's death, established the totalitarian USSR. I highly recommend Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed," which explains this all in much detail.
As for the PRC, it is a form of totalitarian Stalinism which has in recent years started to adopt more and more capitalist tendencies.
I know that this is coming off like a fucking boring history lesson, but basically, I'm just trying to show that communism isn't inherently wrong. Instead, the ways in which it is redefined and practiced out of true context is the real problem. Of course, the majority in the United States, thanks to both Stalin's grotesque interpretation and McCarthy's snipe hunt, atomatically equate the word 'communism' with 'totalitarianism,' and condemn it without even a cursory examination. Quite a few people, though, are finally beginning to see the exploitation and extreme class disparity that come with capitalism as a bad thing, and seek out alternatives. Of the viable alternatives, I personally believe that democratic socialism is the fairest and most realistic (as did George Orwell, ironically), but to each his own.
What a great idea. Everyone should keep all of their angst and emotion to themselves. Pent up rage has never resulted in anything detrimental.
Besides that, the jist of your post seems to be, "Just be normal! And if you can't force yourself (i.e. dumb yourself down enough) to think like the masses, just act like you do anyway. Waste your life away being a passive "me-too"-er who never questions the status-quo or gets emotional about anything. It's fun to try to fit in! The majority of America does it, so you might as well do it too, right?"
If you really believe that line of bullshit, then there's not much anyone can do for you. Just go turn your television back on, get another beer, and stop trying to think.
Mainstream media is laughable, really. Maybe the little gem at the end is why the story was posted in the "It's Funny. Laugh" department:
The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.
I've been in the punk scene for ten years now, ever since I was a Wee Little Dissident, and I've never, ever heard this. It's actually rather stupid, when you consider that The Germs were a U.S. band, and the prevailing opinion is that the mohawk as a counterculture hairstyle originated and spread in England in the mid-seventies. Yet another case of the media looking for some sort of "shock" value to "spice up" a story. And in this case, the story is already pretty fucked up anyway, so it was pointless.
We can't get politicians to do a goddamn thing to owners and managers of corporations when their companies kill and exploit other human beings, but now they suddenly want owners and managers of ISPs to be held accountable and face jail time for content? What in the fuck? They're not even really attempting to hide the fact that this is really about censorship.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the "messenger." I do not care who is trying to take away free AP access, I will always fight it. You are reading way too much into this, with your "think of the children!" rhetoric. If you are a parent (and I am), the very first thing you should realize is that you absolutely cannot, will not, and should not attempt to police your kids twenty-four hours a day, every day. There is no point, and you will hurt infinitely more than help them that way. Instead, you should try your best to teach them what you have learned through experience, and hope that they use that. Though in this particular case, I really have no problem with it anyway. You're talking about twelve year olds wanting to look at pornography. What twelve year old doesn't? I did, and I'll tell you one thing, the few times that I was actually able to *ahem* relieve myself, if you will, it most definitely helped, psychologically and emotionally. It's just sex, dude. It's not the bogeyman. It is the driving instinct of the human race, and if you try to fight that, you will always end up losing in the end. What exactly makes you think that these kids wouldn't have access to pornography if they did not have access to fee wireless, anyway? It doesn't matter what medium you try to take away from them, they will always get it anyway. None of this is even relevant to forcing people to pay for wireless APs. I mean, what the fuck? If you feel that strongly about the situation (and barring the fact that I would ask you to seek some sort of psychological help if you do) why not just advocate a password requirement and age verification before the password is given? That would make much more sense than this. No, this is corporate exploitation (as usual) cloaked in the age old hysteria-inducing "think of the children" vitriol.
And by the way, telling morons to secure their personal wireless networks or deal with the consequences is in no way analogous to this. Apples and oranges, there.
What about religions not of the book? How did they treat Hindu's, etc? Hmm?
Muhammad himself was a pagan for roughly half of his life. After founding Islam, though, he and his followers were persecuted by the pagan tribes of Mecca, resulting in their immigration to Medina. There was then a war waged between Muhammad's followers and the pagan tribes of Mecca. The Muslims were vastly outnumbered by the tribes, but eventually they were victorious. Afterward, Muhammad walked into Mecca and, instead of pillaging, raping, and murdering, as victors were wont to do at that time, he invited them into the Umma. The problems arose once Muhammad died, and the caliphs took over as leaders of the Umma. This is when Muslims really began to spread Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula, encountering resistance and launching invasions, as in the case of India. It definitely did turn into a crusade at that point.
... the thing is, Mohammad said many times that Muslims must fight and die in the name of god, that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins and that they should kill infidels.
This is completely, utterly untrue. I am unsure exactly where you got this from, but I suggest not using it as a source of information any longer, because it is painfully biased.
I'll assume that you are speaking of Jihad, which has been, as usual, horribly misinterpreted (whether intentionally or not) by portions of the West, as well as Islamic extremist contingents. Jihad, in the context of the Qur'an (in other words, the correct context), is mainly about nothing more than self-improvement; the effort exerted to change oneself. There is also "Jihad of the Sword," but it is nothing like what you are assuming. "Jihad of the Sword" is only to be used against oppressors and those who persecute Muslims. It is about self-defense, not offense. Since everyone has come out of the woodwork with out-of-context snippets of the Qur'an, I'll attempt to negate them with one that is actually within context:
God does not forbid you, regarding those (pagans and other non-Muslims) who did not fight you because of your religion, and who did not drive you out of your land, that you be good to them and treat them justly. Allah only forbids you regarding those who fought you because of your religion and drove you out of your homes, and came to the help of those who drove you out, that you should befriend them. Any of you who befriend them (and be their allies) are transgressors. [60:8-9]
I am not attempting to slight you with a history lesson here. I just find the level of misunderstanding in the West regarding Islam to be simply ludicrous. If an atheist like myself must defend the true meaning of a religion, then something is terribly wrong with the situation.
Funnily enough, in '98, my girlfriend actually broke up with me because I spent every waking hour playing Fallout II, and wouldn't even stop long enough to answer the phone when she called.
And the thing is, it really was that good of a game.
What, exactly, is wrong with defending Islam? It has been skewed radically by extremist whackos and the West alike.
* terrorist dot net email
It is referred to as being facetious. The intent is to piss off those who buy into the "neo-Red Scare" of "The Terrorists." It would seem that it works rather well.
* claims that muslim states welcome jews (?!?!)
You are turning my comment into something which it is not. I explained that, until recently, Islamic states were tolerant when it came to other religions "of The Book." At no point did I say that this is predominant today. Unfortunately, extremist nutcase contingents have taken over in quite a few cases. I have a personal opinion as to why this is happening, but it is not relevant to this discussion.
sure says a lot about you, now doesn't it?
Yes, I believe it does. It says that I am a rational, logical human being who weighs issues and bases inferences upon facts rather than hype or propaganda.
You seem to have missed my point here. I'll repeat myself for you:
This is not about Islam or the Qur'an itself. It is about whacked out religious nuts and their crazy interpretations.
The original AC blamed the war in Darfur on Islam and the Qur'an, which is fallacious. The people behind these massacres are not practicing true Islam in any sense. They are extremist nutjobs. A reading of the Qur'an will make this abundantly clear. These people have twisted the religion into what they want it to be, rather than what it actually is. This is a perpetual problem with many religions. There are plenty of whacked out Christian groups in the United States. "Christian Scientists" are an example, and they are but one of many.
Incidentally, and just for shits and giggles, here is a virtually unknown fact: Muslims did not practice the veiling or complete covering of their women traditionally. This was adopted much later. Where did the idea come from? The Byzantine Christians.
You're quite obviously trolling. The Qur'an says absolutely nothing of the kind. In fact, until recently, Islamic states were seen as places of refuge for Jews and non-orthodox Christians (those who did not believe in the "Holy Trinity") due to the religous tolerance there. Instead of being persecuted as they were by orthodox Christians, they were allowed to practice their own religion with the stipulation that they not attempt to convert anyone. Muslims saw Jews and Christians as fellow "People of The Book." The differences came about because Muslims believed that all prophets before Muhammad had been misunderstood, and that God had directly visited Muhammad to establish a "corrective." This corrective became the Qur'an.
This is not about Islam or the Qur'an itself. It is about whacked out religious nuts and their crazy interpretations. Unfortunately, we seem to get these nutcases with every religion.
I apologize for being somewhat off-topic with this post, but I could not bring myself to ignore the parent, even if it is a trolling AC.
Where are all of the comments about how we just don't understand Turkish "customs" and "traditions" if we don't agree with their government's stance with regard to censorship? I'm sensing a bit of a double standard here. Where exactly is the contrast between the two? It makes no difference how lax on the whole one government is when compared to another if they are in effect doing the exact same thing. At least in this case there was a vote of some sort, though that certainly does not make the decision amiable.
The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect the vocal minority, and let their opinions be heard just the same as everyone else's. Your blanket statement about the citizens of Thailand is pointless. I am rather sure that not everyone in Thailand has drunk the Kool-Aid. When it comes to things like freedom of speech, it really is "all or none," barring infringing the same right of others. You cannot have freedom of speech "unless what you say is unpopular," or "unless we don't agree with you." It just doesn't work that way. It's like being "a little pregnant." It's simply impossible.
This has nothing to do with respecting entire cultures at all. You just can't look at things like this from a macrosociological standpoint. It is about the citizens that do have differing opinions, or think that something is wrong. Just because the majority of a population feels one way certainly does not mean that there are not people who feel differently. I live in a "bible belt" state right now, and I am an atheist. I talk about it openly to anyone who asks, and I defend my viewpoint when confronted by those who are religious, which happen to be the vast majority of the people within my state. It would appear that you would be fine with me being tossed into jail for ten years for my unpopular viewpoint if my state was instead a sovereign nation. That just doesn't make any sense. There are certain inherent rights which every single person in the world possesses from birth. The only entity that has been strong enough to take these away is government, and I will proclaim right now, without even cursory research to back my claim up, that the single reason in each and every case of oppression and censorship is the self-preservation of those in power.
It really isn't, for me at least (as I cannot speak for anyone but myself), about the liberation of a complacent nation, nor is it about changing a culture or the customs that go along with it. That isn't my place, as I am not a citizen and have no knowledge of the situation. It is about the protection of those citizens who do not share the majority view. The minority should be able to share their opinions and submit whatever evidence that they have for a "better" system to the majority. If enough of the majority change their opinions, they will redefine their culture themselves. Otherwise, things will by and large stay the same.
Re:You have to respect Thai culture and Thai laws
on
Thailand Bans YouTube
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, I think that in this case it is you who doesn't understand what you're talking about. Freedom, rights, laws, and customs are not mutually exclusive. You should at least be able to wrap your head around that. Just because there exist certain traditions and customs in a national community does not mean that they are correct, and certainly does not excuse anyone from the harm that they cause by upholding them. Slavery was a grand tradition in the United States for hundreds of years, as was treating women as property and only allowing white males to vote. The only way that these "traditions" were changed was by questioning them openly, and actively fighting against them. You seem to be arguing that because those aspects of U.S. history were "traditions" that the acts should have been allowed and not questioned. I hope that you can recognize the stupidity in that argument so that I do not have to go into further detail. I would really like to see where you're coming from, but that is wholly backward logic. "That's just the way it's always been" is not a valid excuse for taking away someone's freedom of expression, speech, or anything else. If you break other laws while exercising your rights, you should be charged and allowed to plead your case in court, but throwing someone in jail for holding a differing opinion is simply fascism, no matter the country in which you happen to live. Incidentally, freedom of speech is not a true freedom if you can be oppressed and censored for exercising it without infringing upon the same rights of others.
Allowing someone to get away with being a vehement racist or sexist because they grew up within a society that bred such "culture" is akin to forgiving someone for sleeping around on you because they were drunk. It is a reason, but it certainly is not an excuse.
Ugh. Come on, dude. Google is your friend when it comes to this kind of thing. It is nothorriblydifficult to find the incident that the GP was referring to. Even if the sources are biased, it serves as a launchpad to discover the truth. As for your "one isolated incident" rhetoric, that also happens to be one of the greatthingsabouttheinternet. You can find out things that some people don't necessarily want you to know. As for what to make of it all, you have to judge the evidence and draw your own conclusions.
Did you miss the rest of my damn comment? Where I explained how short-sighted and stupid I realized my opinion was?
I suppose that some people must make themselves seem important and relevant to the discussion while actually being redundant and not providing anything new. I explained my point very well in my original post. What's your point?
Does anyone else get the joke? Click on the "slashdotit! (tm)" link and read the explanation for the new system. It's a not-so-subtle "dig" *ahem* at a few other sites.
Our stories will be hyper-accurate and scientifically perfect!
When the story first broke about other nations wanting an independent international body to oversee the root servers and such, I was completely against it. It sounded to me like another pointless stance by the U.N., compounded by the fact that the ARPANet was invented and fleshed out here in the U.S. Not to mention the few unsavory members of the U.N. that would end up with some say as to the future of the Internet.
Now, though, I'm starting to see where I went wrong. I was assuming that the government of the United States could never be as fucked up as the one in, say, China. I was being horribly short-sighted. I should have known that this kind of shit was only a matter of time.
So how much worse could letting the U.N. have control of ICANN be than something like this? I say fuck it. Let them have it, and give it some independent oversight. For the life of me, I cannot believe that I am actually looking to foreign nations to ensure the neutrality and openness of the Internet, but there you have it.
You, my friend, are a shining example of why FLOSS gets a bad wrap. Here are a few hints for you, genius:
Not everyone is a developer. Even if someone is a developer, they may not have the massive amount of free time available, which you obviously do, to wade through code fixing bugs.
Flaming a project for no good reason is one thing, and will incur flames like yours, however vitriolic and ignorant they may be, in retaliation. Offering constructive criticism as the GP did is a Good Thing(tm). He is a Firefox user, ergo it is completely within his rights to suggest, criticise, or review. Are the Firefox devs just coding the browser for their fucking health?
His question was within the context of TFA. He was asking the Slashdot community whether anyone knew if this was being worked on already. Slashdot is not the correct venue to ask questions about FLOSS projects? What the fuck are you talking about? You are also blindly assuming that he has no plans to submit a bug report and/or speak to developers about the issue. Do I really need to explain to you what assuming does?
Everyone that uses FLOSS has the responsibility to fix bugs themselves and meticulously file bug reports? Did I miss that meeting? Using it, advocating it to everyone who will listen, and contributing via donations aren't enough, right?
From this vantage point, it seems like the GP had a valid question within the context of the discussion, and instead of getting any sort of worthwhile advice or reassurance, he got an elitist dick with a stick up his ass, and the knowledge that some people in the FLOSS community are narcissistic assholes.
Slashdot Mirror
House Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'
It is extremely telling that we do not hear anything like this from Congress on issues that actually matter, such as environmental pollution, sweatshops and child labor in third-world countries, the IMF and the World Bank attempting to privatise, among everything else, the water systems of those same countries, electronic voting, the war in Iraq, violation of the Geneva conventions, and the list goes on.
No, we only hear this kind of forceful talk when the issue benefits corporations and business interests. We get our Congress going after universities, because some students download music for free. What kind of priorities are these? I would have to say that this is just one example, of many, that categorically proves who controls the government now. This government is not ours, and it does not have our interests anywhere near the top of its list. This is a government begging to be radically altered or overthrown.
No, online "harassment" should not have anything to do with the legal system. How can you not see how utterly stupid that assertion is? There are already methods which have been in place since the advent of MUDs, moderated forums, et cetera, to deal with this kind of thing. It's why most online games and forums have an "ignore" feature. If that does not solve the problem, then it should be taken up with the moderators or administrators of the game. The person in question will be punished, or depending on the situation, banned from the forum/MUD/et cetera. If the mods or admins refuse to do this, the solution is still quite simple: leave. You are not by any means forced to play only one MUD or frequent only one forum of interest. Find another, where the mods and administrators are responsible people. The person who "harassed" you, or "virtually raped" (despite that phrase not even making any fucking sense) has no way to follow you around in cyberspace, unless they are extremely dedicated. If they are, and they find you again, hopefully you have chosen your new venue well, and the admins or mods are responsible enough to do the right thing.
Saying that this kind of thing should go through our legal systems is just ludicrous. To "legally" ban someone from an online venue is simply unenforceable. Besides that, you are advocating tying up the system (even moreso than it is already) with pointless cases, taking valuable time away from the prosecution of those who deserve it (murderers, actual rapists). How many people, do you suppose, will abuse this? Bring baseless claims in the hope of banning a foe from a MUD for life, or get that "annoying bastard" on a forum who always disagrees with them shaken up with a "warning?"
This trend of outlawing, or seeking to outlaw, things such as "hate speech" (I hate that fucking phrase), and now attempting to ban online "harassment" or "virtual rape" (if that phrase catches on, I'll fucking hate it just as much) is rather disquieting to me. I suppose people just want to be able to pretend that there is no hate in the world, and that everyone loves everyone else equally. While this is something that should most definitely be strived for, passing laws to ban dissension and open hatred are just insane. It's like attempting to plug up a raging river with a cork: pointless, stupid, and any reasonable person should question your sanity for even suggesting it.
I have to take issue with some of your statements here.
Yes, we call them totalitarian states, and an unhealthy number of them have been communist.
It seems to me that you may be painting an ideology with a broad brush. I think you should really delve deeper into the specific reasons for this. The abject failure of traditional communism was due to the governmental side of things. The ideology itself seeks to maintain a classless and stateless social organization, which is based upon common ownership of the means of production. All of the past incarnations which claimed to be communism have certainly not placed economic power in the hands of the people. By far, the ruling regimes used the idea of communism as a means to keep the populace in line; a way to make the people believe that they had some control. However, because the people had absolutely no say in their government, which was the true possessor of the means of production, it was all in actuality one great lie. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, and even moreso in the case of communism. The only forms of communism to ever really be practiced have been Stalinist "Marxism" (in Soviet Russia, ideology defines YOU! Sorry, I know that was lame.) and Maoism (in the PRC). Maoism is, for all intents and purposes, a Chinese variation of Stalinist "Marxism." Neither of these can be considered socialist by any stretch of the word.
Contrast this with Trotskyism, which is, in a nutshell, a form of democratic socialism. The February Revolution in Russia established a liberal and socialist provisional government which could be safely called Trotskyist. Lenin then led the October Revolution, establishing, in effect, a dictatorship (although he proclaimed it to be a temporary one). Stalin began his rise to power around this time and, after Lenin's death, established the totalitarian USSR. I highly recommend Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed," which explains this all in much detail.
As for the PRC, it is a form of totalitarian Stalinism which has in recent years started to adopt more and more capitalist tendencies.
I know that this is coming off like a fucking boring history lesson, but basically, I'm just trying to show that communism isn't inherently wrong. Instead, the ways in which it is redefined and practiced out of true context is the real problem. Of course, the majority in the United States, thanks to both Stalin's grotesque interpretation and McCarthy's snipe hunt, atomatically equate the word 'communism' with 'totalitarianism,' and condemn it without even a cursory examination. Quite a few people, though, are finally beginning to see the exploitation and extreme class disparity that come with capitalism as a bad thing, and seek out alternatives. Of the viable alternatives, I personally believe that democratic socialism is the fairest and most realistic (as did George Orwell, ironically), but to each his own.
What a great idea. Everyone should keep all of their angst and emotion to themselves. Pent up rage has never resulted in anything detrimental.
Besides that, the jist of your post seems to be, "Just be normal! And if you can't force yourself (i.e. dumb yourself down enough) to think like the masses, just act like you do anyway. Waste your life away being a passive "me-too"-er who never questions the status-quo or gets emotional about anything. It's fun to try to fit in! The majority of America does it, so you might as well do it too, right?"
If you really believe that line of bullshit, then there's not much anyone can do for you. Just go turn your television back on, get another beer, and stop trying to think.
And I just upgraded to 2.6.20-15! (Kubuntu Feisty Fawn)
Mainstream media is laughable, really. Maybe the little gem at the end is why the story was posted in the "It's Funny. Laugh" department:
The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.
I've been in the punk scene for ten years now, ever since I was a Wee Little Dissident, and I've never, ever heard this. It's actually rather stupid, when you consider that The Germs were a U.S. band, and the prevailing opinion is that the mohawk as a counterculture hairstyle originated and spread in England in the mid-seventies. Yet another case of the media looking for some sort of "shock" value to "spice up" a story. And in this case, the story is already pretty fucked up anyway, so it was pointless.
We can't get politicians to do a goddamn thing to owners and managers of corporations when their companies kill and exploit other human beings, but now they suddenly want owners and managers of ISPs to be held accountable and face jail time for content? What in the fuck? They're not even really attempting to hide the fact that this is really about censorship.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the "messenger." I do not care who is trying to take away free AP access, I will always fight it. You are reading way too much into this, with your "think of the children!" rhetoric. If you are a parent (and I am), the very first thing you should realize is that you absolutely cannot, will not, and should not attempt to police your kids twenty-four hours a day, every day. There is no point, and you will hurt infinitely more than help them that way. Instead, you should try your best to teach them what you have learned through experience, and hope that they use that. Though in this particular case, I really have no problem with it anyway. You're talking about twelve year olds wanting to look at pornography. What twelve year old doesn't? I did, and I'll tell you one thing, the few times that I was actually able to *ahem* relieve myself, if you will, it most definitely helped, psychologically and emotionally. It's just sex, dude. It's not the bogeyman. It is the driving instinct of the human race, and if you try to fight that, you will always end up losing in the end. What exactly makes you think that these kids wouldn't have access to pornography if they did not have access to fee wireless, anyway? It doesn't matter what medium you try to take away from them, they will always get it anyway. None of this is even relevant to forcing people to pay for wireless APs. I mean, what the fuck? If you feel that strongly about the situation (and barring the fact that I would ask you to seek some sort of psychological help if you do) why not just advocate a password requirement and age verification before the password is given? That would make much more sense than this. No, this is corporate exploitation (as usual) cloaked in the age old hysteria-inducing "think of the children" vitriol.
And by the way, telling morons to secure their personal wireless networks or deal with the consequences is in no way analogous to this. Apples and oranges, there.
With an attitude like yours, you won't have any clue what you are "missing" until it is far too late to do anything about it.
The phrase "hindsight is 20/20" does not exist without reason.
What about religions not of the book? How did they treat Hindu's, etc? Hmm?
... the thing is, Mohammad said many times that Muslims must fight and die in the name of god, that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins and that they should kill infidels.
Muhammad himself was a pagan for roughly half of his life. After founding Islam, though, he and his followers were persecuted by the pagan tribes of Mecca, resulting in their immigration to Medina. There was then a war waged between Muhammad's followers and the pagan tribes of Mecca. The Muslims were vastly outnumbered by the tribes, but eventually they were victorious. Afterward, Muhammad walked into Mecca and, instead of pillaging, raping, and murdering, as victors were wont to do at that time, he invited them into the Umma. The problems arose once Muhammad died, and the caliphs took over as leaders of the Umma. This is when Muslims really began to spread Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula, encountering resistance and launching invasions, as in the case of India. It definitely did turn into a crusade at that point.
This is completely, utterly untrue. I am unsure exactly where you got this from, but I suggest not using it as a source of information any longer, because it is painfully biased.
I'll assume that you are speaking of Jihad, which has been, as usual, horribly misinterpreted (whether intentionally or not) by portions of the West, as well as Islamic extremist contingents. Jihad, in the context of the Qur'an (in other words, the correct context), is mainly about nothing more than self-improvement; the effort exerted to change oneself. There is also "Jihad of the Sword," but it is nothing like what you are assuming. "Jihad of the Sword" is only to be used against oppressors and those who persecute Muslims. It is about self-defense, not offense. Since everyone has come out of the woodwork with out-of-context snippets of the Qur'an, I'll attempt to negate them with one that is actually within context:
God does not forbid you, regarding those (pagans and other non-Muslims) who did not fight you because of your religion, and who did not drive you out of your land, that you be good to them and treat them justly. Allah only forbids you regarding those who fought you because of your religion and drove you out of your homes, and came to the help of those who drove you out, that you should befriend them. Any of you who befriend them (and be their allies) are transgressors. [60:8-9]
I am not attempting to slight you with a history lesson here. I just find the level of misunderstanding in the West regarding Islam to be simply ludicrous. If an atheist like myself must defend the true meaning of a religion, then something is terribly wrong with the situation.
Funnily enough, in '98, my girlfriend actually broke up with me because I spent every waking hour playing Fallout II, and wouldn't even stop long enough to answer the phone when she called.
And the thing is, it really was that good of a game.
* defending islam
What, exactly, is wrong with defending Islam? It has been skewed radically by extremist whackos and the West alike.
* terrorist dot net email
It is referred to as being facetious. The intent is to piss off those who buy into the "neo-Red Scare" of "The Terrorists." It would seem that it works rather well.
* claims that muslim states welcome jews (?!?!)
You are turning my comment into something which it is not. I explained that, until recently, Islamic states were tolerant when it came to other religions "of The Book." At no point did I say that this is predominant today. Unfortunately, extremist nutcase contingents have taken over in quite a few cases. I have a personal opinion as to why this is happening, but it is not relevant to this discussion.
sure says a lot about you, now doesn't it?
Yes, I believe it does. It says that I am a rational, logical human being who weighs issues and bases inferences upon facts rather than hype or propaganda.
You seem to have missed my point here. I'll repeat myself for you:
This is not about Islam or the Qur'an itself. It is about whacked out religious nuts and their crazy interpretations.
The original AC blamed the war in Darfur on Islam and the Qur'an, which is fallacious. The people behind these massacres are not practicing true Islam in any sense. They are extremist nutjobs. A reading of the Qur'an will make this abundantly clear. These people have twisted the religion into what they want it to be, rather than what it actually is. This is a perpetual problem with many religions. There are plenty of whacked out Christian groups in the United States. "Christian Scientists" are an example, and they are but one of many.
Incidentally, and just for shits and giggles, here is a virtually unknown fact: Muslims did not practice the veiling or complete covering of their women traditionally. This was adopted much later. Where did the idea come from? The Byzantine Christians.
Yes, actually.
You're quite obviously trolling. The Qur'an says absolutely nothing of the kind. In fact, until recently, Islamic states were seen as places of refuge for Jews and non-orthodox Christians (those who did not believe in the "Holy Trinity") due to the religous tolerance there. Instead of being persecuted as they were by orthodox Christians, they were allowed to practice their own religion with the stipulation that they not attempt to convert anyone. Muslims saw Jews and Christians as fellow "People of The Book." The differences came about because Muslims believed that all prophets before Muhammad had been misunderstood, and that God had directly visited Muhammad to establish a "corrective." This corrective became the Qur'an.
This is not about Islam or the Qur'an itself. It is about whacked out religious nuts and their crazy interpretations. Unfortunately, we seem to get these nutcases with every religion.
I apologize for being somewhat off-topic with this post, but I could not bring myself to ignore the parent, even if it is a trolling AC.
Priceless! I couldn't stop laughing after reading your comment. It really puts the situation into perspective, also.
By far the funniest post I've read so far in this discussion.
Where are all of the comments about how we just don't understand Turkish "customs" and "traditions" if we don't agree with their government's stance with regard to censorship? I'm sensing a bit of a double standard here. Where exactly is the contrast between the two? It makes no difference how lax on the whole one government is when compared to another if they are in effect doing the exact same thing. At least in this case there was a vote of some sort, though that certainly does not make the decision amiable.
The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect the vocal minority, and let their opinions be heard just the same as everyone else's. Your blanket statement about the citizens of Thailand is pointless. I am rather sure that not everyone in Thailand has drunk the Kool-Aid. When it comes to things like freedom of speech, it really is "all or none," barring infringing the same right of others. You cannot have freedom of speech "unless what you say is unpopular," or "unless we don't agree with you." It just doesn't work that way. It's like being "a little pregnant." It's simply impossible.
This has nothing to do with respecting entire cultures at all. You just can't look at things like this from a macrosociological standpoint. It is about the citizens that do have differing opinions, or think that something is wrong. Just because the majority of a population feels one way certainly does not mean that there are not people who feel differently. I live in a "bible belt" state right now, and I am an atheist. I talk about it openly to anyone who asks, and I defend my viewpoint when confronted by those who are religious, which happen to be the vast majority of the people within my state. It would appear that you would be fine with me being tossed into jail for ten years for my unpopular viewpoint if my state was instead a sovereign nation. That just doesn't make any sense. There are certain inherent rights which every single person in the world possesses from birth. The only entity that has been strong enough to take these away is government, and I will proclaim right now, without even cursory research to back my claim up, that the single reason in each and every case of oppression and censorship is the self-preservation of those in power.
It really isn't, for me at least (as I cannot speak for anyone but myself), about the liberation of a complacent nation, nor is it about changing a culture or the customs that go along with it. That isn't my place, as I am not a citizen and have no knowledge of the situation. It is about the protection of those citizens who do not share the majority view. The minority should be able to share their opinions and submit whatever evidence that they have for a "better" system to the majority. If enough of the majority change their opinions, they will redefine their culture themselves. Otherwise, things will by and large stay the same.
Unfortunately, I think that in this case it is you who doesn't understand what you're talking about. Freedom, rights, laws, and customs are not mutually exclusive. You should at least be able to wrap your head around that. Just because there exist certain traditions and customs in a national community does not mean that they are correct, and certainly does not excuse anyone from the harm that they cause by upholding them. Slavery was a grand tradition in the United States for hundreds of years, as was treating women as property and only allowing white males to vote. The only way that these "traditions" were changed was by questioning them openly, and actively fighting against them. You seem to be arguing that because those aspects of U.S. history were "traditions" that the acts should have been allowed and not questioned. I hope that you can recognize the stupidity in that argument so that I do not have to go into further detail. I would really like to see where you're coming from, but that is wholly backward logic. "That's just the way it's always been" is not a valid excuse for taking away someone's freedom of expression, speech, or anything else. If you break other laws while exercising your rights, you should be charged and allowed to plead your case in court, but throwing someone in jail for holding a differing opinion is simply fascism, no matter the country in which you happen to live. Incidentally, freedom of speech is not a true freedom if you can be oppressed and censored for exercising it without infringing upon the same rights of others.
Allowing someone to get away with being a vehement racist or sexist because they grew up within a society that bred such "culture" is akin to forgiving someone for sleeping around on you because they were drunk. It is a reason, but it certainly is not an excuse.
Ugh. Come on, dude. Google is your friend when it comes to this kind of thing. It is not horribly difficult to find the incident that the GP was referring to. Even if the sources are biased, it serves as a launchpad to discover the truth. As for your "one isolated incident" rhetoric, that also happens to be one of the great things about the internet. You can find out things that some people don't necessarily want you to know. As for what to make of it all, you have to judge the evidence and draw your own conclusions.
Did you miss the rest of my damn comment? Where I explained how short-sighted and stupid I realized my opinion was?
I suppose that some people must make themselves seem important and relevant to the discussion while actually being redundant and not providing anything new. I explained my point very well in my original post. What's your point?
Does anyone else get the joke? Click on the "slashdotit! (tm)" link and read the explanation for the new system. It's a not-so-subtle "dig" *ahem* at a few other sites.
Our stories will be hyper-accurate and scientifically perfect!
Regular sucrose may be a natural part of our diet, but the HFCS that has replaced it in most countries (you guessed it: because it's cheaper!) is not.
When the story first broke about other nations wanting an independent international body to oversee the root servers and such, I was completely against it. It sounded to me like another pointless stance by the U.N., compounded by the fact that the ARPANet was invented and fleshed out here in the U.S. Not to mention the few unsavory members of the U.N. that would end up with some say as to the future of the Internet.
Now, though, I'm starting to see where I went wrong. I was assuming that the government of the United States could never be as fucked up as the one in, say, China. I was being horribly short-sighted. I should have known that this kind of shit was only a matter of time.
So how much worse could letting the U.N. have control of ICANN be than something like this? I say fuck it. Let them have it, and give it some independent oversight. For the life of me, I cannot believe that I am actually looking to foreign nations to ensure the neutrality and openness of the Internet, but there you have it.
You, my friend, are a shining example of why FLOSS gets a bad wrap. Here are a few hints for you, genius:
Not everyone is a developer. Even if someone is a developer, they may not have the massive amount of free time available, which you obviously do, to wade through code fixing bugs.
Flaming a project for no good reason is one thing, and will incur flames like yours, however vitriolic and ignorant they may be, in retaliation. Offering constructive criticism as the GP did is a Good Thing(tm). He is a Firefox user, ergo it is completely within his rights to suggest, criticise, or review. Are the Firefox devs just coding the browser for their fucking health?
His question was within the context of TFA. He was asking the Slashdot community whether anyone knew if this was being worked on already. Slashdot is not the correct venue to ask questions about FLOSS projects? What the fuck are you talking about? You are also blindly assuming that he has no plans to submit a bug report and/or speak to developers about the issue. Do I really need to explain to you what assuming does?
Everyone that uses FLOSS has the responsibility to fix bugs themselves and meticulously file bug reports? Did I miss that meeting? Using it, advocating it to everyone who will listen, and contributing via donations aren't enough, right?
From this vantage point, it seems like the GP had a valid question within the context of the discussion, and instead of getting any sort of worthwhile advice or reassurance, he got an elitist dick with a stick up his ass, and the knowledge that some people in the FLOSS community are narcissistic assholes.