The aforementioned right to free speech would be a biggie. Americans are allowed to insight all of the hate they want, as long as they don't directly command a violent act to take place or do something to the effect of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
At a convention once, I saw a Canadian bureaucrat who said, "Canadians are sheep." He wasn't trying to insult his fellow countrymen as much as emphasize how much the Canadian citizens are willing to cede control of their lives to the government.
Patents exist to promote innovation. Why would a company invest millions in R&D if their competitor will just mimic them once they bring the product to market. The idea is that once the original creator has recouped their costs of developing the product, the patent will expire. Funny since this patent is about to expire.
How about if your domain name is blahblah.com, then your web server could be www.blahblah.com? It gets better: Your mail server could be mail.blahblah.com. And yes, your coffe pot could be coffeepot1.blahblah.com.
If there can not be a proven violation of the letter of the Constitution, it is a big and subjective uphill battle. The language also seems to be more broad than it does vague.
I think it was a veterans group I saw on TV one night talking about the American flag and how to treat it with respect. They made the point that burning it is at least the proper way to dispose of it, whereas wrapping your crotch in it as underwear is disgraceful.
I don't think Americans of Arab descent should be nearly as much of a concern as Arabs. Right wing extremists and animal rights activists tend to target a pretty narrow spectrum and are rarely willing to sacrifice their own lives to maximize the casualties they claim. Islamic terrorists seem to have little or no fear of this. Just because more Americans than Muslims kill Americans does not mean much of anything.
Don't you think it is rational (even if you don't think it is ethical) to be more concerned with Muslims of middle eastern descent than little old woman of American descent when performing airport security? What about a group of mid-20's men appearing to be of Middle Eastern descent carrying backpacks into a federal building? My Mohamed Atta example is one of my greatest fears of Left wing politics. There is a political movement in this country that is willing to allow Americans to die, if need be, in order to protect people from feeling unfairly picked on.
Racial profiling and causing physical pain and discomfort (but not real injury) to suspects are practices that go far beyond the current administration and this country. These things just may be occurring while an unpopular president holds office. This does not mean we have entered a new and scary draconian world.
The irony for me is that Bush seems so grossly liberal. In my mind he is to the far left of FDR and JFK. Much of what he is criticized for is a result of his capitulation to the left. It blows my mind how Democrats in Congress criticize him for not giving American soldiers in Iraq proper equipment when they themselves voted down the funds to provide such equipment. Look at all the Congressman scramble to come up with conspiracy theories about intelligence before the war in Iraq.
I hear Senators on the radio talk about secret intelligence that Bush had buried to convince them we should go to war. There is no evidence of this at all. All evidence supports the theory that Bush saw the same intelligence as Congress. This is political posturing in its purest form from people who want to pretend they were not willing participants of an unpopular action. The sad thing is that otherwise intelligent people are willing to believe them now.
I don't think there was ever a disagreement. Whenever a story comes out like the original article, I see responses (presumably from Americans) that amount to, "omglol canada is beccoming wrose than teh US." It does not seem terribly well known that the average citizen in the US enjoys many civil liberties that no one in Canada does.
I can say nearly anything I want in the US provided it does not insight violence or directly cause harm to others. Insighting hate is not a crime here.
And, don't forget that Canada dropped its birth right citizenship policy some time ago, but the US still gets a bad reputation for not being nice enough to illegal immigrants.
Thanks for creating that last. I suppose those all seem like minor things on the fringe, even in a not-too-broad historical context. Even proving that those things are constitutional violations takes a pretty big stretch. Few of them could realistically be seen as to-the-letter violations by a judge, leaving an uphill battle with a "spirit of the law" argument.
My sig was a little stab at everyone, left and right. If it bothers you, you are a conservative. If it doesn't bother you, you are in support of flag-burning. Both of those can be seen as insulting depending on one's political views.
I freely admit that I see the ACLU as a grotesque abomination that mutated from something that was originally quite patriotic. At best, they are an irritation. At worst, they are the fifth column. I've never been religious in my life, but this country was founded under Christian values. For the ACLU to concern itself with advocating the removal of every religious symbol possible is just a form of revisionist history. This article is somewhat demonstrable of the type of nonsense they worry about. I remember a woman on NPR one day talking about the US's secular beginnings and laughed my ass off.
The ACLU also takes the position that we should never racially profile, even if it is a more effective way of investigation. This is nonsense and best summed up by the phrase, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." I've even heard liberals getting more and more irritated with airport security by seeing little old women having their yarn bags torn through while Muslims in their 20s and 30s wearing backpacks walk by without so much as a second glance.
Additionally, with respect to torture, imagine Mohamed Atta were captured on 9/10/01 as a suspected terrorist. Do you really think we should stand their saying "pretty please" hoping he will talk? Not only would I be content with him suffering being photographed naked, put into a jail cell without A/C, or watching the Kuran be flushed down a toilet, but I would hope that five times a day when it was time for him to pray to Mecca, he was beaten to within an inch of his life.
For groups like the ACLU to claim that under those circumstances we should not torture is why they appear to me as the fifth column. Sadly, what is currently called torture by the left is pretty damn weak. I'm pretty sure a small child with a little self-discipline could hold out indefinitely.
That's a big "possibly" though. All studies are funded, where the funding comes from is not important unless one is trying to explain a recognizable error in a study -- a beta is miscalculated, the sampling pool lacks adequate diversity, etc.
None of them since I never made that claim and don't really care. You sound like another unreasonable OSS evangelist. Congratulations, you're on the same level with the low-level IT manager who pushes for Windows no matter what.
Linux and anti-tobacco are also comparable in that they are led by insecure and petty people who want to tell others what to do. Anti-tobacco outspends tobacco by quite a bit. I wonder how much longer it will be before Linux is the new corporate whore little guy with billions behind it.
The mouth would be the shotgun, shooting it would be denying the holocaust, and murder would be the hate crime. Believe whatever you like, but it would seem quite clear that Canada has no problem seeking legal action against people if the words that come out of the mouth are deemed hateful.
1.) What laws has President Bush pushed that punish speech, religion, or free assembly? 2.) Where have the republicans raised gun control? 4.) All I can think of the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretaps. Though it is difficult to justify that following into seizure of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." What else is there? 5.) ??? 6.) I am guessing you are talking about detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This issue has been addressed in the past, and if anything it is a Geneva Convention violation. 8.) How has President Bush imposed excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment? 9.) Read up on your history. This does not guarantee you the right to check out communist literature from public libraries, it is about absolute fundamental rights like eating, sleeping, and fucking.
Please don't tell me you believe the pundits that the recent Congressional vote was about support for torture. Some of the most brutal and militant actions in this country's history happened under progressives (FDR and JFK spring to mind).
For what its worth, I never get news from television and listen to Michael Savage (an avid anti-Republican) and Howie Carr (local Boston host) for political talk radio. I suppose you watch CNN, and listen to Al Franken and Jerry Springer on Air America? Or are you just another quasi-intellectual listening to National Propaganda Radio? See, I can play that game too.
I sincerely doubt it would on Slashdot. Though burning the Bill of Rights would seem to be more up Clinton's alley -- at least with respect to its first, second, and fourth articles. I am curious what there is in the Bill of Rights that has been "burned" by the current Republican Oval Office.
It's not. Like any of these studies on Linux/Windows, OO.o/MS Office, etc, this is just another marketing tool. Organizations should make informed decisions on what works best for them. I work for an office where none of the systems administrators are capable of using a shell and editing a config file. This pretty much makes Windows a shoe-in. On the other hand, I run our web applications under Zope, which (along with Python and other dependencies) does much better in Linux/FreeBSD.
That's like saying that shooting someone in the head with a shotgun is not illegal, but murder is. Furthermore, the relative low number of people prosecuted for an act does not mean the act is not illegal.
I live in Massachusetts, where sodomy (the main tools being oral and anal sex) is illegal. It is rare that someone is ever charged for it, but it is still an enforced law.
How does that not support my claim that it is illegal in Canada to deny the holocaust? Whether or not free speech is a consideration is irrelevant to my claim. My statement was not a subjective or contentious one. You just threw up a link that in fact supports my claim.
Slashdot Mirror
The aforementioned right to free speech would be a biggie. Americans are allowed to insight all of the hate they want, as long as they don't directly command a violent act to take place or do something to the effect of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
At a convention once, I saw a Canadian bureaucrat who said, "Canadians are sheep." He wasn't trying to insult his fellow countrymen as much as emphasize how much the Canadian citizens are willing to cede control of their lives to the government.
But that is why we have a default DNS suffix. You don't even need jukebox.here -- just jukebox.
I was being facetious. Your idea mitigates a problem unrelated to IP address space and would cause more difficulties in implementation than IPv6.
Patents exist to promote innovation. Why would a company invest millions in R&D if their competitor will just mimic them once they bring the product to market. The idea is that once the original creator has recouped their costs of developing the product, the patent will expire. Funny since this patent is about to expire.
How about if your domain name is blahblah.com, then your web server could be www.blahblah.com? It gets better: Your mail server could be mail.blahblah.com. And yes, your coffe pot could be coffeepot1.blahblah.com.
If there can not be a proven violation of the letter of the Constitution, it is a big and subjective uphill battle. The language also seems to be more broad than it does vague.
I think it was a veterans group I saw on TV one night talking about the American flag and how to treat it with respect. They made the point that burning it is at least the proper way to dispose of it, whereas wrapping your crotch in it as underwear is disgraceful.
I don't think Americans of Arab descent should be nearly as much of a concern as Arabs. Right wing extremists and animal rights activists tend to target a pretty narrow spectrum and are rarely willing to sacrifice their own lives to maximize the casualties they claim. Islamic terrorists seem to have little or no fear of this. Just because more Americans than Muslims kill Americans does not mean much of anything.
Don't you think it is rational (even if you don't think it is ethical) to be more concerned with Muslims of middle eastern descent than little old woman of American descent when performing airport security? What about a group of mid-20's men appearing to be of Middle Eastern descent carrying backpacks into a federal building? My Mohamed Atta example is one of my greatest fears of Left wing politics. There is a political movement in this country that is willing to allow Americans to die, if need be, in order to protect people from feeling unfairly picked on.
Racial profiling and causing physical pain and discomfort (but not real injury) to suspects are practices that go far beyond the current administration and this country. These things just may be occurring while an unpopular president holds office. This does not mean we have entered a new and scary draconian world.
The irony for me is that Bush seems so grossly liberal. In my mind he is to the far left of FDR and JFK. Much of what he is criticized for is a result of his capitulation to the left. It blows my mind how Democrats in Congress criticize him for not giving American soldiers in Iraq proper equipment when they themselves voted down the funds to provide such equipment. Look at all the Congressman scramble to come up with conspiracy theories about intelligence before the war in Iraq.
I hear Senators on the radio talk about secret intelligence that Bush had buried to convince them we should go to war. There is no evidence of this at all. All evidence supports the theory that Bush saw the same intelligence as Congress. This is political posturing in its purest form from people who want to pretend they were not willing participants of an unpopular action. The sad thing is that otherwise intelligent people are willing to believe them now.
I don't think there was ever a disagreement. Whenever a story comes out like the original article, I see responses (presumably from Americans) that amount to, "omglol canada is beccoming wrose than teh US." It does not seem terribly well known that the average citizen in the US enjoys many civil liberties that no one in Canada does.
I can say nearly anything I want in the US provided it does not insight violence or directly cause harm to others. Insighting hate is not a crime here.
And, don't forget that Canada dropped its birth right citizenship policy some time ago, but the US still gets a bad reputation for not being nice enough to illegal immigrants.
No. You're winning because your views are gaining popularity. Congratulations, sell-out. Grow up a little bit and gain some perspective.
Thanks for creating that last. I suppose those all seem like minor things on the fringe, even in a not-too-broad historical context. Even proving that those things are constitutional violations takes a pretty big stretch. Few of them could realistically be seen as to-the-letter violations by a judge, leaving an uphill battle with a "spirit of the law" argument.
My sig was a little stab at everyone, left and right. If it bothers you, you are a conservative. If it doesn't bother you, you are in support of flag-burning. Both of those can be seen as insulting depending on one's political views.
I freely admit that I see the ACLU as a grotesque abomination that mutated from something that was originally quite patriotic. At best, they are an irritation. At worst, they are the fifth column. I've never been religious in my life, but this country was founded under Christian values. For the ACLU to concern itself with advocating the removal of every religious symbol possible is just a form of revisionist history. This article is somewhat demonstrable of the type of nonsense they worry about. I remember a woman on NPR one day talking about the US's secular beginnings and laughed my ass off.
The ACLU also takes the position that we should never racially profile, even if it is a more effective way of investigation. This is nonsense and best summed up by the phrase, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." I've even heard liberals getting more and more irritated with airport security by seeing little old women having their yarn bags torn through while Muslims in their 20s and 30s wearing backpacks walk by without so much as a second glance.
Additionally, with respect to torture, imagine Mohamed Atta were captured on 9/10/01 as a suspected terrorist. Do you really think we should stand their saying "pretty please" hoping he will talk? Not only would I be content with him suffering being photographed naked, put into a jail cell without A/C, or watching the Kuran be flushed down a toilet, but I would hope that five times a day when it was time for him to pray to Mecca, he was beaten to within an inch of his life.
For groups like the ACLU to claim that under those circumstances we should not torture is why they appear to me as the fifth column. Sadly, what is currently called torture by the left is pretty damn weak. I'm pretty sure a small child with a little self-discipline could hold out indefinitely.
That's a big "possibly" though. All studies are funded, where the funding comes from is not important unless one is trying to explain a recognizable error in a study -- a beta is miscalculated, the sampling pool lacks adequate diversity, etc.
Don't forget who won the Civil War ;)
None of them since I never made that claim and don't really care. You sound like another unreasonable OSS evangelist. Congratulations, you're on the same level with the low-level IT manager who pushes for Windows no matter what.
Linux and anti-tobacco are also comparable in that they are led by insecure and petty people who want to tell others what to do. Anti-tobacco outspends tobacco by quite a bit. I wonder how much longer it will be before Linux is the new corporate whore little guy with billions behind it.
The mouth would be the shotgun, shooting it would be denying the holocaust, and murder would be the hate crime. Believe whatever you like, but it would seem quite clear that Canada has no problem seeking legal action against people if the words that come out of the mouth are deemed hateful.
1.) What laws has President Bush pushed that punish speech, religion, or free assembly?
2.) Where have the republicans raised gun control?
4.) All I can think of the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretaps. Though it is difficult to justify that following into seizure of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." What else is there?
5.) ???
6.) I am guessing you are talking about detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This issue has been addressed in the past, and if anything it is a Geneva Convention violation.
8.) How has President Bush imposed excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment?
9.) Read up on your history. This does not guarantee you the right to check out communist literature from public libraries, it is about absolute fundamental rights like eating, sleeping, and fucking.
Please don't tell me you believe the pundits that the recent Congressional vote was about support for torture. Some of the most brutal and militant actions in this country's history happened under progressives (FDR and JFK spring to mind).
For what its worth, I never get news from television and listen to Michael Savage (an avid anti-Republican) and Howie Carr (local Boston host) for political talk radio. I suppose you watch CNN, and listen to Al Franken and Jerry Springer on Air America? Or are you just another quasi-intellectual listening to National Propaganda Radio? See, I can play that game too.
I sincerely doubt it would on Slashdot. Though burning the Bill of Rights would seem to be more up Clinton's alley -- at least with respect to its first, second, and fourth articles. I am curious what there is in the Bill of Rights that has been "burned" by the current Republican Oval Office.
Bullshit. Sun, IBM, and Novel are marketing Linux to the very high end of the spectrum. If you want pro-Linux studies, do a Google search.
Linux is a grassroot effort like the anti-tobacco movement -- both are backed by many millions of dollars.
It's not. Like any of these studies on Linux/Windows, OO.o/MS Office, etc, this is just another marketing tool. Organizations should make informed decisions on what works best for them. I work for an office where none of the systems administrators are capable of using a shell and editing a config file. This pretty much makes Windows a shoe-in. On the other hand, I run our web applications under Zope, which (along with Python and other dependencies) does much better in Linux/FreeBSD.
And I suppose the pro-Linux studies are more valid?
Actually I was thinking of Keegstra. Either case is still indicative of Canada's stance on free speech and civil rights.
That's like saying that shooting someone in the head with a shotgun is not illegal, but murder is. Furthermore, the relative low number of people prosecuted for an act does not mean the act is not illegal.
I live in Massachusetts, where sodomy (the main tools being oral and anal sex) is illegal. It is rare that someone is ever charged for it, but it is still an enforced law.
How does that not support my claim that it is illegal in Canada to deny the holocaust? Whether or not free speech is a consideration is irrelevant to my claim. My statement was not a subjective or contentious one. You just threw up a link that in fact supports my claim.
holocaust denial canada turned up quite a bit.
Do some research on what the ninth amendment was intended to protect against -- the language makes it sound much more open-ended than it really is.
People have been convicted in Canada of denying the holocaust in recent history. Google for it.
Googling turns up quite a bit. Why don't you try that before you accuse me of talking out of my ass? Thanks.