So basically what you're saying is that German people are so retarded that, if Nazis (which are, what, 1% of the populace) would be allowed to spread their ideas unchecked, your average German would adopt them en masse and vote them into law? So free speech and democracy have to be restricted for people to not, God forbid, vote the wrong way?
And you call that a "free country". Oh, the irony.
It was the in-fighting between socialists and communists that brought NSDAP to power; and that was largely caused by Stalin's orders to German communists to disassociate themselves from socialists (during this period, Soviet press had a habit of referring to socialists as "social-fascists"). This bickering cost both parties a lot of votes, but more importantly, it made them #2 and #3 largest parties in the parliament (with NSDAP being #1), whereas a unified list would place them firmly at the #1 spot.
Is it legal in Germany to campaign for decriminalization of hate speech? If not, then it's not exactly the will of the people (or at least it cannot be determined conclusively).
Germany has a bunch of other deeply suspicious stuff in its constitution. For example, the state can ban political parties for promoting ideas "contrary to democracy", or even for not having a sufficiently democratic internal structure; and the corresponding provisions of the constitution aren't amendable. To what extent such a regulated democracy is really democracy is a valid question.
See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: It's illegal in the US as well to say hate speech.
This is not a hate speech case, it is about profanity. Hate speech is largely permitted in accordance with the standard set by Brandenburg v. Ohio (which was later than the case that you cite, so even if it were applicable, Brandenburg would have overruled it).
In actuality, they're very clear: you cannot make a remark in public that glorifies or approves of the Nazis.
So pray tell, when they ban games because they use swastikas (in historically appropriate context, like Wolfenstein), which one of the two is that? "Approval" or "glorification"?
Given that the same law exists in America (not legally, but socially it does)
You do realize that "not legally" means "not a law", right? By definition.
It's not totalitarian for society to self-organize and ostracize those whose views are seeing as politically repugnant, as we do to National-Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations etc in the USA. But it's a far cry from actually persecuting people for expressing such views, with all power of the state behind it, resulting in fines and even jail sentences. That is totalitarian.
You might also note that there's no law banning Ku Klux Klan in USA - it legally operates and advertises itself. Nor is it illegal to talk about them or use their symbols.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is still criminal when you know there's no fire.
It isn't, actually. It's only criminal if there are other people in with you in the theater, and if they rush and this results in injuries or damages, or - if such a rush didn't happen - if it were imminent to the yelling.
By the way, it's worth remembering the context in which this "yelling fire" canard has first being proposed. To remind, this is from Schenck v. United States SCOTUS decision, which upheld a conviction of an anti-conscription activist during WW1. It's not even a valid legal standard anymore, having been superseded by "imminent lawless action".
The American notion of free speech is radical. It's also new. You could still be _legally_ thrown into jail here for passing out communist literature until the 1950s.
It's not really new - it's more a case of the courts exercising extreme judicial deference for a long time from the post-Reconstruction era on, allowing the legislatures (who are, inevitably, more prone to populist sentiment) stomp on numerous constitutionally protected rights, including freedom of speech. What we're seeing now with respect to 1A is a reversal of that.
Oh my, a person using their phone and the "unlimited" data plan as they were advertised! What a despicable thing to do!
Remind me again, why is running a BT client on the phone being an asshole?
The one screwing everyone else in the area is not Joe Torrent. It's the telco that advertised something that they couldn't deliver, and didn't put any reasonable throttling or QoS in place.
Except they seem to have a problem with tethering specifically, not with heavy data usage. Note that you can, in fact, run a full-fledged BitTorrent client on your Android phone, for example; it's even available directly from Play Store.
A megabyte of data is a megabyte of data. Once it gets to the phone, it should be none of the operator's business where it goes from there. If that breaks their business model, it's a shitty model, and they should do something more sane, like not advertising their plans as "unlimited", or better yet, just metering traffic.
Stock Android didn't limit tethering until 5.0, if I remember correctly. In general, installing an app to tether is not a "hack", it's just an app that legitimately uses data on the phone by forwarding it elsewhere. It's not legally or technically fundamentally different from forwarding an email from your phone to your PC over WiFi.
It was coming from Alaska for the past, what, 40 years? Except that they couldn't get it done because it had to be done on federal level (they have already renamed it on state level), and they were successfully blocked from doing so by Ohio. Obama used his executive power - quite legitimate, in this particular case - to overcome the block.
When the residents have appealed to the Congress to carve a chunk out of the Oregon Territory and make it separate, they have initially proposed naming it Columbia Territory. It was changed to Washington during the discussions in the Congress, because someone suggested that it would be confusing because of District of Columbia...
OTOH, when Washington became a state, there was a plebiscite for its constitution, which spelled out the name. So one could argue that it was, in fact, approved by the populace in the end. There's certainly no significant movement contesting the naming at this point, unlike with Denali.
In other words, they wanted strong federal government for the issues where it was convenient to them, and strong state government otherwise. Which is exactly how the North was, too, it's just that the issues were different. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that CSA wouldn't have ended with more federal power were it to remain independent, for the same exact reason as USA did.
This leads to another interesting question: once they do discover a really bad exploit in systemd, how hard is it to patch? Can it be done without restarting the system entirely?
Aliases are not realy a fix you can not reliably write shell script with them and stay portable.
Huh? Of course you can, you just define the aliases at the beginning of the file.
And, of course, there may well be built-in aliases, especially for commands that have well-known historical names. PowerShell does exactly this - for example, "Get-ChildItem" is aliased as "ls" out of the box, and "Copy-Item" is aliased as "cp".
If what you propose would become a reality, it sounds like any person who has had a sexual relationship could then be accused of rape, and, so long as the mere fact of intercourse is proven, would basically be considered guilty by default unless they can show some proof of consent. Do you not see the obvious and incredible potential of abuse here?
FWIW, as far as your analogies go, I don't think they're correct, either. If I go to the local convenience store and buy something, and then later accuse the shopkeeper of stealing my money, I very much doubt that any court would entertain the notion that the shopkeeper should prove on preponderance of evidence that the transfer was voluntary, and that if he is unable to do so, he gets locked up for robbery.
The alternatives to Hillary are either Bernie Sanders or someone from the republican clown car. I can't see Bernie getting elected, and, well, the ones in the clown car frankly scare the hell out of me. We will be right back in the ditch Bush drove us in, except it will be twenty foot deeper with Donald Trump's wall around it to make damn sure we don't get out again!
First of all, this is not a valid reason to ignore clearly harmful, and potentially criminal conduct.
But in any case, what makes you believe Sanders cannot get elected? Getting him through the primaries with Hillary in there is problematic, yes, but in the general election? Especially if it really is vs Trump (which at this point I think is not at all unlikely)?
Yes, you're not Vox Day. You're his minion. He speaks with your voice, and you do his bidding with your hands.
Even if you claim that is not the case - like Correia, Torgersen etc did - your actions, and, most importantly, their results, have shown otherwise.
Past a certain point, there is no sense in distinguishing between the Sads and the Rabids. It's like trying to separate CCC from KKK - sure, there is a difference, but what matters in the end is that both are racist and act as such. Same thing here.
All I see is a bunch of whining by the very people who organized the stacking. That the stacking happened is so obvious to anyone who followed the events that I won't even bother addressing that: you're either horribly misinformed, or else deliberately lying to maximize the damage. Given the nature of the Vox minion crowd, probably the latter.
"I have 390 sworn and numbered vile faceless minions—the hardcore shock troops—who are sworn to mindless and perfect obedience... the dark lord speaks, the minion acts"
Slashdot Mirror
So basically what you're saying is that German people are so retarded that, if Nazis (which are, what, 1% of the populace) would be allowed to spread their ideas unchecked, your average German would adopt them en masse and vote them into law? So free speech and democracy have to be restricted for people to not, God forbid, vote the wrong way?
And you call that a "free country". Oh, the irony.
It was the in-fighting between socialists and communists that brought NSDAP to power; and that was largely caused by Stalin's orders to German communists to disassociate themselves from socialists (during this period, Soviet press had a habit of referring to socialists as "social-fascists"). This bickering cost both parties a lot of votes, but more importantly, it made them #2 and #3 largest parties in the parliament (with NSDAP being #1), whereas a unified list would place them firmly at the #1 spot.
His party was democratically elected to the plurality of seats in the parliament, however. Repeatedly, in fact.
Is it legal in Germany to campaign for decriminalization of hate speech? If not, then it's not exactly the will of the people (or at least it cannot be determined conclusively).
Germany has a bunch of other deeply suspicious stuff in its constitution. For example, the state can ban political parties for promoting ideas "contrary to democracy", or even for not having a sufficiently democratic internal structure; and the corresponding provisions of the constitution aren't amendable. To what extent such a regulated democracy is really democracy is a valid question.
See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: It's illegal in the US as well to say hate speech.
This is not a hate speech case, it is about profanity. Hate speech is largely permitted in accordance with the standard set by Brandenburg v. Ohio (which was later than the case that you cite, so even if it were applicable, Brandenburg would have overruled it).
In actuality, they're very clear: you cannot make a remark in public that glorifies or approves of the Nazis.
So pray tell, when they ban games because they use swastikas (in historically appropriate context, like Wolfenstein), which one of the two is that? "Approval" or "glorification"?
Given that the same law exists in America (not legally, but socially it does)
You do realize that "not legally" means "not a law", right? By definition.
It's not totalitarian for society to self-organize and ostracize those whose views are seeing as politically repugnant, as we do to National-Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations etc in the USA. But it's a far cry from actually persecuting people for expressing such views, with all power of the state behind it, resulting in fines and even jail sentences. That is totalitarian.
You might also note that there's no law banning Ku Klux Klan in USA - it legally operates and advertises itself. Nor is it illegal to talk about them or use their symbols.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is still criminal when you know there's no fire.
It isn't, actually. It's only criminal if there are other people in with you in the theater, and if they rush and this results in injuries or damages, or - if such a rush didn't happen - if it were imminent to the yelling.
By the way, it's worth remembering the context in which this "yelling fire" canard has first being proposed. To remind, this is from Schenck v. United States SCOTUS decision, which upheld a conviction of an anti-conscription activist during WW1. It's not even a valid legal standard anymore, having been superseded by "imminent lawless action".
The American notion of free speech is radical. It's also new. You could still be _legally_ thrown into jail here for passing out communist literature until the 1950s.
It's not really new - it's more a case of the courts exercising extreme judicial deference for a long time from the post-Reconstruction era on, allowing the legislatures (who are, inevitably, more prone to populist sentiment) stomp on numerous constitutionally protected rights, including freedom of speech. What we're seeing now with respect to 1A is a reversal of that.
The apps make tethered data look like phone data
I wonder how you distinguish "tethered data" from "phone data". Oh, I know! We could reuse the evil bit!
Oh my, a person using their phone and the "unlimited" data plan as they were advertised! What a despicable thing to do!
Remind me again, why is running a BT client on the phone being an asshole?
The one screwing everyone else in the area is not Joe Torrent. It's the telco that advertised something that they couldn't deliver, and didn't put any reasonable throttling or QoS in place.
Except they seem to have a problem with tethering specifically, not with heavy data usage. Note that you can, in fact, run a full-fledged BitTorrent client on your Android phone, for example; it's even available directly from Play Store.
A megabyte of data is a megabyte of data. Once it gets to the phone, it should be none of the operator's business where it goes from there. If that breaks their business model, it's a shitty model, and they should do something more sane, like not advertising their plans as "unlimited", or better yet, just metering traffic.
Stock Android didn't limit tethering until 5.0, if I remember correctly. In general, installing an app to tether is not a "hack", it's just an app that legitimately uses data on the phone by forwarding it elsewhere. It's not legally or technically fundamentally different from forwarding an email from your phone to your PC over WiFi.
From now on, I'm going to name every inconsequential stream and cliff my eyes lay upon during any of my hikes, just for the sake of trolling.~
It was coming from Alaska for the past, what, 40 years? Except that they couldn't get it done because it had to be done on federal level (they have already renamed it on state level), and they were successfully blocked from doing so by Ohio. Obama used his executive power - quite legitimate, in this particular case - to overcome the block.
When the residents have appealed to the Congress to carve a chunk out of the Oregon Territory and make it separate, they have initially proposed naming it Columbia Territory. It was changed to Washington during the discussions in the Congress, because someone suggested that it would be confusing because of District of Columbia...
OTOH, when Washington became a state, there was a plebiscite for its constitution, which spelled out the name. So one could argue that it was, in fact, approved by the populace in the end. There's certainly no significant movement contesting the naming at this point, unlike with Denali.
In other words, they wanted strong federal government for the issues where it was convenient to them, and strong state government otherwise. Which is exactly how the North was, too, it's just that the issues were different. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that CSA wouldn't have ended with more federal power were it to remain independent, for the same exact reason as USA did.
This leads to another interesting question: once they do discover a really bad exploit in systemd, how hard is it to patch? Can it be done without restarting the system entirely?
Aliases are not realy a fix you can not reliably write shell script with them and stay portable.
Huh? Of course you can, you just define the aliases at the beginning of the file.
And, of course, there may well be built-in aliases, especially for commands that have well-known historical names. PowerShell does exactly this - for example, "Get-ChildItem" is aliased as "ls" out of the box, and "Copy-Item" is aliased as "cp".
If what you propose would become a reality, it sounds like any person who has had a sexual relationship could then be accused of rape, and, so long as the mere fact of intercourse is proven, would basically be considered guilty by default unless they can show some proof of consent. Do you not see the obvious and incredible potential of abuse here?
FWIW, as far as your analogies go, I don't think they're correct, either. If I go to the local convenience store and buy something, and then later accuse the shopkeeper of stealing my money, I very much doubt that any court would entertain the notion that the shopkeeper should prove on preponderance of evidence that the transfer was voluntary, and that if he is unable to do so, he gets locked up for robbery.
Who's exposed, who's still kicking, what is over, and what have I lost?
You may try to talk to actual people instead of the voices in your head. As it is, your reply sounds like an incoherent rambling.
Even assuming that this paranoid conspiracy theory is correct, why is it the government's business what private artists do with their art?
American news, for the most part, aren't actually news, they're entertainment.
The alternatives to Hillary are either Bernie Sanders or someone from the republican clown car. I can't see Bernie getting elected, and, well, the ones in the clown car frankly scare the hell out of me. We will be right back in the ditch Bush drove us in, except it will be twenty foot deeper with Donald Trump's wall around it to make damn sure we don't get out again!
First of all, this is not a valid reason to ignore clearly harmful, and potentially criminal conduct.
But in any case, what makes you believe Sanders cannot get elected? Getting him through the primaries with Hillary in there is problematic, yes, but in the general election? Especially if it really is vs Trump (which at this point I think is not at all unlikely)?
Yes, you're not Vox Day. You're his minion. He speaks with your voice, and you do his bidding with your hands.
Even if you claim that is not the case - like Correia, Torgersen etc did - your actions, and, most importantly, their results, have shown otherwise.
Past a certain point, there is no sense in distinguishing between the Sads and the Rabids. It's like trying to separate CCC from KKK - sure, there is a difference, but what matters in the end is that both are racist and act as such. Same thing here.
All I see is a bunch of whining by the very people who organized the stacking. That the stacking happened is so obvious to anyone who followed the events that I won't even bother addressing that: you're either horribly misinformed, or else deliberately lying to maximize the damage. Given the nature of the Vox minion crowd, probably the latter.
"I have 390 sworn and numbered vile faceless minions—the hardcore shock troops—who are sworn to mindless and perfect obedience ... the dark lord speaks, the minion acts"
A very diverse attitude, that.