It was presented in the context that 6 million Jews were killed in concentration camps for no reason other than being jewish. There was never any mention that the Nazis also killed 9 million non-jews (including Poles, Russian POWs, Gypsies, other christian sects like Jehovas Witnesses, etc), or that half of those 6 million jews were killed for being Polish as much as any other reason.
I'm not a scholar on the subject either, but I think you are missing the point. The Nazis killed a lot of other people (even more than the 6 million Jews as you mentioned), but most of those killings weren't made based on their races or whatever general category they happened to fall in. As far as I know, the only groups that the Nazis determined to systematically exterminate were the Jews and the homosexuals. That, instead of the shear numbers of killings themselves or any comparison between them, is what I think fundamentally important as far as teaching the kids is concerned.
But GP's point 1 wasn't about the 5th Amendment, not directly anyway. It was about Miranda rights, which while admittedly came from the 5th Amendment, but have become a rule on its own. In other words, a court can deem a confession inadmissible simply on the basis of the suspect having not been read his rights prior to the confession, rather than invoking the 5th Amendment and rule on the constitutionality of the police extracting the confession.
Web servers are intended for the dissemination of information to third parties. Wi-fi gateways are basic infrastructure, and can be reasonably be considered intended for the use of authorized parties only, given most people are unlikely to want anonymous third parties using their network without permission.
I find the words you use above like "intended" and "basic infrastructure" very arbitrary. Web servers can be argued to be part of the basic infrastructure of any entity with online presence, and most web servers are set up to allow anonymous access without permission. Both web servers and wifi gateways are set up to open up some sort of "portal" to allow access to information that otherwise cannot be accessed.
A garden gate can reasonably be assumed, if the gate is unlocked, to be not intended as a barrier to prevent a visitor from entering. A front door, however, can be reasonably assumed whether locked or unlocked to be a boundary over which a visitor cannot cross without explicit permission.
This is arbitrary, too. Logically or conceptually I don't see any definitively clear line that can be drawn between a garden gate and a front door and a thousand other types of entrances between those two. If you see a garden gate unlocked, would you "reasonably assume" that you can just walk in without being accused of trespassing - or just shot on the spot?
Yes... Pressure for the Chinese government to completely block Google. And as I've pointed out before, Google is not a major force in China. It's not even the most used search engine, Baidu is. (A Chinese search engine which, you'd better believe is heavily censored by the Chinese government.) I'm astounded at how much "pressure" you and others here think that Google can place on the Chinese government or other businesses. I cannot emphasize how wrong you are. The answer is none. Not a little, not miniscule, not some contribution to an aggregate amount that will someday change the country. None.
Well, your repeated "emphasis" doesn't mean anything. Geez, if we could all argue our point by repeatedly saying "you are wrong", life would be so much easier, wouldn't it?
I don't see any rebuttal to my earlier point - that if google gets banned, its high profile (it does NOT have to be the leading search engine in China to have a high profile) will make the Chinese people wonder what the hell the government won't want them to see. And before Google gets to the point of getting banned, its non-censored/less-censored content will provide the Chinese people some baseline against the censored content.
It's more like, "What's the point of donating 3 cents for relieving the Katrina damages?" In the end, it doesn't make a difference at all, and the effort it takes to process those three pennies actually takes away from Katrina relief efforts.
I find your insisting on using 3 cents rather than 100 bucks amusing. As if that would help making your point. What's the difference between 100 dollars and 3 cents _figuratively_, when compared to the billions of dollars donation people around the world made _collectively_?
It's the exact same thing here. Going after Google, a company that has significantly contributed to this and other communities for something that will literally make no difference at all isn't helping the situation. It's only hurting a good company for no reason (which is--should I say it?--evil) and distracting people from real ways they can make a difference.
Really? Why don't you give us some example for the "real ways they can make a difference," In terms of helping the Chinese people gaining more democracy and human rights?
The more technology we seem to use these days the less social we seem to become. Answer honestly, when was the last time you had a chat with your neighbor? Do you even know their names?
But why does not knowing my neighbor's name make me less social? Why doesn't discussing on slashdot with people like you make me more social?
In other words, what makes my neighbor weigh more - way more - than those I interact with in the virtual world when it gets to deciding my "social karma"?
If technologies have enabled us to communicate with or without being face-to-face, shouldn't we also upgrade our definitions of "social" and "sense of community"?
I think the misguided idea here is that Google can single-handedly pressure the Chinese government into giving free speech to its citizens. The rationale, I suppose, is that China wants Google so badly that they will shed off oppression just to have it.
Well, I think that is not so much a misguided idea as a straw man of yours. Most opinions I have read on/. are not about how Google is looked up to be "the messiah for the freedom of speech in China". All most people are saying is every bit of Google's effort in resisting the Chinese government's censorship will add that much pressure. And with Google's market share and high profile, that can end up being a lot of pressure - not only pressure on the Chinese government, but also pressure on its peers like Yahoo and MSN.
If you believe this, you're fooling yourself. There's not a damn thing that Google can do to give people in China the right to free speech. If this proposal passed, the Chinese government would simply block Google from all of China, and by the time the Chinese people do hopefully have free speech someday, they'll all be using Yahoo and MSN instead of Google.
What do you mean "there is not a damn thing Google can do"?! If Google is not blocked, its search results will be different from those other search sites that are either state-controlled or self-censored. If it is blocked, then the Chinese people would wonder what's there that their government don't want them to see (as in the wikipedia blocking case)). And that's still better than showing them content censored by the government, because then the people won't know better.
Now, I'm not suggesting that Google should try to be the hero and disregard its shareholders' interest, but I'm more sick and tired of arguments like yours, which are not far from arguing "what's the point of donating $100 bucks if that's not going to be even remotely meaningful for relieving the Katrina damages."
Says the only two-party state I know of. Whichever party has 52% this term screws over the other 48% without flinching.
Without flinching? US Congress members do not always vote along their party lines. Also, in case you weren't aware, US Congress members do have terms, and do get reelected _individually_.
If you wanted negotiation, you should look to Europe where we have many smaller parties, shifting coalitions trying to match the will of the people on a case by case basis, not just heads or tails every five years or so.
Yeah, you also have the government reshuffled _every_time_ such shifting becomes significant enough to change the majority composition. Having the chief executive of the country changed every quarter isn't really a good thing.
I'm not saying the US system is clearly superior to those in Europe in all aspects. It's all about compromising at a balance point, and there are many such points available.
Disorderly conduct, which carries a penalty of 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine, is filed for pranks such as pulling a fire alarm or dialing 911. But it can also apply when someone's writings can disturb an individual, Delelio said.
"The teacher was alarmed and disturbed by the content," he said.
OK, I'm disturbed by the teacher's reaction and the arrest. I'd like to invoke the same statute and have the teacher arrested.
Hardly. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Um...no... you don't make the decision about whether to collect stamps as a hobby based on logic or any objective evidence. You do that out of your own subjective and arbitrary reasons. On the other hand, atheists assert that there isn't a God, without any evidences. The only logical statement behind Atheism is "we don't need a God to explain anything," and that is a correct statement on its own, but "don't need something" is only good enough to get you as far as, well, "don't need," but not to the point of asserting the non-existence.
BTW, in case you haven't figured out by now, I am agnostic. 8-)
Exactly, this is another case of classic US unilateralism. The US government use the UN, WTO and other international groups to get their own way with the rest of the world but then ignore those same groups when the rest of the world has its own issues.
How does this become a case of US unilateralism, "this" being the US filing a complaint with an international organization against another country which is also a member of the same organization, through the protocols agreed to by all members of the organization?
I always remember when some US official was asked why the US didn't recognise the International court of Justice, he replied "because this would allow other nations to bring trials against OUR leaders". The US just doesn't get the idea of "international cooperation", you can't just use collaboration to get your own way without compromise. Perhaps it would help if the US realised that it isn't always right.
Would you mind citing the reference on which US official said that? The US' concern with the ICJ is that it would allow other nations to bring trials against any US citizen in a legal procedure that's not subjected to the judicial review under the US constitution. The US government is just following the mandate to protect its citizens. Not agreeing to submit its citizen to the disposal of an ad-hoc international tribunal is what a government is supposed to do.
Umm, no.. we can reasonably consider "banning all gambling" on moral grounds. On the other hand, banning only onling gambling can't be. Selective application of moral standards is simply hypocrisy.
The people who don't use Google are the same people who don't care why, so long as it works.
Hmm, there is some subtle difference here I think.
The people who don't read wikipedia are the same people who don't care why so long as it works.
And I think that the people who don't use Google are the same people who don't care why even when it doesn't work.
It's gotta work with no more than 1 trip to NVidia.com to get the latest driver package. Which is all it takes to get working under Windows. I hold every operating system to that VERY LOW standard. It's a low bar to meet. Ubuntu has yet to meet it.
It's a good and fair standard - to be held against every hardware vendor, not the operating system. If nvidia doesn't make an effort to make it easier for a particular OS (I don't blame nvidia as they surely have their own legitimate reasons from business standpoint), there isn't much that OS can do, can it?
oke then where is the online put-the-garbage-can-outside service?
I spotted this outside a local Chinese restaurant the other day:
"XXXXXXX Gourmet now provides online delivery. Please visit our web site at http://www.theirwebsite.com/"
I suppose if we can download Kung Pao Chicken, uploading a trash can shouldn't be much of a problem either.
Slashdot Mirror
I find the words you use above like "intended" and "basic infrastructure" very arbitrary. Web servers can be argued to be part of the basic infrastructure of any entity with online presence, and most web servers are set up to allow anonymous access without permission. Both web servers and wifi gateways are set up to open up some sort of "portal" to allow access to information that otherwise cannot be accessed.
This is arbitrary, too. Logically or conceptually I don't see any definitively clear line that can be drawn between a garden gate and a front door and a thousand other types of entrances between those two. If you see a garden gate unlocked, would you "reasonably assume" that you can just walk in without being accused of trespassing - or just shot on the spot?
(link to video) those Girls pledging to support abolishing women's suffrage
I don't see any rebuttal to my earlier point - that if google gets banned, its high profile (it does NOT have to be the leading search engine in China to have a high profile) will make the Chinese people wonder what the hell the government won't want them to see. And before Google gets to the point of getting banned, its non-censored/less-censored content will provide the Chinese people some baseline against the censored content.
I find your insisting on using 3 cents rather than 100 bucks amusing. As if that would help making your point. What's the difference between 100 dollars and 3 cents _figuratively_, when compared to the billions of dollars donation people around the world made _collectively_? Really? Why don't you give us some example for the "real ways they can make a difference," In terms of helping the Chinese people gaining more democracy and human rights?In other words, what makes my neighbor weigh more - way more - than those I interact with in the virtual world when it gets to deciding my "social karma"?
If technologies have enabled us to communicate with or without being face-to-face, shouldn't we also upgrade our definitions of "social" and "sense of community"?
Well, I think that is not so much a misguided idea as a straw man of yours. Most opinions I have read on
What do you mean "there is not a damn thing Google can do"?! If Google is not blocked, its search results will be different from those other search sites that are either state-controlled or self-censored. If it is blocked, then the Chinese people would wonder what's there that their government don't want them to see (as in the wikipedia blocking case)). And that's still better than showing them content censored by the government, because then the people won't know better.
Now, I'm not suggesting that Google should try to be the hero and disregard its shareholders' interest, but I'm more sick and tired of arguments like yours, which are not far from arguing "what's the point of donating $100 bucks if that's not going to be even remotely meaningful for relieving the Katrina damages."
I'm not saying the US system is clearly superior to those in Europe in all aspects. It's all about compromising at a balance point, and there are many such points available.
Please also note that the consent to join WTO, and in turn subject itself to rules including IP protection, was a sovereign decision made by China.
BTW, in case you haven't figured out by now, I am agnostic. 8-)
Oh wait, actually, the server isn't there at all untill you ssh to it...
Dude, which part of the "Free Software don't mean shit if no ordinary users can use it" do you not understand?
How does this become a case of US unilateralism, "this" being the US filing a complaint with an international organization against another country which is also a member of the same organization, through the protocols agreed to by all members of the organization?
Would you mind citing the reference on which US official said that? The US' concern with the ICJ is that it would allow other nations to bring trials against any US citizen in a legal procedure that's not subjected to the judicial review under the US constitution. The US government is just following the mandate to protect its citizens. Not agreeing to submit its citizen to the disposal of an ad-hoc international tribunal is what a government is supposed to do.
Me too! It should have been "Snakes on Slashdot", them insensitive clods!
Umm, no.. we can reasonably consider "banning all gambling" on moral grounds. On the other hand, banning only onling gambling can't be. Selective application of moral standards is simply hypocrisy.
... in Soviet Russia!
Oh, wait, never mind...
The people who don't read wikipedia are the same people who don't care why so long as it works.
And I think that the people who don't use Google are the same people who don't care why even when it doesn't work.
It's a good and fair standard - to be held against every hardware vendor, not the operating system. If nvidia doesn't make an effort to make it easier for a particular OS (I don't blame nvidia as they surely have their own legitimate reasons from business standpoint), there isn't much that OS can do, can it?
I suppose if we can download Kung Pao Chicken, uploading a trash can shouldn't be much of a problem either.
Man, the moms from Mothers Against Canada are gonna be so mad.