The first amendment protects free speech, it is not itself free speech. Free speech is an idea we think is so valuable that we wrote a law to protect it.
So do you think comcast should be allowed to create a TOS that kicks anyone who uses their service and criticizes it off of their internet? How about apple revoking the licenses of anyone critical of their child labor practises? You dont have a RIGHT to their services after all. I for one don't want to give away my free speech to CEO's and corporations. You are very short sighted if you think arguments used to silence opinions you don't like won't eventually be used against you. Free speech is a concept that is a good idea. The first amendment is a right based on the good idea of Free Speech. The first amendment is not the end of the concept of free speech.
We would not have feminist, the civil rights movement, or black lives matter if it were not for freedom of speech. How about you stop sawing at the branch you are sitting on?
No the world is divided into people who stand for their principals and people who hypocritically pay lip service to principals. Anti-sjw people aren't against actual social justice, just the useless posturing and twisting of social justice causes to create a new caste system.
A social justice warrior doesn't actually advance the cause of social justice. You simply have been mislead as to the meaning of the word. Look up it's origins sometime. The term was created by the left to call out their hypocrisy.
Yup it does. The comments section is where a story can be refuted or additional information that was left out can be found and even have a remote chance of being seen by someone who just read the article.
Even without gps computer vision should be more than capable of navigating via stars today. Shutting down gps is not going to stop missiles or anything else that would rely on gps very soon.
>>Do you believe that free speech creates an obligation in others to help spread said speech?
>>Free speech does *not* mean anyone else is required to help you spread what you say to a wider audience.
I think that a person who is for free speech has an obligation not to interfere with anyone else's speech. You have miscategorized this issue to imply "Someone allowing a view they don't like to exist is going through extra work to enable someone else's speech" That's not how the internet works. It's more work to be a censor than to "help spread" speech. If anything people are going out of their way to destroy the expression of competing viewpoints; killing ideological diversity. While I dont think people have an obligation to provide a platform for views they hate, I hold the people who do just that in the highest respect. If you really believed in free speech you would too.
>>Do you believe that free speech creates an obligation in others to listen to said speech?
Nope but it certainly creates an obligation not to interfere with other people's right to listen. (Which is what you pro-censor crowd are afraid of anyway) When you censor you aren't just hurting the person speaking. You violate every person who could have heard it as well. You took their right to choose what to listen to away from them.
>>Free speech does *not* mean anyone else is prevented from saying that what you are saying is good/bad/ignorant/insightful/beautiful/ugly.
I agree with this point as it stands. See my first point.
>>Do you believe that free speech creates an obligation in others to help spread said speech?
>>Free speech does *not* mean anyone else is required to help you spread what you say to a wider audience.
I think that a person who is for free speech has an obligation not to interfere with anyone else's speech. You have miscategorized this issue to imply "Someone allowing a view they don't like to exist is going through extra work to enable someone else's speech" That's not how the internet works. It's more work to be a censor than to "help spread" speech.
If anything people are going out of their way to destroy the expression of competing viewpoints; killing ideological diversity. While I dont think people have an obligation to provide a platform for views they hate, I hold the people who do just that in the highest respect. If you really believed in free speech you would too.
>>Do you believe that free speech creates an obligation in others to listen to said speech?
Nope but it certainly creates an obligation not to interfere with other people's right to listen. (Which is what you pro-censor crowd are afraid of anyway)
When you censor you aren't just hurting the person speaking. You violate every person who could have heard it as well. You took their right to choose what to listen to away from them.
>>Free speech does *not* mean anyone else is prevented from saying that what you are saying is good/bad/ignorant/insightful/beautiful/ugly.
I agree with this point as it stands. See my first point.
Maybe they dont have an obligation to protect the principals of free speech but their actions certainly dont lend themselves to the idea of free speech. You can censor stuff and not be a government and if you do you are acting against free speech. I dont see how corporate control over speech is any better than government control, so XKCD can suck a dick on this one.
Depends on what you are looking for. If "successful outcome" is defined as more people graduate then of course you are going to get more people graduating when you stick them in groups with people who actually do the work and understand the material. The people to whom grades and understanding are important will carry the ones who cant cut it. If you want deep understanding and that is your definition of successful outcome I imagine that being alone helps.
Most people right now. There are a few workarounds though. You can make a virtual nose for instance. Also helmets that take up a bit of the screen helps too.
So maybe he lied about the ammunition because he didn't want to get into trouble about shooting the gun? All I know is that when people start playing fast and loose with claims of perversion they are generally full of shit. They guy obviously didn't stop to hover or peep on anyone. Sounds like the "farmer" just wanted to get the internet knee jerking about privacy to keep himself out of trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
One way to help is to not allow anyone who asks for power to have said power.
The first amendment protects free speech, it is not itself free speech. Free speech is an idea we think is so valuable that we wrote a law to protect it.
So do you think comcast should be allowed to create a TOS that kicks anyone who uses their service and criticizes it off of their internet? How about apple revoking the licenses of anyone critical of their child labor practises? You dont have a RIGHT to their services after all. I for one don't want to give away my free speech to CEO's and corporations. You are very short sighted if you think arguments used to silence opinions you don't like won't eventually be used against you. Free speech is a concept that is a good idea. The first amendment is a right based on the good idea of Free Speech. The first amendment is not the end of the concept of free speech. We would not have feminist, the civil rights movement, or black lives matter if it were not for freedom of speech. How about you stop sawing at the branch you are sitting on?
No the world is divided into people who stand for their principals and people who hypocritically pay lip service to principals. Anti-sjw people aren't against actual social justice, just the useless posturing and twisting of social justice causes to create a new caste system. A social justice warrior doesn't actually advance the cause of social justice. You simply have been mislead as to the meaning of the word. Look up it's origins sometime. The term was created by the left to call out their hypocrisy.
I guess #codergate is going to be a thing too now...
Wasn't a review it was positive coverage. The whole review thing was always a strawman that anti-gamergate groups set up to be knocked down.
Yup it does. The comments section is where a story can be refuted or additional information that was left out can be found and even have a remote chance of being seen by someone who just read the article.
What if I told you both groups were guilty of censorship?
Even without gps computer vision should be more than capable of navigating via stars today. Shutting down gps is not going to stop missiles or anything else that would rely on gps very soon.
We seem to be off to a good start there at least.
Right to work is bullshit. It's the opposite of what is says. It really means your employer can fire you for literally anything.
In completely unrelated news their bank account was also breached when a literal ton of money was deposited by Five Eyes.
>>Do you believe that free speech creates an obligation in others to help spread said speech? >>Free speech does *not* mean anyone else is required to help you spread what you say to a wider audience.
I think that a person who is for free speech has an obligation not to interfere with anyone else's speech. You have miscategorized this issue to imply "Someone allowing a view they don't like to exist is going through extra work to enable someone else's speech" That's not how the internet works. It's more work to be a censor than to "help spread" speech. If anything people are going out of their way to destroy the expression of competing viewpoints; killing ideological diversity. While I dont think people have an obligation to provide a platform for views they hate, I hold the people who do just that in the highest respect. If you really believed in free speech you would too.
>>Do you believe that free speech creates an obligation in others to listen to said speech?
Nope but it certainly creates an obligation not to interfere with other people's right to listen. (Which is what you pro-censor crowd are afraid of anyway) When you censor you aren't just hurting the person speaking. You violate every person who could have heard it as well. You took their right to choose what to listen to away from them.
>>Free speech does *not* mean anyone else is prevented from saying that what you are saying is good/bad/ignorant/insightful/beautiful/ugly. I agree with this point as it stands. See my first point.
>>Do you believe that free speech creates an obligation in others to help spread said speech? >>Free speech does *not* mean anyone else is required to help you spread what you say to a wider audience. I think that a person who is for free speech has an obligation not to interfere with anyone else's speech. You have miscategorized this issue to imply "Someone allowing a view they don't like to exist is going through extra work to enable someone else's speech" That's not how the internet works. It's more work to be a censor than to "help spread" speech. If anything people are going out of their way to destroy the expression of competing viewpoints; killing ideological diversity. While I dont think people have an obligation to provide a platform for views they hate, I hold the people who do just that in the highest respect. If you really believed in free speech you would too. >>Do you believe that free speech creates an obligation in others to listen to said speech? Nope but it certainly creates an obligation not to interfere with other people's right to listen. (Which is what you pro-censor crowd are afraid of anyway) When you censor you aren't just hurting the person speaking. You violate every person who could have heard it as well. You took their right to choose what to listen to away from them. >>Free speech does *not* mean anyone else is prevented from saying that what you are saying is good/bad/ignorant/insightful/beautiful/ugly. I agree with this point as it stands. See my first point.
Maybe they dont have an obligation to protect the principals of free speech but their actions certainly dont lend themselves to the idea of free speech. You can censor stuff and not be a government and if you do you are acting against free speech. I dont see how corporate control over speech is any better than government control, so XKCD can suck a dick on this one.
Only rage I see is in your post.
I didnt know about it before and now I do. Thanks sweden. Now sue yourselves.
Depends on what you are looking for. If "successful outcome" is defined as more people graduate then of course you are going to get more people graduating when you stick them in groups with people who actually do the work and understand the material. The people to whom grades and understanding are important will carry the ones who cant cut it. If you want deep understanding and that is your definition of successful outcome I imagine that being alone helps.
Most people right now. There are a few workarounds though. You can make a virtual nose for instance. Also helmets that take up a bit of the screen helps too.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain
The video kinda proves that though doesn't it? If I were spying on someone shouldn't I be able to actually see them?
Because it has a gps module installed that he tracked?
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Or the guy lied about what ammo he used.
So maybe he lied about the ammunition because he didn't want to get into trouble about shooting the gun? All I know is that when people start playing fast and loose with claims of perversion they are generally full of shit. They guy obviously didn't stop to hover or peep on anyone. Sounds like the "farmer" just wanted to get the internet knee jerking about privacy to keep himself out of trouble.