I broadly agree with parent, but let's illustrate one possible benefit of password changing:
Using myself as a subject, I have tended to use variations on a common, 'hard' password in many different contexts over the years. Hence, it would most likely have been possible for someone to intercept my password in one context (I.e. website) and use it in another (I.e. network access).
It's quite possible that this is one of the areas in which forced password switching is a plus - it forces users to differentiate their passwords over different networks and sites, so that it is more difficult to "fish" for a particular password.
Especially when confronted by an inverviewer, I very much doubt people would list "playing video games" as a high-status activity. Rather, it's associated with nerdyness, and is thus low-status behavior.
No, but you can still snicker at the nickel-n-dime business model. There is more to inter-human relationships (yes, including Corporate-Customer relations) than just sheer legalism and formalism.
With all kinds of epidemiological studies, there is one thing that is important - multiple, independent confirmations. Why? Because the very methodology (correlation) used in epidemiological studies tends to produce incorrect results at a rate of about five percent (as this study, as most others, use 95 % confidence intervals - it's arbitrary, but they have to set the limit somewhere...) In addition to this, there are of course the usual mistakes, the whole issue of using controls (which is often messy, as there are often lots of complicated causation assumptions to be made), plus occationally outright fudging or fraud. (As in the recent high-profile Korean stem cell case)
All of this in turn guarantees that there will be a steady flow of spectacular, yet incorrect results, without anyone being incompetent or maliciously misleading. Thus, it's important to look at the consistency of results across studies. However, our beloved media rarely does this, as spectacular results make good copy and move newspapers. (Plus, journalists and statistics don't mix)
My point? One study should not a panic make. Or something like that.
It's not about windows being "slow" as in "OMG!!! SOLITARE LO4DZORZ ZLOW11!1!111!", but as in "Geepers! The Windows development cycle sure is taking its jolly time!".
Saying that Marx advocated gradual reform indicates that you really don't understand Marx worth a damn. Revolution is the very point of Marxism - as he makes clear in "The Communist Manifesto". He puts it this way:
" Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
So, we will indeed have blissful classlessness, but first we need a good revolution, not some wishy-washy reformism. That Communism is a revolutionary creed has really never been much of a secret - until it came crashing down that is. Then it suddenly became "all about sharing". Heh.
"in the rest of the world 'Communism' is a political viewpoint, something about sharing etc etc."
No, to semi-educated Slashdotters 'Communism' is 'something about sharing'. Communism (I.e. Marxist communism, the only version that survived the 19:th century) is the teaching of the radical remaking of society and mankind itself through first civil war and revolution, then the supreme rule of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. This is also how Communists have (attempted) to go about (with some variation) creating the Communist ideal state.
What has been implemented in some* Nordic countries, notably my own country (Sweden) is rather Reformism, which is founded on the rejection of Communism and the implementation of gradual reform of society (as the name implies). This also means that Sweden has always had a relatively vital private sector with many large multinational corporations. (Volvo, SAAB, ASEA, SKF, IKEA, H&M, etc.) Still, a larger share of savings and income transfers are routed through the state than in the rest of Europe (on the order of 10 percent of GDP or so).
Essentially, the benefits of using computers in basic education are dubious at best. It could perhaps be useful in conjunction with the internet, as a textbook replacement, but I doubt service quality is going to be good enough if you have to use a crank-powered laptop.
Not only the level of usage is a relevant metric, the trend is relevant too. Got some data on that handy? (I would bet we are seeing a significant upwards trend, that is likely to continue.)
The sad part is that Slashdotters mod a critical, but well-reasoned and coherent statement down as "troll". Sad, sad sad.
And yes, I have used TPB extensively before I got decent broadband (I now use DC++ instead - 10mbit+ hubs ftw!) - yet I never deluded myself to the point that I believed that I was involved in some sort of great cause.
Did you like, actually live in Sweden? You have to wonder after reading something like this:
"And all this despite alcohol (and probably other drugs) being more easily accessible in this country".
Sweden employs strict drug laws, both for dealing and possession, concerning both 'soft' and 'hard' drugs. We also run a government-owned alcohol monopoly ("Systembolaget"), with restricted opening hours and several hundered percent penalty taxes on hard liquor. What do you have in Oz? Prohibition?
As for crime, etc. Sweden is definately a decent place, about in level with the rest of Europe when it comes to crime victimization rates, etc. (Australia does stand out as having somewhat more baddies than average. Renegade surfers? Or all those backpackers?)
Finally, it's interesting to see how lefties always recoil at the suggestion that they are terrorist sympathizers, then happily spout off stuff that sounds like the latest communique from the local Al Qaeda branch office.
You have already conceded that several organs and functions have undergone different selection paths among different groups of humans - Why then is it that you arbitrarily exclude the brain from having undergone such divergent development, without actually citing any evidence?
As for IQ, virtually every form of IQ test produces significant differences between the classical racial groups, on the order of ~1 / ~0,5 Standard Deviations. But I assume the proper response to such a phenomenon for intelligent people is to spout an endless stream of cant and invective. Heh.
My point: Discussing both similarity and difference matters - as is the case in most areas of study, in most diciplines. (Especially when discussing aggregates) The Diamond article was just to show that even the high n' mighty Mr. Diamond has found human difference a worthy subject of study and discussion.
On another, somewhat ironic note, you go on about how my IQ is supposedly shoe-size level. Yet as soon as race and IQ are discussed in conjunction, IQ is suddenly transformed into racist pseudoscience. Heh.
You are slipping wildly between dissing some sort of value-based racism "My race roxx0rs, yours suxx0rs" and the impact of genetic differences on the economies of different countries - these issues are not one and the same. The first one relates to morality and values, the second is almost entirely empirical, and as such is not subject to human morality or wishful thinking.
As for Diamond, I was still "among the (self-) righteous" when I read GGaS. Yet, it struck me after reading it that the jacket didn't match the contents very well - Diamond never "disproves racism" or somesuch, he merely details how different the envioronments where the different parts of humanity have lived after leaving Africa have been. Of course, as we know from Darwinism, different environments tend to produce different evolutionary outcomes...
Let's finish off the discussion with this Jared Diamond article, written and published before he started making the big lecture circuit bucks. Without further ado, I give you 'Guns, Germs and Gonads':
"Nature. 1986 Apr 10-16; 320(6062):488-9.
Ethnic differences
Variation in human testis size
from Jared M. Diamond
THE potential harvest from studies of human testis size, a subject that has received little systematic investigation, is indicated in a paper by R. V. Short (ref. 1), who documents variations between ethnic groups which could be correlated with the incidence of dizygotic twins and breast cancer.
Although measurements of testis size by orchidometry in living subjects are difficult to standardize, they suggest smaller testes in Japanese and Korean men than in Caucasians. Weighing at autopsy is more accurate and showed that the size was twofold lower in two Chinese samples compared with a Danish sample (see figure). Differences in body size make only a slight contribution to these values."
Amazing how conformist a few million in lecture fees can make a man's thinking, no?
I used to be a self-righteous asshole in these areas too, so I can understand where the emotion is coming from, no prob. I grew out of it, perhaps you will too.
"ummm, there's a lot of human biodiversity. didja ya happen to miss all of my purty examples of such in my post dorothy?"
You only cited non-controversial examples that most people don't get worked up over. That's not what I found interesting - even the most committed self-righteous assholes don't have major problems discussing the genetic basis of lactose tolerance. Rather, it is the openness to entertain differences in mental ability and personality that I found interesting. (People *really* get worked up over those issues, not that I blame them...)
"similiarities from man to man: 10^33 magnitude greater meaning than all of the biodiversity"
Meaning is contextual - thus, sometimes differences in average characteristics between groups mean something (to some people), sometimes they don't. True, our common humanity means a great deal - but that doesn't mean that it's not interesting to find out just how much we differ as well.
We will find out one way or another in all likelyhood, given the speed at which science is making progress, but if we are to be able to handle the findings maturely, some basic civility would probably be a good place to start.
The point is rather that virtually all social 'science' research set the parameter "genetic influence = 0" for little other than ideological reasons. The "gene people" are merely pushing for the genetic aspect to be considered at all, not for it to reign supreme. This, I believe, is a very reasonable request.
Water is not the central concern here - the brain is. And yes, my bet is that no brain = no you. (I sure as hell won't put mine through a mixer...) The makeup of your brain has a significant genetic component, and thus the rest follows...
There have been several papers on human genes, including genes coding for brain development, undergoing heavy selective pressure in timespans closer than 10 000 years. There was once recently in the NYTimes, browse their science section.
"not a fucking thing! JUST LIKE THIS FUCKING RACIST BULLSHIT"
It's interestign to note that you have a priori not only quantified the importance of human genetic variation, but also that your primary argument apart from pre-dictating the results of research is spouting lots of verbal abuse.
As an aside, I find it interesting to notice the degree of acceptance amongst Slashdotters to the concepts of human biodiversity. A stealth consensus in the making?
"I need an extra pair of arms. I think I will develop them through a spontaneous change in my genome... They have got to be kidding me. The concept that you spontaneously evolve through a need for evolution is an outdated concept in science and most people would be laughed out of a room of scientists if they were to even talk about it."
Either you fatally misunderstood the point in the article, or you have fatally misunderstood the way evolution works. Being able to better digest milk provides a higher level of Darwinian fitness under certain conditions (I.e. if cattle milk is an important source of nutrition for you and your children). Thus, mutations that cause you to better digest cattle milk are selected for (I.e. people with the mutation have more surviving and reproducing offspring).
Evolution, however, is not limitless - it has to work within the current genetic blueprint. Thus, mutations causing radical departures from the standard layout of humans are generally very harmful to fitness, and do not spread.
There is no great need to look for examples, as many of them are listed on the Canadian Human Rights commission's own website. (Under the "proactive initiatives" section, no less.) Some cool examples:
"Tribunal level
On July 18, 1996, the Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations (the Mayor's Committee) filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Mr. Zündel was placing messages on the World Wide Web likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, contrary to subsection 13(1) of the Act. "
As we can see here, the standard is inciting "hatred or contempt" (I.e. basic human emotions), no violence whatsover, nor any incitement is required. Clearly, we are talking about pure mindcrime.
"By the early 1990s, the Heritage Front had become the mo st public and powerful of Canada's white supremacist groups. It served as an umbrella group and a clearing house for the extreme right in Canada. Its primary recruitment tool was the Heritage hotline, a telephone message line eventually run by a professional marketer using sophisticated telemarketing sales techniques. Reportedly, the line received 400 to 500 calls per day.
In February 1992, the Native Canadian Centre in Toronto complained that messages on the Heritage hotline violated subsection 13(1) of the Act, by exposing persons of particular ethnic origin to hatred and contempt. *snip*"
"The Court sentenced the three individual respondents to one to three months in jail each and ordered the Heritage Front to pay a $5,000 fine."
Again, pure mindcrime. There is more at the CHRC website:
"Perhaps the protection of minorities makes you think that Canada is lacking in freedom of speech. Whatever. Want to know what else Canada lacks? Race riots."
Methinks this has little to do with Canada being so hot about mindcrime. More to do with, erm, you do remember that whole slavery thing, don't you?
"In closing, you can say whatever damned stupid thing you want here in Canada -- but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences when you decide to start preaching hatered, and try to incite hatred between communities."
So we are slipping rapidly between "inciting violence" and "preaching hatered", all of a sudden? Did Big Brother bother telling you what "hatred" actually means? Or is it enough if you are told every once in a while when the definition is expanded once again?
The problem here is of course that both Canadian and the law in several European countries go much further than prohibiting incitement to violence into pure mindcrime territory. (I.e, "we really don't like your opinions, so we'll just throw you in jail.")
Slashdot Mirror
I broadly agree with parent, but let's illustrate one possible benefit of password changing:
Using myself as a subject, I have tended to use variations on a common, 'hard' password in many different contexts over the years. Hence, it would most likely have been possible for someone to intercept my password in one context (I.e. website) and use it in another (I.e. network access).
It's quite possible that this is one of the areas in which forced password switching is a plus - it forces users to differentiate their passwords over different networks and sites, so that it is more difficult to "fish" for a particular password.
Especially when confronted by an inverviewer, I very much doubt people would list "playing video games" as a high-status activity. Rather, it's associated with nerdyness, and is thus low-status behavior.
No, but you can still snicker at the nickel-n-dime business model. There is more to inter-human relationships (yes, including Corporate-Customer relations) than just sheer legalism and formalism.
With all kinds of epidemiological studies, there is one thing that is important - multiple, independent confirmations. Why? Because the very methodology (correlation) used in epidemiological studies tends to produce incorrect results at a rate of about five percent (as this study, as most others, use 95 % confidence intervals - it's arbitrary, but they have to set the limit somewhere...) In addition to this, there are of course the usual mistakes, the whole issue of using controls (which is often messy, as there are often lots of complicated causation assumptions to be made), plus occationally outright fudging or fraud. (As in the recent high-profile Korean stem cell case)
All of this in turn guarantees that there will be a steady flow of spectacular, yet incorrect results, without anyone being incompetent or maliciously misleading. Thus, it's important to look at the consistency of results across studies. However, our beloved media rarely does this, as spectacular results make good copy and move newspapers. (Plus, journalists and statistics don't mix)
My point? One study should not a panic make. Or something like that.
It's not about windows being "slow" as in "OMG!!! SOLITARE LO4DZORZ ZLOW11!1!111!", but as in "Geepers! The Windows development cycle sure is taking its jolly time!".
Saying that Marx advocated gradual reform indicates that you really don't understand Marx worth a damn. Revolution is the very point of Marxism - as he makes clear in "The Communist Manifesto". He puts it this way:
" Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
So, we will indeed have blissful classlessness, but first we need a good revolution, not some wishy-washy reformism. That Communism is a revolutionary creed has really never been much of a secret - until it came crashing down that is. Then it suddenly became "all about sharing". Heh.
This is merely a case of the Australian government protecting gullible leftists, I.e. see:
a ny-things-ive-said-about-john-howard
_ 21387.shtml
http://stoush.net/liam/213/in-which-i-take-back-m
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article
"in the rest of the world 'Communism' is a political viewpoint, something about sharing etc etc."
No, to semi-educated Slashdotters 'Communism' is 'something about sharing'. Communism (I.e. Marxist communism, the only version that survived the 19:th century) is the teaching of the radical remaking of society and mankind itself through first civil war and revolution, then the supreme rule of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. This is also how Communists have (attempted) to go about (with some variation) creating the Communist ideal state.
What has been implemented in some* Nordic countries, notably my own country (Sweden) is rather Reformism, which is founded on the rejection of Communism and the implementation of gradual reform of society (as the name implies). This also means that Sweden has always had a relatively vital private sector with many large multinational corporations. (Volvo, SAAB, ASEA, SKF, IKEA, H&M, etc.) Still, a larger share of savings and income transfers are routed through the state than in the rest of Europe (on the order of 10 percent of GDP or so).
For some useful background, I think this site has a lot of good information: (Via the Chronicle of higher education / Arts & Letters Daily):
http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/computer.htm
Essentially, the benefits of using computers in basic education are dubious at best. It could perhaps be useful in conjunction with the internet, as a textbook replacement, but I doubt service quality is going to be good enough if you have to use a crank-powered laptop.
Not only the level of usage is a relevant metric, the trend is relevant too. Got some data on that handy? (I would bet we are seeing a significant upwards trend, that is likely to continue.)
The sad part is that Slashdotters mod a critical, but well-reasoned and coherent statement down as "troll". Sad, sad sad.
And yes, I have used TPB extensively before I got decent broadband (I now use DC++ instead - 10mbit+ hubs ftw!) - yet I never deluded myself to the point that I believed that I was involved in some sort of great cause.
Did you like, actually live in Sweden? You have to wonder after reading something like this:
. php)
"And all this despite alcohol (and probably other drugs) being more easily accessible in this country".
Sweden employs strict drug laws, both for dealing and possession, concerning both 'soft' and 'hard' drugs. We also run a government-owned alcohol monopoly ("Systembolaget"), with restricted opening hours and several hundered percent penalty taxes on hard liquor. What do you have in Oz? Prohibition?
As for crime, etc. Sweden is definately a decent place, about in level with the rest of Europe when it comes to crime victimization rates, etc. (Australia does stand out as having somewhat more baddies than average. Renegade surfers? Or all those backpackers?)
(Statistics from here: http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/statistics
Finally, it's interesting to see how lefties always recoil at the suggestion that they are terrorist sympathizers, then happily spout off stuff that sounds like the latest communique from the local Al Qaeda branch office.
You have already conceded that several organs and functions have undergone different selection paths among different groups of humans - Why then is it that you arbitrarily exclude the brain from having undergone such divergent development, without actually citing any evidence?
As for IQ, virtually every form of IQ test produces significant differences between the classical racial groups, on the order of ~1 / ~0,5 Standard Deviations. But I assume the proper response to such a phenomenon for intelligent people is to spout an endless stream of cant and invective. Heh.
My point: Discussing both similarity and difference matters - as is the case in most areas of study, in most diciplines. (Especially when discussing aggregates) The Diamond article was just to show that even the high n' mighty Mr. Diamond has found human difference a worthy subject of study and discussion.
On another, somewhat ironic note, you go on about how my IQ is supposedly shoe-size level. Yet as soon as race and IQ are discussed in conjunction, IQ is suddenly transformed into racist pseudoscience. Heh.
You are slipping wildly between dissing some sort of value-based racism "My race roxx0rs, yours suxx0rs" and the impact of genetic differences on the economies of different countries - these issues are not one and the same. The first one relates to morality and values, the second is almost entirely empirical, and as such is not subject to human morality or wishful thinking.
As for Diamond, I was still "among the (self-) righteous" when I read GGaS. Yet, it struck me after reading it that the jacket didn't match the contents very well - Diamond never "disproves racism" or somesuch, he merely details how different the envioronments where the different parts of humanity have lived after leaving Africa have been. Of course, as we know from Darwinism, different environments tend to produce different evolutionary outcomes...
Let's finish off the discussion with this Jared Diamond article, written and published before he started making the big lecture circuit bucks. Without further ado, I give you 'Guns, Germs and Gonads':
"Nature. 1986 Apr 10-16; 320(6062):488-9.
Ethnic differences
Variation in human testis size
from Jared M. Diamond
THE potential harvest from studies of human testis size, a subject that has received little systematic investigation, is indicated in a paper by R. V. Short (ref. 1), who documents variations between ethnic groups which could be correlated with the incidence of dizygotic twins and breast cancer.
Although measurements of testis size by orchidometry in living subjects are difficult to standardize, they suggest smaller testes in Japanese and Korean men than in Caucasians. Weighing at autopsy is more accurate and showed that the size was twofold lower in two Chinese samples compared with a Danish sample (see figure). Differences in body size make only a slight contribution to these values."
Amazing how conformist a few million in lecture fees can make a man's thinking, no?
Read the whole thing at: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003206.html,
" i verbally abuse racists
i consider that is a virtue of mine"
I used to be a self-righteous asshole in these areas too, so I can understand where the emotion is coming from, no prob. I grew out of it, perhaps you will too.
"ummm, there's a lot of human biodiversity. didja ya happen to miss all of my purty examples of such in my post dorothy?"
You only cited non-controversial examples that most people don't get worked up over. That's not what I found interesting - even the most committed self-righteous assholes don't have major problems discussing the genetic basis of lactose tolerance. Rather, it is the openness to entertain differences in mental ability and personality that I found interesting. (People *really* get worked up over those issues, not that I blame them...)
"similiarities from man to man: 10^33 magnitude greater meaning than all of the biodiversity"
Meaning is contextual - thus, sometimes differences in average characteristics between groups mean something (to some people), sometimes they don't. True, our common humanity means a great deal - but that doesn't mean that it's not interesting to find out just how much we differ as well.
We will find out one way or another in all likelyhood, given the speed at which science is making progress, but if we are to be able to handle the findings maturely, some basic civility would probably be a good place to start.
The point is rather that virtually all social 'science' research set the parameter "genetic influence = 0" for little other than ideological reasons. The "gene people" are merely pushing for the genetic aspect to be considered at all, not for it to reign supreme. This, I believe, is a very reasonable request.
Water is not the central concern here - the brain is. And yes, my bet is that no brain = no you. (I sure as hell won't put mine through a mixer...) The makeup of your brain has a significant genetic component, and thus the rest follows...
There have been several papers on human genes, including genes coding for brain development, undergoing heavy selective pressure in timespans closer than 10 000 years. There was once recently in the NYTimes, browse their science section.
"not a fucking thing! JUST LIKE THIS FUCKING RACIST BULLSHIT"
It's interestign to note that you have a priori not only quantified the importance of human genetic variation, but also that your primary argument apart from pre-dictating the results of research is spouting lots of verbal abuse.
As an aside, I find it interesting to notice the degree of acceptance amongst Slashdotters to the concepts of human biodiversity. A stealth consensus in the making?
"I need an extra pair of arms. I think I will develop them through a spontaneous change in my genome... They have got to be kidding me. The concept that you spontaneously evolve through a need for evolution is an outdated concept in science and most people would be laughed out of a room of scientists if they were to even talk about it."
Either you fatally misunderstood the point in the article, or you have fatally misunderstood the way evolution works. Being able to better digest milk provides a higher level of Darwinian fitness under certain conditions (I.e. if cattle milk is an important source of nutrition for you and your children). Thus, mutations that cause you to better digest cattle milk are selected for (I.e. people with the mutation have more surviving and reproducing offspring).
Evolution, however, is not limitless - it has to work within the current genetic blueprint. Thus, mutations causing radical departures from the standard layout of humans are generally very harmful to fitness, and do not spread.
Why, that was a very reasoned, fact-filled rebuttal.
There is no great need to look for examples, as many of them are listed on the Canadian Human Rights commission's own website. (Under the "proactive initiatives" section, no less.) Some cool examples:
a l_milestones-en.asp
"Tribunal level
On July 18, 1996, the Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations (the Mayor's Committee) filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Mr. Zündel was placing messages on the World Wide Web likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, contrary to subsection 13(1) of the Act. "
As we can see here, the standard is inciting "hatred or contempt" (I.e. basic human emotions), no violence whatsover, nor any incitement is required. Clearly, we are talking about pure mindcrime.
"By the early 1990s, the Heritage Front had become the mo
st public and powerful of Canada's white supremacist groups. It served as an umbrella group and a clearing house for the extreme right in Canada. Its primary recruitment tool was the Heritage hotline, a telephone message line eventually run by a professional marketer using sophisticated telemarketing sales techniques. Reportedly, the line received 400 to 500 calls per day.
In February 1992, the Native Canadian Centre in Toronto complained that messages on the Heritage hotline violated subsection 13(1) of the Act, by exposing persons of particular ethnic origin to hatred and contempt. *snip*"
"The Court sentenced the three individual respondents to one to three months in jail each and ordered the Heritage Front to pay a $5,000 fine."
Again, pure mindcrime. There is more at the CHRC website:
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/leg
"Perhaps the protection of minorities makes you think that Canada is lacking in freedom of speech. Whatever. Want to know what else Canada lacks? Race riots."
Methinks this has little to do with Canada being so hot about mindcrime. More to do with, erm, you do remember that whole slavery thing, don't you?
"In closing, you can say whatever damned stupid thing you want here in Canada -- but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences when you decide to start preaching hatered, and try to incite hatred between communities."
So we are slipping rapidly between "inciting violence" and "preaching hatered", all of a sudden? Did Big Brother bother telling you what "hatred" actually means? Or is it enough if you are told every once in a while when the definition is expanded once again?
The problem here is of course that both Canadian and the law in several European countries go much further than prohibiting incitement to violence into pure mindcrime territory. (I.e, "we really don't like your opinions, so we'll just throw you in jail.")