But what if that person does actually make your life "hell" because they don't like that you disbelieve in their worldview? That's still harassment/assault, isn't it? What if they provoke others to act against you based on their beliefs and rhetoric?
In any case, we're not talking about real-world harm here - we're talking about "blasphemy" laws, which depend entirely on what one believes, not on the physical reality of the harm. Indeed, one could be locked up in a very real prison for disbelieving in the object of "blasphemy."
Except atheists don't believe in heaven or hell, so how can you threaten them with going to hell?
It doesn't really matter what the attacked party believes, its what the attacker believes. If a religious person who believes in hell makes this statement, then it's clearly intended to be a hurtful insult at minimum, and a threat of violence at worst.
And honestly, its better to have a low turnout of well-informed voters than a high turnout of cable-news watching voters who vote only on who the person on TV says to.
It depends on what you mean by "well-informed." In this case, I suspect you mean "people who vote the same way I do."
But the US is not the only place in the world that has radio. And even in the US there is community, college and non-commercial radio, that don't play the same old playlists. You need to broaden your thinking.
Your "full circle" comment makes no sense. Broadcasting is inherently "mainstream" or "corporate" because it requires a big transmitter, and therefore a centralized gatekeeper, a bottleneck.
But there re many community and college radio stations that aren't run for a profit, and are even anti-corporate.
Podcasts and streaming just require a personal computer and a free account on some site.
So, it becomes more individual. Which is not always a good thing. It doesn't encourage community. Yes, radio stations do require people and resources to run, and that enhances the community-building aspect. Plus, radio reaches places where internet connectivity is almost non-existent.
That model fundamentally encourages the exact opposite of mainstream publishing.
Not necessarily. A single person running a podcast doesn't mean they won't pander to a mainstream market for the broadest appeal.
I think we're seeing the beginning of the destruction of mainstream media... AM radio is on its last legs. I don't know anyone who listens to FM radio anymore... Podcasts and videocasts are gaining wider audiences and network/cable television continues to flounder with their broken advertising model.
I doubt it. What's happening is that podcasts and internet media are becoming "the mainstream media" - we only need to see what has happened to slashdot over the years to see how easy it is for the alternative to be subsumed into the mainstream.
It will all come full-circle, and FM radio may become the bastion of non-mainstream media with community stations and the like, while podcasts and online streaming come to epitomize corporate big media.
This is why Family Guy got cancelled only to shock Fox by being a top-selling DVD of all time. They had no idea the kind of reach that show had and brought it back.
Yeah, there's some decidedly non-mainstream media right there... wait, what?
Really, the 360 as the video game console of the decade? The PS2 really changed things more than the 360 for the simple reason of the DVD player.
For that matter, the first Xbox was a lot more influential than the 360, because it was new competition for Sony. The 360 was just an incremental update.
There's a bigger chance to get hit by Apophis then to win the lottery.
Doesn't seem likely to me. If an asteroid hits the planet, there might not be any more lotteries run after that. And the likelihood of the asteroid hitting, and me winning the lottery shortly afterward is vanishingly small, especially as I don't enter lotteries.
Definitely, but maybe for QA or as a Code Review consultant. Of course, I'm assuming that the winner of the contest would also be clever enough to detect hidden maliciousness in others' code.
You employ people to work in your Mom's basement? You must get one heck of an allowance.
They lost me. After many [slashdot.org], many [gizmodo.com] stories [slashdot.org] about free google cell phones supported by ads how can anyone not be disappointed by the $500 price?
Wait, isn't it a good thing that you're not getting advertising on your phone? I really don't understand the mentality of people wanting more advertising in their lives.
One more example of why the patent system needs to be eliminated. Let us invalidate _all_ patents, not just one other of theirs.
Brilliant logic!
While we're at it, let's ban all cars because some of them cause accidents because they are faulty. Let's ban all speech, because some people use speech to preach hatred. Let's take laws against murder off the books, because some people have been falsely imprisoned for murder.
No everywhere means all over the news and in the public eye.
Being on the tech news doesn't mean being in the public eye. It's not something that many people care about yet.
So? really most writing is terrible even with word processing software everywhere. Most blogs are useless. 99% of everything on the web is junk. Heck even a 80% of printed material is junk.
Right. So, how does that make the Kodak Zi8 a "hit of the year"? Most people have never heard of it.
I doubt it somehow, which suggests to me that they don't use advanced features.
What more is there to understand? Rather than waiting for an answer, or data on this, you reached your conclusion based on your pre-existing assumption. Why pretend to ask a question in the first place, when you already seem to know the answer?
Seriously, once the people who grew up with computers have the votes and money and all the free time in the world to write angry letters, Microsoft should be very scared.
I doubt it. Generation X? You mean, the generation that got passed over by business and has very little influence in the world, because it is ignored for being too cynical?
Generation Y? The generation that absolutely worships at the feet of corporatism? Good luck with that.
Of course, the "generation" thing is a pretty rough generalization, and the truth is that there are corporate/political/elite weasels in every generation who tend to run things, and those uprising youth never actually uprise long enough to make a difference, because they end up having bills to pay.
A corporation (or person for that matter) in that position must always see everything as a threat.
We typically call people who act like that paranoid and mentally unstable. It's not that different for corporations. Responding to real threats is one thing, batting at hallucinations is a whole other kettle of fish. Even corporations need to have some confidence in their ability to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell do you translate "if you don't follow X religion, you will go to hell" as "a threat of violence"?! That's making a HUGE leap.
What happens in hell, according to the bible? Massive physical violence - such as horrible tortures. How is that not a threat of violence?
Even if one doesn't believe in a Biblical hell, the followers of said religion might try to impose "hell on earth" on the accused in very real ways.
But what if that person does actually make your life "hell" because they don't like that you disbelieve in their worldview? That's still harassment/assault, isn't it? What if they provoke others to act against you based on their beliefs and rhetoric?
In any case, we're not talking about real-world harm here - we're talking about "blasphemy" laws, which depend entirely on what one believes, not on the physical reality of the harm. Indeed, one could be locked up in a very real prison for disbelieving in the object of "blasphemy."
But what if they pointed something at you, and you did not believe it was a weapon, but it turned out is actually was?
Did they also ban the shift key on your computer?
Except atheists don't believe in heaven or hell, so how can you threaten them with going to hell?
It doesn't really matter what the attacked party believes, its what the attacker believes. If a religious person who believes in hell makes this statement, then it's clearly intended to be a hurtful insult at minimum, and a threat of violence at worst.
And honestly, its better to have a low turnout of well-informed voters than a high turnout of cable-news watching voters who vote only on who the person on TV says to.
It depends on what you mean by "well-informed." In this case, I suspect you mean "people who vote the same way I do."
But the US is not the only place in the world that has radio. And even in the US there is community, college and non-commercial radio, that don't play the same old playlists. You need to broaden your thinking.
Your "full circle" comment makes no sense. Broadcasting is inherently "mainstream" or "corporate" because it requires a big transmitter, and therefore a centralized gatekeeper, a bottleneck.
But there re many community and college radio stations that aren't run for a profit, and are even anti-corporate.
Podcasts and streaming just require a personal computer and a free account on some site.
So, it becomes more individual. Which is not always a good thing. It doesn't encourage community. Yes, radio stations do require people and resources to run, and that enhances the community-building aspect. Plus, radio reaches places where internet connectivity is almost non-existent.
That model fundamentally encourages the exact opposite of mainstream publishing.
Not necessarily. A single person running a podcast doesn't mean they won't pander to a mainstream market for the broadest appeal.
I mean, TWO screened handhelds seemed a bit unrealistic too.
Hmmmm... they didn't seem unrealistic when we played with them in the 1980s.
I think we're seeing the beginning of the destruction of mainstream media... AM radio is on its last legs. I don't know anyone who listens to FM radio anymore... Podcasts and videocasts are gaining wider audiences and network/cable television continues to flounder with their broken advertising model.
I doubt it. What's happening is that podcasts and internet media are becoming "the mainstream media" - we only need to see what has happened to slashdot over the years to see how easy it is for the alternative to be subsumed into the mainstream.
It will all come full-circle, and FM radio may become the bastion of non-mainstream media with community stations and the like, while podcasts and online streaming come to epitomize corporate big media.
This is why Family Guy got cancelled only to shock Fox by being a top-selling DVD of all time. They had no idea the kind of reach that show had and brought it back.
Yeah, there's some decidedly non-mainstream media right there... wait, what?
Really, the 360 as the video game console of the decade? The PS2 really changed things more than the 360 for the simple reason of the DVD player.
For that matter, the first Xbox was a lot more influential than the 360, because it was new competition for Sony. The 360 was just an incremental update.
When I've heard "widget" used, it's usually in reference to a physical item, like a gizmo.
There's a bigger chance to get hit by Apophis then to win the lottery.
Doesn't seem likely to me. If an asteroid hits the planet, there might not be any more lotteries run after that. And the likelihood of the asteroid hitting, and me winning the lottery shortly afterward is vanishingly small, especially as I don't enter lotteries.
Definitely, but maybe for QA or as a Code Review consultant. Of course, I'm assuming that the winner of the contest would also be clever enough to detect hidden maliciousness in others' code.
You employ people to work in your Mom's basement? You must get one heck of an allowance.
They lost me. After many [slashdot.org], many [gizmodo.com] stories [slashdot.org] about free google cell phones supported by ads how can anyone not be disappointed by the $500 price?
Wait, isn't it a good thing that you're not getting advertising on your phone? I really don't understand the mentality of people wanting more advertising in their lives.
but it's not like they can get close and see whether it's a £50 touch screen phone, or a £600 overpriced Jesus phone.
Say what? In normal social situations, people can and do get close enough to tell. Unless you never interact with anybody, that is.
One more example of why the patent system needs to be eliminated. Let us invalidate _all_ patents, not just one other of theirs.
Brilliant logic!
While we're at it, let's ban all cars because some of them cause accidents because they are faulty. Let's ban all speech, because some people use speech to preach hatred. Let's take laws against murder off the books, because some people have been falsely imprisoned for murder.
ASa side note, my kids actually say LOL sometime with pronounciation of each letter, sometime as 'Lawl'. The are 9 and 11.
Not surprising, considering how illiterate their father is.
No, it's Tim Finnland.
How the fuck can I answer the question? I'm not the Anonymous Coward who mentioned his niece.
No everywhere means all over the news and in the public eye.
Being on the tech news doesn't mean being in the public eye. It's not something that many people care about yet.
So? really most writing is terrible even with word processing software everywhere. Most blogs are useless. 99% of everything on the web is junk. Heck even a 80% of printed material is junk.
Right. So, how does that make the Kodak Zi8 a "hit of the year"? Most people have never heard of it.
Following your question, you wrote:
I doubt it somehow, which suggests to me that they don't use advanced features.
What more is there to understand? Rather than waiting for an answer, or data on this, you reached your conclusion based on your pre-existing assumption. Why pretend to ask a question in the first place, when you already seem to know the answer?
Seriously, once the people who grew up with computers have the votes and money and all the free time in the world to write angry letters, Microsoft should be very scared.
I doubt it. Generation X? You mean, the generation that got passed over by business and has very little influence in the world, because it is ignored for being too cynical?
Generation Y? The generation that absolutely worships at the feet of corporatism? Good luck with that.
Of course, the "generation" thing is a pretty rough generalization, and the truth is that there are corporate/political/elite weasels in every generation who tend to run things, and those uprising youth never actually uprise long enough to make a difference, because they end up having bills to pay.
A corporation (or person for that matter) in that position must always see everything as a threat.
We typically call people who act like that paranoid and mentally unstable. It's not that different for corporations. Responding to real threats is one thing, batting at hallucinations is a whole other kettle of fish. Even corporations need to have some confidence in their ability to survive.
Well, right up till sentence 3. You lost me there. Can't be a very competent review with that kind of language.
You dislike the word "functionality," too? I understand where you're coming from, I fucking hate that word.