Most of your remarks apply equally to most of England. Maybe there should be a referendum on kicking out the south-east.
The way the South East see it they're subsidising the rest of the UK so don't wish too hard for that referendum unless you know what both sides really have on the line. (Disclosure: Proud Manc living in the South East).
Should it really, though? If you run a store on a border town, where the majority don't actually speak french, should some demi-nationalists be able to dictate your areas culture?
Yes. It's stupid and backwards but it's a democracy and the people of Quebec are voting for this kind of crap. It wouldn't be anything like Quebecois forcing it on the rest of Canada because this region is part of Quebec and Canada isn't part of Quebec;)
Have you seen how many people are queuing up to work as barely tolerated drones in Amazon warehouses for piss poor wages? If you think people won't do just about anything in return for a wage then you're naive.
Maybe you would, maybe you're just posturing on the internet. Frankly I don't care which it is, what I do know is that 99% of the time when people say they'd do something like that they wouldn't in fact do it in practice.
I find people who punch me because I am excercising my right to wear Google Glass in public highly annoying
And I find comments like this on Slashdot highly annoying and tend to kill people who make them; wow, turns out I can say that on the internet and yet it doesn't turn out to be true...
Put your e-peen away you're not fooling anyone into thinking your hard, just that your a socially inept wannabe tough guy.
Or you could just put the Google Glass in your pocket and socialise with your friends without the need for a constant internet connection.
If there's one reason why this solution doesn't really satisfy me it's that as a wearer of glasses if I ever went with a device like Google glass I would like to have a front facing camera and I don't want to have to carry a spare non-glass pair to be socially acceptable. Obviously I want it to be extremely obvious if the device is recording (both for me and those around me) and I'm more than a little dubious about giving Google quite so much access, but I don't see why the issue can't be resolved like other unsocial behaviour (when it is exhibited) rather than banning one potential tool for it.
what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"
We've got one example of some dickheads and that's grounds to claim it isn't generally accepted? If there's only a couple of examples of people getting hassle for wearing something new and novel then I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted.
I agree with most of your points and I'm certainly not suggesting that GEMA are asking for a reasonable license fee from Youtube; I don't however think that Youtube cares about anything other than maximising revenue and minimising costs and has a business model which benefits heavily from users uploading unlicensed content. I don't think it's fair to say that GEMA not rolling over to whatever terms Youtube decided to offer is somehow being greedy, any more than google refusing to pay GEMA what they asked for is greedy. I also don't have an issue with Germany intervening to ask for more neutral wording, though it does seem a bit trivial.
This proves that some species could hold an amazing adaptation that could completely change how we live.
But by trying to keep the world the same as it was 30 years ago we will invariably cause other species to die out and stop the evolution of other species that are better adapted to current conditions. My biggest, and basically only, issue with 'conservationism' is that is anti-change for anti-change's sake. Why are we re-introducing some animals to areas where they died out hundreds of years ago but not ones that died out thousands or millions of years ago? It's arbitrary nonsense to pretend that the world should look like it did at another point in time.
All that said, I'm for minimising our impact on the environment where practical, and to a greater extent than we currently do, but mainly because I don't want us to screw it up too badly not because I care whether Pandas die out.
No they aren't. GEMA is asking Youtube for money to license the content and Youtube won't pay it so THEY remove the content instead. GEMA isn't asking that the video is blocked, and would much prefer that they got paid instead. Now we can debate if the fee GEMA wants is reasonable, but it isn't them asking for it to be taken down.
GEMA need to get with the times and realise they can't staunchly deny the internet the right to use its clients' music.
Or Youtube need to stop profiting off providing unlicensed music? I'd have more sympathy for Google if they weren't primarily supporting copyright infringement because they profit from it. If Google were willing to sacrifice all earnings made from adverts shown on pages/videos with unlicensed content then I'd have some reason to believe they were being neutral.
Youtube has no obligation to paint GEMA in a favorable light, as long as their statements are true. They can say GEMA are evil, unreasonable greedy misers, and it would be perfectly legal free speech (as it should be).
And yet here we are, with a court ruling they can't. Imagine which version of 'legal free speech' I'm going to assume applies a) a court in the country b) a/. poster who disagrees.
Youtube has a right to not be neutral. It is their website, and they have the free speech rights to portray GEMA however they like, in their publications.
No they don't. They might, though it is unlikely, be allowed to do that in your little bit of the world but they aren't in Germany; that should have been reasonably obvious from the fact the court just ruled it that way. The world doesn't, in fact, exist purely as you think it should.
If that doesn't work out great for some people, then maybe they should consider making some different life choices.
Well at least I don't need to wonder if you might be a closet homophobe any more. You could of just said queers should choose to be straight in your first post and saved us the time.
You've heard it here first guys, Kohalth reckons the whole things unnecessary because if gays just chose to be straight we'd have no problem.
It's simply not necessary to have the government threaten and bully people into baking wedding cakes and shooting silly wedding pictures.
Then would you repeal the laws 'threatening' and 'bullying' people into doing it for black people? You keep spouting this same 'poor old cake makers' nonsense but refuse to discuss the parallel with racial discrimination laws. It just makes you look like a homophobe who is looking for a more palatable excuse to defend and continue the discrimination.
Compelling photographers, because at one point in their career they photographed a wedding they must now photograph all such events (not just gay, but open-relationship unions, Dom/Sub 'bondings', and more), even if it is against their beliefs, even if they dislike the couple, they must comply or face discrimination charges.
Stop imagining up fringe cases to try and make discrimination seem less toxic. The only thing that is under attack is peoples ability to discriminate against others, as it should be. Unless you're against all anti-discrimination laws then your position has nothing to do with freedoms or oppression of service providers it is entirely to do with wanting to allow people to discriminate against gays.
A photographer who doesn't shoot weddings won't be forced to shoot any weddings just because they did one in the past, they will however not be able to refuse business purely because it is from a gay couple or black couple. They can still refuse events that they would refuse for reasons other than sexuality.
Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?
Firstly, if he was a waiter on staff at a restaurant then he should be expected to serve the product produced (or expressly agree otherwise with the owner when taking the job). Secondly, refusing to serve ribs isn't the same as refusing to serve ribs to a homosexual when you would to anyone else. It is the latter that is covered by discrimination laws not the former.
Yes to both other examples. If the customer is rude or behaves in a way that is inappropriate then I'd expect them to be dealt with accordingly. The deli example is pretty bizarre given that discrimination the other way would apparently not be ok? If a 'Nazi' is willing to be polite when ordering from a Jewish deli then they should be entitled to do so, if they aren't polite then they can be barred for the behaviour just like anyone else; obviously one might question why a Nazi would want to pay a Jew for food and be polite about it...
If a hammer store said "no gays" then that seems unfair, but on the other hand, does that actually happen in reality? How would the hammer store guy even tell?
He couldn't have a sign saying "no blacks" and that's because it did happen. You've had to contrive to put in caveats such as cashiers don't normally make the rules etc to point out that it's unlikely, so what? It's unlikely that someone is going to kill me with a harpoon gun, that doesn't make doing it any more ok than if they'd used a pistol. Is that something you'd allow? If not then why is it ok to discriminate in exactly the same way for some products but not others? Do we need to leave some jobs that are fine for homophobes so all the god fearing former hardware store owners have an alternative?
Because the world will spin off its axis if the government doesn't force people to bake wedding cakes against their will? Instead of sending in the wedding cake police, how about just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to make you a wedding cake?
Yeah. Fuck those niggers they can get cake somewhere else, and if they don't like riding at the back of the bus then they can get the hell off and walk. Maybe they should go somewhere they are wanted.... How is this kind of bollocks still tolerated, let alone modded insightful? Maybe I can get some cheap karma by claiming women in skirts are asking for it, Queers are all wannabe paedophiles and women should get back to the sink.
To put it bluntly: while other people here obviously think otherwise by their comments
To put it bluntly: He was making the exact same points as you, so maybe you should consider posts more carefully before 'rebuffing' ones that agree with you.
Is it ok for a company to have a policy of only promoting men to senior positions? Is it ok for a department store to only admit and serve white customers?
If you answered yes to both then at least you're consistent, though I'm glad I don't live in a country with people who agree with you. If you answered either no then the rest of your posts is bollocks, changing what identifying feature people are discriminated against for doesn't change how wrong it is.
Like it or not, everything related to marriage ceremonies and their receptions are being forced into that agenda
What agenda? I'd have a little sympathy for the position people pushing to be able to discriminate against homosexuals if they also support the right to discriminate against Jews, Christians, Blacks, Women, Republicans etc but the vast majority don't. People who believe that discrimination should be allowed on freedom grounds at least have an ethically sound position, even if I disagree with it.
Furthermore, surely Apple is exercising its freedom if it refuses to do business with states that allow discrimination? The people of Arizona may vote themselves the right to be legally homophobic but they don't have the ability to stop people doing business there if they do.
So your comaprison with mao lenine or whomever fail on so many points it isn't funny.
No, it's completely valid. A muslim who believes in peace and leaving others alone living in Birmingham has nothing more common with a Jihadist Somali suicide bomber than I, an atheist, have with Pol Pot. Being a muslim doesn't entirely define someone, nor does any religion fortunately, and it's no fairer to tar them all with the same brush than it is when extremists do it to 'all westerners' etc.
Modding this a troll seems a little harsh. It's not unusual for religions to include different groups with vastly different interpretations of what a good follower should or shouldn't do. Personally I find it equally amusing that they have the time to worry about this and that they've taken such a backwards view. What level of risk is ok before it is effectively the same as suicide? Does the benefit to others mitigate that in some way?
Electronic warfare exploits an enemies sophisticated technology against them. NK may have the ability to build a nuclear bomb, but it may well be launched with computer systems that would have been considered obsolete twenty years ago. I expect they are reluctant to depend upon imported components, so a lot of it will be long-outdated.
Iran doesn't yet have working nukes and has hardly had the best relationship with the west and stuxnet appears to have worked... One has to assume that if they are doing this then the South Koreans think there's a fighting chance of it working. Stuxnet is also an example of someone planning, and succeeding, in getting a virus onto an isolated network.
Slashdot Mirror
The way the South East see it they're subsidising the rest of the UK so don't wish too hard for that referendum unless you know what both sides really have on the line. (Disclosure: Proud Manc living in the South East).
Yes. It's stupid and backwards but it's a democracy and the people of Quebec are voting for this kind of crap. It wouldn't be anything like Quebecois forcing it on the rest of Canada because this region is part of Quebec and Canada isn't part of Quebec ;)
Have you seen how many people are queuing up to work as barely tolerated drones in Amazon warehouses for piss poor wages? If you think people won't do just about anything in return for a wage then you're naive.
Maybe you would, maybe you're just posturing on the internet. Frankly I don't care which it is, what I do know is that 99% of the time when people say they'd do something like that they wouldn't in fact do it in practice.
And I find comments like this on Slashdot highly annoying and tend to kill people who make them; wow, turns out I can say that on the internet and yet it doesn't turn out to be true...
Put your e-peen away you're not fooling anyone into thinking your hard, just that your a socially inept wannabe tough guy.
If there's one reason why this solution doesn't really satisfy me it's that as a wearer of glasses if I ever went with a device like Google glass I would like to have a front facing camera and I don't want to have to carry a spare non-glass pair to be socially acceptable. Obviously I want it to be extremely obvious if the device is recording (both for me and those around me) and I'm more than a little dubious about giving Google quite so much access, but I don't see why the issue can't be resolved like other unsocial behaviour (when it is exhibited) rather than banning one potential tool for it.
We've got one example of some dickheads and that's grounds to claim it isn't generally accepted? If there's only a couple of examples of people getting hassle for wearing something new and novel then I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted.
I agree with most of your points and I'm certainly not suggesting that GEMA are asking for a reasonable license fee from Youtube; I don't however think that Youtube cares about anything other than maximising revenue and minimising costs and has a business model which benefits heavily from users uploading unlicensed content. I don't think it's fair to say that GEMA not rolling over to whatever terms Youtube decided to offer is somehow being greedy, any more than google refusing to pay GEMA what they asked for is greedy. I also don't have an issue with Germany intervening to ask for more neutral wording, though it does seem a bit trivial.
Even if that was a line in the sand it's irrelevant given that ~97% of horseshoe crabs survive.
But by trying to keep the world the same as it was 30 years ago we will invariably cause other species to die out and stop the evolution of other species that are better adapted to current conditions. My biggest, and basically only, issue with 'conservationism' is that is anti-change for anti-change's sake. Why are we re-introducing some animals to areas where they died out hundreds of years ago but not ones that died out thousands or millions of years ago? It's arbitrary nonsense to pretend that the world should look like it did at another point in time.
All that said, I'm for minimising our impact on the environment where practical, and to a greater extent than we currently do, but mainly because I don't want us to screw it up too badly not because I care whether Pandas die out.
No they aren't. GEMA is asking Youtube for money to license the content and Youtube won't pay it so THEY remove the content instead. GEMA isn't asking that the video is blocked, and would much prefer that they got paid instead. Now we can debate if the fee GEMA wants is reasonable, but it isn't them asking for it to be taken down.
Or Youtube need to stop profiting off providing unlicensed music? I'd have more sympathy for Google if they weren't primarily supporting copyright infringement because they profit from it. If Google were willing to sacrifice all earnings made from adverts shown on pages/videos with unlicensed content then I'd have some reason to believe they were being neutral.
And yet here we are, with a court ruling they can't. Imagine which version of 'legal free speech' I'm going to assume applies a) a court in the country b) a /. poster who disagrees.
No they don't. They might, though it is unlikely, be allowed to do that in your little bit of the world but they aren't in Germany; that should have been reasonably obvious from the fact the court just ruled it that way. The world doesn't, in fact, exist purely as you think it should.
Well at least I don't need to wonder if you might be a closet homophobe any more. You could of just said queers should choose to be straight in your first post and saved us the time.
You've heard it here first guys, Kohalth reckons the whole things unnecessary because if gays just chose to be straight we'd have no problem.
Then would you repeal the laws 'threatening' and 'bullying' people into doing it for black people? You keep spouting this same 'poor old cake makers' nonsense but refuse to discuss the parallel with racial discrimination laws. It just makes you look like a homophobe who is looking for a more palatable excuse to defend and continue the discrimination.
Stop imagining up fringe cases to try and make discrimination seem less toxic. The only thing that is under attack is peoples ability to discriminate against others, as it should be. Unless you're against all anti-discrimination laws then your position has nothing to do with freedoms or oppression of service providers it is entirely to do with wanting to allow people to discriminate against gays.
A photographer who doesn't shoot weddings won't be forced to shoot any weddings just because they did one in the past, they will however not be able to refuse business purely because it is from a gay couple or black couple. They can still refuse events that they would refuse for reasons other than sexuality.
Firstly, if he was a waiter on staff at a restaurant then he should be expected to serve the product produced (or expressly agree otherwise with the owner when taking the job). Secondly, refusing to serve ribs isn't the same as refusing to serve ribs to a homosexual when you would to anyone else. It is the latter that is covered by discrimination laws not the former.
Yes to both other examples. If the customer is rude or behaves in a way that is inappropriate then I'd expect them to be dealt with accordingly. The deli example is pretty bizarre given that discrimination the other way would apparently not be ok? If a 'Nazi' is willing to be polite when ordering from a Jewish deli then they should be entitled to do so, if they aren't polite then they can be barred for the behaviour just like anyone else; obviously one might question why a Nazi would want to pay a Jew for food and be polite about it...
He couldn't have a sign saying "no blacks" and that's because it did happen. You've had to contrive to put in caveats such as cashiers don't normally make the rules etc to point out that it's unlikely, so what? It's unlikely that someone is going to kill me with a harpoon gun, that doesn't make doing it any more ok than if they'd used a pistol. Is that something you'd allow? If not then why is it ok to discriminate in exactly the same way for some products but not others? Do we need to leave some jobs that are fine for homophobes so all the god fearing former hardware store owners have an alternative?
Yeah. Fuck those niggers they can get cake somewhere else, and if they don't like riding at the back of the bus then they can get the hell off and walk. Maybe they should go somewhere they are wanted.... How is this kind of bollocks still tolerated, let alone modded insightful? Maybe I can get some cheap karma by claiming women in skirts are asking for it, Queers are all wannabe paedophiles and women should get back to the sink.
To put it bluntly: He was making the exact same points as you, so maybe you should consider posts more carefully before 'rebuffing' ones that agree with you.
Is it ok for a company to have a policy of only promoting men to senior positions? Is it ok for a department store to only admit and serve white customers?
If you answered yes to both then at least you're consistent, though I'm glad I don't live in a country with people who agree with you. If you answered either no then the rest of your posts is bollocks, changing what identifying feature people are discriminated against for doesn't change how wrong it is.
What agenda? I'd have a little sympathy for the position people pushing to be able to discriminate against homosexuals if they also support the right to discriminate against Jews, Christians, Blacks, Women, Republicans etc but the vast majority don't. People who believe that discrimination should be allowed on freedom grounds at least have an ethically sound position, even if I disagree with it.
Furthermore, surely Apple is exercising its freedom if it refuses to do business with states that allow discrimination? The people of Arizona may vote themselves the right to be legally homophobic but they don't have the ability to stop people doing business there if they do.
No, it's completely valid. A muslim who believes in peace and leaving others alone living in Birmingham has nothing more common with a Jihadist Somali suicide bomber than I, an atheist, have with Pol Pot. Being a muslim doesn't entirely define someone, nor does any religion fortunately, and it's no fairer to tar them all with the same brush than it is when extremists do it to 'all westerners' etc.
Modding this a troll seems a little harsh. It's not unusual for religions to include different groups with vastly different interpretations of what a good follower should or shouldn't do. Personally I find it equally amusing that they have the time to worry about this and that they've taken such a backwards view. What level of risk is ok before it is effectively the same as suicide? Does the benefit to others mitigate that in some way?
Iran doesn't yet have working nukes and has hardly had the best relationship with the west and stuxnet appears to have worked... One has to assume that if they are doing this then the South Koreans think there's a fighting chance of it working. Stuxnet is also an example of someone planning, and succeeding, in getting a virus onto an isolated network.