Either you missed his point, or you are attacking a strawman.
In WWII there were more soldiers who did not fire on the enemy than there were in Vietnam. The easiest way to explain this is a change in training techniques. If there is a change in training that can cause more people to fire on the enemy then it stands to reason that it is possible that something in videogames (or movies, or cartoons, or comicbooks, or fine art) could have the same effect.
So that you don't miss it again - something changed between WWII and Vietnam that made soldiers more likely to fire on other humans. The questions are why were there fewer soldiers "that were unwilling to shoot the other saps," and why couldn't this extend to civilian life?
(Another way to explain the fact that more soldiers fired at the enemy in Vietnam than WWII is deep seated racism.)
I'm not in the habit of defending the current administration, but some people really know how to overstate general viewpoints that I agree with.
The terrorists are in the most part a small band of crazies that have no power to hurt anyone in the USA. Everyone expects the government to work to prevent terrorists acts, but I for one am not willing to give up EVEN ONE CIVIL liberty for this important work.
The terrorists are quite a larger group than you might be willing to admit, and the "war on terror" is probably increasing their numbers. While the 9/11 terrorists might have gotten lucky, it goes to show how far a little luck can go. While jumbo jet missiles may no longer be a viable option, what makes you think there isn't another equally unconventional gap in our security they are ready and willing to exploit?
When I made my initial post about, "how is this different," the whole point was about how civil liberties aren't some mystical right that has been perfectly preserved from 1776 onward. Civil liberties have waxed and waned throughout history - though the general trend has been one of increasing rights. While we should stand up for our rights, and should not allow fear to compromise our ideals, that there is some decrease in our civil liberties does not mean the end of free society. When you say you won't give up even one civil liberty, what makes you think you (or your ancestors) had that right in the first place? Really, the only thing that stopped J. Edger Hoover from having a file on you was lack of interest, ditto for Rumsfield and company. The only reason you wouldn't be locked up without the right of writ of habeas corpus was that you didn't live in civil war era Baltimore, or weren't a California resident Japanese-American in 1942. Not that this is acceptable behavior but it isn't a sign of the end. Also when you say that suspension of habeas corpus is a sign of "the vilest regimes in the world" did you mean the British? (who suspended it in 1793, 1817, 1914, and most recently in 1971)
The Taliban was the only government in the world that suported these fanatics. The Taliban has been defeated. The "network of training camps" was a handful of primitive camps.
The Taliban was hardly the only government that supported terrorists, although they may have been the most open about it. A large number of these training camps (at least some of which might not be as primitive as you think) are in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Gaza strip. Terrorists don't really need weapons of mass destruction, (although they wouldn't turn one down) all they really need is to slip some conventional explosives through a crack in security. Which was the whole point of the tread you replied to - fighting an asymmetric war has always been tricky. Actually the difficulty in fighting an asymmetric war is probably the only reason that we're not still a British territory, we are just lucky that George Washington was a tad more rational than Bin Laden.
While I don't think that the threat of terrorists should be used as a blank cheque, and I do think that the domestic wiretapping scandal is literally criminal - minimizing a terrorist threat is extremely naive, not to mention amnesic, and only slightly less dangerous.
The guy who said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," is the same guy who made the final order interning the Japanese-Americans.
While I think that all the examples you gave indicate an abuse of power, and should be stopped, I have to ask if you think any of this is new?
The only thing new here is the technology - police abuse of power has been around since there were police (and before that it was other people in positions of authority abusing their power.)
Whenever I see these threads about the US going to hell in a handbag I always ask, and how is this different? Sure there are somethings to be concerned about (e.g. domestic wiretapping.) But when people go on about how america isn't what it used to be, they loose at least some credibility in my eyes. Sure america might not be what it was idealized to be - but then again it never has been. (alien and sedition acts, jim crow, japenese internment camps, and the red scare.)
Not that I'm defending any abuses of liberty, but it isn't like it is something new, or to put it away America hasn't changed as much as some want us to think.
Look, you can be arrested and tried for damn near anything. You can be pulled over for "careless driving" if the police feel like, you were in violation of this: "Whoever operates a vehicle and who fails to give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle, or whoever fails to maintain a proper lookout while operating the vehicle, shall be guilty of inattentive driving"
Granted the penalties are considerably less severe, but the point is that enforcement is always subjective. For the third time This is not a problem unique to obscenity, it is the way our justice system works. If there is a question of fact it has to be decided by a jury. The same issues come up in rape cases all the time. There is no way around this short of summary judgments - and nobody wants to go there.
The dots on the paper aren't crime when you think about them, it's a crime when they are arranged in a manner that violates "contemporary community standards." It has nothing to do with thought. Nothing at all. It has no more to do with thought than counterfeiting.
SCOTUS' definition laid out a test which others can apply. That is what they do. They don't end every case they hear with a list of all things illegal.
Your warning was FUD because you are presenting something extremely unlikely, with admittedly serous consequences, as a danger to everyone. I could be struck by a meteor tomorrow and be killed, but that isn't going to stop me from venturing out from under 20' of concrete. I doubt anyone has been tried for having baby pictures. (that 15yr old girl that was mentioned earlier was, as far as I can tell, distributing sexually explicit pictures) There are no checkpoints where the police go through people's wallets looking for naked pictures of their kid in the bath.
As for conspiracy I'm not going to disagree with you there, and I don't know much about it, but yes, in my opinion, there is probably too much leeway there for prosecution of thoughtcrime.
I fully acknowledge that I am presenting a philosophical viewpoint. Also I acknowledge that it might not be clear in some cases whether something is philosophically legal might not be clear until after a damaging and costly trial.
I do however dispute that possession of obscenity is a thoughtcrime. It's not what they think you think, but rather whether the community considers the material obscene. A photograph of an unclothed minor is not automatically illegal, but you might still get arrested for it.
SCOTUS didn't leave the definition open; they set a clear three-pronged test. In order to be obscene something has to meet these specific concrete tests. You can make a legitimate argument that there are issues with "contemporary community standards," but you are not being prosecuted for thinking something, you are being prosecuted for having something. Fortunately, whether what you have is illegal is a question of fact, one that cannot be decided against you on its face by the arresting officer, the DA, or the judge (without your consent anyway.) Which means you have to stand trial and defend yourself.
As I said earlier this is not a problem unique to obscenity, it is the way our justice system works. If it looks like you've committed a crime to the DA you have to stand trial; the only way we can tell for sure is after 12 of your peers decide.
I'm not sure what your referring to when you say, "those about wanting our government to change policies," or that our jails are full of thoughtcrime offenders. Right now I can't think of any thing that is criminal in the US that I would consider a thoughtcrime - enlighten me if you think that there is an example clearer than obscenity.
I also understand that there are differences between practice and theory, that the police can railroad you if they are so inclined, and that justice isn't always carried out. I also have some concern as to where the values of some are leading this country, but I think that the law ought to be above all that (of course it isn't always, because the law is created by mere mortals, but at least in the case of obscenity, in my opinion, it does a decent job.)
As someone with an undergrad engineering degree I can confidently say that I never cheated in college. However, certain phrasings of the question could cause me to respond differently. For example, if the question was asked, "Have you every used another students work to complete your own without the instructors explicit consent." I'd have to say yes.
I spent many late nights in computer labs or study halls working with other students in an attempt to understand the material. Often times this means working homework problems together. Sometimes I'd do the problem independently and then share the results with others, other times I'd make little or no progress and have someone explain it to me. It wasn't about copying answers, it was about understanding the methodology. A poll question that understands this distinction is difficult to come up with. I don't ever remember a teacher telling us not to work together in an engineering class (aside from exams) but I don't think they all explicitly told us it was ok - mostly because it is part of the culture and it wouldn't occur to them to endorse it.
Maybe, but genuinely not caring about others opinions is rather severely anti-social; they have very few friends to begin with, and likely have trouble holding jobs or functioning in society. I am not a psychologist, but if someone really doesn't care at all it seems to me it falls into personality disorder
Think about it, why do you take a shower everyday, or put on deodorant, or get your haircut, etc.? Basically, in order to be a functional social animal you have to care.
Now clearly there is an issue of degree, someone who doesn't care what others think of his music is different than someone who doesn't care what others think of his animal torture are two different things. But they are related.
I noticed that you used the word petty, implying that caring about others opinions is a bad thing. While I'd probably agree that it would be petty if they laughed at his music (not that I haven't given some of my friends a hard time for listenign to, say, Amy Grant), but would it be petty if they told him to buy some less threadbare clothes? Clean his apartment? Eat right? Take a shower? Stop doing drugs?
Yeah, and while we're at it lets bring back the time honored tradition of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Also libel and slander should be embraced.
Freedom of speech, like many of the rights granted in the bill of rights are in fact limited rights. I can own a gun - but I can't go around pointing it at people.
Further, I'd argue that the act of possessing child porn is in fact an act of child abuse. Like everything else porn is created based on market forces. If there were no consumers of child porn - creation of child porn would decrease dramatically. Conversely elimination of laws against possession of child porn would likely result in a boom in production in under-developed countries, countries without sufficient law enforcement resources to prosecute the abusers.
Look at gambling laws for instance - it isn't illegal to place a bet with an off-shore casino, so off-shore casinos are thriving. If there were a real fear of being prosecuted for gambling, off-shore casinos business would dry up. The opposite would happen if possession of child porn laws were dropped - business would boom for people who could produce it abroad; people who don't fear any prosecution.
Talk about child porn all you want. Publish stories about it. Just don't own any - that is a limitation of the first ammendment I can live with.
(P.S. - so that I'm not attacked on the gambling thing, I personally think that online gambling should be legal, taxed, and regulated within the US.)
Everyone cares what there friends think, it's just that there is a recent trend to cultivate the image that you don't care what people think - but it is still an image, and you are still trying.
Think about it this way, what are the odds that the emo kid shows up to his friends party wearing abercrombie, or the comp sci geek gets a Ryan Seacrest style suit?
The whole world doesn't care (I know I don't), but your friends might raise an eyebrow if they found Justin Timberlake's entire audio career (or something else uncharacteristic) right next to Jan and Dean.
2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man. 2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs. 3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.
SCOTUS has defined obscene, though apperently not lascivious. True this might not stop you from being arrested, or tried, but ulimately the question of obscenity is one for a jury. That is the way the legal system works in the US, and is not unique to obscenity.
As for the picture with the 15yr old and the tree, there is something very different about a posing naked 15yr old, and a naked 3 yr old in a bath. I'd rather you not go into more detail, but I'd bet one of two things happened, either that wasn't the only picture and/or the picture is more sexually themed than you let on. The relevent portion here is "whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" - I'm guessing it did if a conviction followed.
I wonder how would you change things to make it better?
(a) In General.-- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that-- (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene
...
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), "sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated-- (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
FYI, here is how the law handles accidental aquisition of child porn:
(e) Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (b) that the defendant-- (1) possessed less than 3 such visual depictions; and (2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual depiction-- (A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or (B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
Hey, I'm not arguing that the US isn't doesn't have fascist elements.
I think it would be hard to maintain that the US is fascist however - mostly by pointing at the right to vote (and the two-party system), social security, public education etc. Also warrentless wiretaps, horrible as they may be, do not indicate an authoritarian regime. Neither do signing statements - even if they are a bastardization of the process.
While christian fundamentalists may have fascist agendas, I don't think you could honestly call the US a christian government. (see abortions - which are legal in case you were confused BTW) Examine your (poor) analogy for a second. I said islam is to Iran, you retort christian is to US. If you don't think that is a strech I fear your knee jerk reactionism may be terminal...
Personally I try not to get too hung up on the connotation of the word. I'm just saying that Islamofascist isn't necessarily inacurate.
Actually, a good portion of the islamic fundamentalists should be considered fascists.
Their stated goal is often times to have a islamic government, like Saudi Arabia, or Iran. I would argue that these are definately fascist governments. Fascists typically are authoritarian (check), highly nationalistic (in an islamic state the nation is suposed to represents the religion - so check), and anti-communist (see the Taliban.)
There are some serious problems with any non-two party political system.
Most notably nearly all acts require a majority (50% +1) to pass. Consider the hypothetical three party system where pary A controls 47% of the seats, party B is diametrically opposed to party B, and controlls 44% of the seats, and party C is a minority swing party and controlls only 9% of the seats.
So the question is which party has the most power? If party A and B disagree on anything, and vote along party lines it turns out that the minority party will always determine the outcome. Why is this a problem? Because now both parties will go out of their way to entice the Party C to vote their way on every piece of legislation. This most likely means that Party C gets to pass any legislation that either party A or B support, and a lot of legislation that either party A or B will only tolerate. The consequence of this is that a small portion of the population gains disproportionate legislative power.
Actually what I'm saying is it DOESN'T work, not that it couldn't work. If it did work there would be a recognizable smoke free bar in every major market.
What I'm saying is, that if it is hard for me to find a non-smoking bar in a city that allows smoking in public places the free market must not be providing the way that the laissez faire slashdot contingent thinks it should.
For instance, I grew up in Toledo Ohio, a city with a population of 300,000 according to wikipedia. While I make no claim to know about every bar in the city, I can claim that before it enacted some particularly toothless no-smoking legislation, I could not name a single bar, bowling ally or pool hall that had a no-smoking policy.
Which brings us to another problem with the "free market." In order to compete in the niche that is so apperently available a bar would have to raise awareness of itself. Which means almost certainly means spending money on advertising, which further increases the competative advantage of bars that simply do nothing and allow smoking.
If you'd care to counter my anecdotal evidence with some real facts, instead of mearly debasing mine, and supplanting your own I would be happy to consider it.
See there is another problem with the whole "free market" thing right here. A bar that allows smoking will do more buisness because both people who smoke, and people who know people who smoke will go there. Bars that don't allow smoking already have the important disadvantage (for a social institution) of being less popular for this reason, so they either have to cut prices and operate with a smaller margin, or raise prices and risk driving away their already sparse crowd.
The proof is in the pudding - in the vast majority of cities/states where smoking in bars is legal there are no non-smoking bars, bowling allies, or pool halls.
(No I don't have any references, but I have lived in three cities as they made indoor smoking in public places illegal, and can't think of a single bar that was non-smoking before the ban. Also note that restaurants are a bit of a different catagory, I will admit that there are non-smoking restaurants that aren't legally mandated.)
Here's what I don't understand, why is this so convoluted? It seems to me that the solution is simple, file criminal charges against Particia Dunn, and the PIs. Pull the PI's licences. Allow anyone who's data was stolen to sue HP, Dunn, the PIs, AND the phone companies that turned over the data.
I don't know why the solution isn't more obvious to more people, and I don't know why people aren't all over the phone companies for the breach of privacy, like they would be if, say, Choicepoint sold records to identity theves who were pretexting as a legitamite buisness.
Sure it might be slightly harder to get your information if the phone companies were successfully sued, but I get a bill mailed to my house once a month - it seems like they should know where to send private data.
While cool nanotech that you mentioned is certainly more interesting than very small particles. The term has been extended to anything with a primary size under 1000 nm.
There is real concern (which is probably unfounded) over the effects of small particles like nano teflon (in stain resistant pants) and carbon nanotubes on cellular processes.
However, the fact that ancient egyptians rubbed nano PbS on themselves is probably not the best argument that it is inherently safe.
Finally the last bit is the article doens't mention anything about safety. The actual utlity of this research is:
scientists hope to better control the conditions for growth and organization of nanoparticles in organic matrix which ultimately could open new perspectives in the development of nanocomposites.
Ah but it is so much more. In the US at least this is prime pickings for a submarine patent.
Since the US relies on a first to invent system all he has to do is wait until the system is commercial, then file for a patent showing he invented it first, (insert law suit here), serve Microsoft a C&D, extort huge licencing fees, and, of course, PROFIT!
As much as I know I'll provoke the ire of slashdot, I agree with the parents. In most classes, Jr High, high school, or even college, there is no need for the student to have a laptop. I always find that I pay more attention, take better notes, and learn more, when I'm not distracted by the electronic toy.
Sure the students should have access to a computer, and it is beneficial to have computers for some classes, but there is no reason for any student to have a computer in 6th grade math.
In addition to this 12 yrs old is not the time to be learning how to make power point presentations. Sure it is a professional skill, and valuable at some point, but I'd rather have 12 yr olds who knew who Newton or Napolean were than, 12 yr olds who were capable of doing mommies homework.
Slashdot Mirror
Either you missed his point, or you are attacking a strawman.
In WWII there were more soldiers who did not fire on the enemy than there were in Vietnam. The easiest way to explain this is a change in training techniques. If there is a change in training that can cause more people to fire on the enemy then it stands to reason that it is possible that something in videogames (or movies, or cartoons, or comicbooks, or fine art) could have the same effect.
So that you don't miss it again - something changed between WWII and Vietnam that made soldiers more likely to fire on other humans. The questions are why were there fewer soldiers "that were unwilling to shoot the other saps," and why couldn't this extend to civilian life?
(Another way to explain the fact that more soldiers fired at the enemy in Vietnam than WWII is deep seated racism.)
The terrorists are quite a larger group than you might be willing to admit, and the "war on terror" is probably increasing their numbers. While the 9/11 terrorists might have gotten lucky, it goes to show how far a little luck can go. While jumbo jet missiles may no longer be a viable option, what makes you think there isn't another equally unconventional gap in our security they are ready and willing to exploit?
When I made my initial post about, "how is this different," the whole point was about how civil liberties aren't some mystical right that has been perfectly preserved from 1776 onward. Civil liberties have waxed and waned throughout history - though the general trend has been one of increasing rights. While we should stand up for our rights, and should not allow fear to compromise our ideals, that there is some decrease in our civil liberties does not mean the end of free society. When you say you won't give up even one civil liberty, what makes you think you (or your ancestors) had that right in the first place? Really, the only thing that stopped J. Edger Hoover from having a file on you was lack of interest, ditto for Rumsfield and company. The only reason you wouldn't be locked up without the right of writ of habeas corpus was that you didn't live in civil war era Baltimore, or weren't a California resident Japanese-American in 1942. Not that this is acceptable behavior but it isn't a sign of the end. Also when you say that suspension of habeas corpus is a sign of "the vilest regimes in the world" did you mean the British? (who suspended it in 1793, 1817, 1914, and most recently in 1971)
The Taliban was hardly the only government that supported terrorists, although they may have been the most open about it. A large number of these training camps (at least some of which might not be as primitive as you think) are in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Gaza strip. Terrorists don't really need weapons of mass destruction, (although they wouldn't turn one down) all they really need is to slip some conventional explosives through a crack in security. Which was the whole point of the tread you replied to - fighting an asymmetric war has always been tricky. Actually the difficulty in fighting an asymmetric war is probably the only reason that we're not still a British territory, we are just lucky that George Washington was a tad more rational than Bin Laden.
While I don't think that the threat of terrorists should be used as a blank cheque, and I do think that the domestic wiretapping scandal is literally criminal - minimizing a terrorist threat is extremely naive, not to mention amnesic, and only slightly less dangerous.
The guy who said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," is the same guy who made the final order interning the Japanese-Americans.
While I think that all the examples you gave indicate an abuse of power, and should be stopped, I have to ask if you think any of this is new?
The only thing new here is the technology - police abuse of power has been around since there were police (and before that it was other people in positions of authority abusing their power.)
Whenever I see these threads about the US going to hell in a handbag I always ask, and how is this different? Sure there are somethings to be concerned about (e.g. domestic wiretapping.) But when people go on about how america isn't what it used to be, they loose at least some credibility in my eyes. Sure america might not be what it was idealized to be - but then again it never has been. (alien and sedition acts, jim crow, japenese internment camps, and the red scare.)
Not that I'm defending any abuses of liberty, but it isn't like it is something new, or to put it away America hasn't changed as much as some want us to think.
Hey three of my best friends just died in a freak gasoline fight accident, you insensitive clod.
Look, you can be arrested and tried for damn near anything. You can be pulled over for "careless driving" if the police feel like, you were in violation of this: "Whoever operates a vehicle and who fails to give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle, or whoever fails to maintain a proper lookout while operating the vehicle, shall be guilty of inattentive driving"
Granted the penalties are considerably less severe, but the point is that enforcement is always subjective. For the third time This is not a problem unique to obscenity, it is the way our justice system works. If there is a question of fact it has to be decided by a jury. The same issues come up in rape cases all the time. There is no way around this short of summary judgments - and nobody wants to go there.
The dots on the paper aren't crime when you think about them, it's a crime when they are arranged in a manner that violates "contemporary community standards." It has nothing to do with thought. Nothing at all. It has no more to do with thought than counterfeiting.
SCOTUS' definition laid out a test which others can apply. That is what they do. They don't end every case they hear with a list of all things illegal.
Your warning was FUD because you are presenting something extremely unlikely, with admittedly serous consequences, as a danger to everyone. I could be struck by a meteor tomorrow and be killed, but that isn't going to stop me from venturing out from under 20' of concrete. I doubt anyone has been tried for having baby pictures. (that 15yr old girl that was mentioned earlier was, as far as I can tell, distributing sexually explicit pictures) There are no checkpoints where the police go through people's wallets looking for naked pictures of their kid in the bath.
As for conspiracy I'm not going to disagree with you there, and I don't know much about it, but yes, in my opinion, there is probably too much leeway there for prosecution of thoughtcrime.
I fully acknowledge that I am presenting a philosophical viewpoint. Also I acknowledge that it might not be clear in some cases whether something is philosophically legal might not be clear until after a damaging and costly trial.
I do however dispute that possession of obscenity is a thoughtcrime. It's not what they think you think, but rather whether the community considers the material obscene. A photograph of an unclothed minor is not automatically illegal, but you might still get arrested for it.
SCOTUS didn't leave the definition open; they set a clear three-pronged test. In order to be obscene something has to meet these specific concrete tests. You can make a legitimate argument that there are issues with "contemporary community standards," but you are not being prosecuted for thinking something, you are being prosecuted for having something. Fortunately, whether what you have is illegal is a question of fact, one that cannot be decided against you on its face by the arresting officer, the DA, or the judge (without your consent anyway.) Which means you have to stand trial and defend yourself.
As I said earlier this is not a problem unique to obscenity, it is the way our justice system works. If it looks like you've committed a crime to the DA you have to stand trial; the only way we can tell for sure is after 12 of your peers decide.
I'm not sure what your referring to when you say, "those about wanting our government to change policies," or that our jails are full of thoughtcrime offenders. Right now I can't think of any thing that is criminal in the US that I would consider a thoughtcrime - enlighten me if you think that there is an example clearer than obscenity.
I also understand that there are differences between practice and theory, that the police can railroad you if they are so inclined, and that justice isn't always carried out. I also have some concern as to where the values of some are leading this country, but I think that the law ought to be above all that (of course it isn't always, because the law is created by mere mortals, but at least in the case of obscenity, in my opinion, it does a decent job.)
I want to know how they phrased the question.
As someone with an undergrad engineering degree I can confidently say that I never cheated in college. However, certain phrasings of the question could cause me to respond differently. For example, if the question was asked, "Have you every used another students work to complete your own without the instructors explicit consent." I'd have to say yes.
I spent many late nights in computer labs or study halls working with other students in an attempt to understand the material. Often times this means working homework problems together. Sometimes I'd do the problem independently and then share the results with others, other times I'd make little or no progress and have someone explain it to me. It wasn't about copying answers, it was about understanding the methodology. A poll question that understands this distinction is difficult to come up with. I don't ever remember a teacher telling us not to work together in an engineering class (aside from exams) but I don't think they all explicitly told us it was ok - mostly because it is part of the culture and it wouldn't occur to them to endorse it.
Maybe, but genuinely not caring about others opinions is rather severely anti-social; they have very few friends to begin with, and likely have trouble holding jobs or functioning in society. I am not a psychologist, but if someone really doesn't care at all it seems to me it falls into personality disorder
Think about it, why do you take a shower everyday, or put on deodorant, or get your haircut, etc.? Basically, in order to be a functional social animal you have to care.
Now clearly there is an issue of degree, someone who doesn't care what others think of his music is different than someone who doesn't care what others think of his animal torture are two different things. But they are related.
I noticed that you used the word petty, implying that caring about others opinions is a bad thing. While I'd probably agree that it would be petty if they laughed at his music (not that I haven't given some of my friends a hard time for listenign to, say, Amy Grant), but would it be petty if they told him to buy some less threadbare clothes? Clean his apartment? Eat right? Take a shower? Stop doing drugs?
At some point it is healthy to seek conformity.
Yeah, and while we're at it lets bring back the time honored tradition of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Also libel and slander should be embraced.
Freedom of speech, like many of the rights granted in the bill of rights are in fact limited rights. I can own a gun - but I can't go around pointing it at people.
Further, I'd argue that the act of possessing child porn is in fact an act of child abuse. Like everything else porn is created based on market forces. If there were no consumers of child porn - creation of child porn would decrease dramatically. Conversely elimination of laws against possession of child porn would likely result in a boom in production in under-developed countries, countries without sufficient law enforcement resources to prosecute the abusers.
Look at gambling laws for instance - it isn't illegal to place a bet with an off-shore casino, so off-shore casinos are thriving. If there were a real fear of being prosecuted for gambling, off-shore casinos business would dry up. The opposite would happen if possession of child porn laws were dropped - business would boom for people who could produce it abroad; people who don't fear any prosecution.
Talk about child porn all you want. Publish stories about it. Just don't own any - that is a limitation of the first ammendment I can live with.
(P.S. - so that I'm not attacked on the gambling thing, I personally think that online gambling should be legal, taxed, and regulated within the US.)
Bullshit
Everyone cares what there friends think, it's just that there is a recent trend to cultivate the image that you don't care what people think - but it is still an image, and you are still trying.
Think about it this way, what are the odds that the emo kid shows up to his friends party wearing abercrombie, or the comp sci geek gets a Ryan Seacrest style suit?
The whole world doesn't care (I know I don't), but your friends might raise an eyebrow if they found Justin Timberlake's entire audio career (or something else uncharacteristic) right next to Jan and Dean.
Really? I block ads and am anti-social as well. Wouldn't it be great if there was a place on the web where we could all hang out?
source
lascivious: here
SCOTUS has defined obscene, though apperently not lascivious. True this might not stop you from being arrested, or tried, but ulimately the question of obscenity is one for a jury. That is the way the legal system works in the US, and is not unique to obscenity.
As for the picture with the 15yr old and the tree, there is something very different about a posing naked 15yr old, and a naked 3 yr old in a bath. I'd rather you not go into more detail, but I'd bet one of two things happened, either that wasn't the only picture and/or the picture is more sexually themed than you let on. The relevent portion here is "whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" - I'm guessing it did if a conviction followed.
I wonder how would you change things to make it better?
here and here
source
Hey, I'm not arguing that the US isn't doesn't have fascist elements.
I think it would be hard to maintain that the US is fascist however - mostly by pointing at the right to vote (and the two-party system), social security, public education etc. Also warrentless wiretaps, horrible as they may be, do not indicate an authoritarian regime. Neither do signing statements - even if they are a bastardization of the process.
While christian fundamentalists may have fascist agendas, I don't think you could honestly call the US a christian government. (see abortions - which are legal in case you were confused BTW) Examine your (poor) analogy for a second. I said islam is to Iran, you retort christian is to US. If you don't think that is a strech I fear your knee jerk reactionism may be terminal...
Personally I try not to get too hung up on the connotation of the word. I'm just saying that Islamofascist isn't necessarily inacurate.
Actually, a good portion of the islamic fundamentalists should be considered fascists.
Their stated goal is often times to have a islamic government, like Saudi Arabia, or Iran. I would argue that these are definately fascist governments. Fascists typically are authoritarian (check), highly nationalistic (in an islamic state the nation is suposed to represents the religion - so check), and anti-communist (see the Taliban.)
There are some serious problems with any non-two party political system.
Most notably nearly all acts require a majority (50% +1) to pass. Consider the hypothetical three party system where pary A controls 47% of the seats, party B is diametrically opposed to party B, and controlls 44% of the seats, and party C is a minority swing party and controlls only 9% of the seats.
So the question is which party has the most power? If party A and B disagree on anything, and vote along party lines it turns out that the minority party will always determine the outcome. Why is this a problem? Because now both parties will go out of their way to entice the Party C to vote their way on every piece of legislation. This most likely means that Party C gets to pass any legislation that either party A or B support, and a lot of legislation that either party A or B will only tolerate. The consequence of this is that a small portion of the population gains disproportionate legislative power.
Actually what I'm saying is it DOESN'T work, not that it couldn't work. If it did work there would be a recognizable smoke free bar in every major market.
What I'm saying is, that if it is hard for me to find a non-smoking bar in a city that allows smoking in public places the free market must not be providing the way that the laissez faire slashdot contingent thinks it should.
For instance, I grew up in Toledo Ohio, a city with a population of 300,000 according to wikipedia. While I make no claim to know about every bar in the city, I can claim that before it enacted some particularly toothless no-smoking legislation, I could not name a single bar, bowling ally or pool hall that had a no-smoking policy.
Which brings us to another problem with the "free market." In order to compete in the niche that is so apperently available a bar would have to raise awareness of itself. Which means almost certainly means spending money on advertising, which further increases the competative advantage of bars that simply do nothing and allow smoking.
If you'd care to counter my anecdotal evidence with some real facts, instead of mearly debasing mine, and supplanting your own I would be happy to consider it.
Not extradition, but if I did such a thing, I'd (a) know where it was illegal, and (b) not travel there.
See there is another problem with the whole "free market" thing right here. A bar that allows smoking will do more buisness because both people who smoke, and people who know people who smoke will go there. Bars that don't allow smoking already have the important disadvantage (for a social institution) of being less popular for this reason, so they either have to cut prices and operate with a smaller margin, or raise prices and risk driving away their already sparse crowd.
The proof is in the pudding - in the vast majority of cities/states where smoking in bars is legal there are no non-smoking bars, bowling allies, or pool halls.
(No I don't have any references, but I have lived in three cities as they made indoor smoking in public places illegal, and can't think of a single bar that was non-smoking before the ban. Also note that restaurants are a bit of a different catagory, I will admit that there are non-smoking restaurants that aren't legally mandated.)
Here's what I don't understand, why is this so convoluted? It seems to me that the solution is simple, file criminal charges against Particia Dunn, and the PIs. Pull the PI's licences. Allow anyone who's data was stolen to sue HP, Dunn, the PIs, AND the phone companies that turned over the data.
I don't know why the solution isn't more obvious to more people, and I don't know why people aren't all over the phone companies for the breach of privacy, like they would be if, say, Choicepoint sold records to identity theves who were pretexting as a legitamite buisness.
Sure it might be slightly harder to get your information if the phone companies were successfully sued, but I get a bill mailed to my house once a month - it seems like they should know where to send private data.
There is real concern (which is probably unfounded) over the effects of small particles like nano teflon (in stain resistant pants) and carbon nanotubes on cellular processes.
However, the fact that ancient egyptians rubbed nano PbS on themselves is probably not the best argument that it is inherently safe.
Finally the last bit is the article doens't mention anything about safety. The actual utlity of this research is:
Ah but it is so much more. In the US at least this is prime pickings for a submarine patent.
Since the US relies on a first to invent system all he has to do is wait until the system is commercial, then file for a patent showing he invented it first, (insert law suit here), serve Microsoft a C&D, extort huge licencing fees, and, of course, PROFIT!
As much as I know I'll provoke the ire of slashdot, I agree with the parents. In most classes, Jr High, high school, or even college, there is no need for the student to have a laptop. I always find that I pay more attention, take better notes, and learn more, when I'm not distracted by the electronic toy.
Sure the students should have access to a computer, and it is beneficial to have computers for some classes, but there is no reason for any student to have a computer in 6th grade math.
In addition to this 12 yrs old is not the time to be learning how to make power point presentations. Sure it is a professional skill, and valuable at some point, but I'd rather have 12 yr olds who knew who Newton or Napolean were than, 12 yr olds who were capable of doing mommies homework.