I participated in an apple tasting festival a year or so ago, and I only really learned one thing. The uglier the variety of apple, the better it tastes. A perfectly-colored, gargantuan Red Delicious from the store has nearly no flavor whatsoever. By contrast, if you find one that looks like a potato, you are in for a treat.
If you want to redefine what groups you are talking about to fit your conclusions, I won't stop you. The question you answered is not the one that was asked. I am not about to engage in a debate with someone whose M.O. involves redefining the debate at every turn.
However, I will make one comment regarding genocide of individual tribes: European settlers were not the first groups to kill off an entire American Indian tribe. Other tribes started it quite a long time beforehand.
But this will be my last comment on the matter, for the foregoing reason. G'day.
First off, I am a native American - I was born here and my ancestors immigrated no different from anyone else's, except that they took boats instead of walking. Second, I know enough American Indians to know that any such genocide was not any more successful than any other in history. Maybe you know fewer and thus are in a position to make such claims, though.
For all those of you, including the article submitter and the editor that approved the submission, who think that this is utterly insane or activist, please realize that the statute doesn't define what "electronic mail" means. What is the difference between e-mail and instant messages? If you can't clearly delineate them in a way that is so unassailable as to be subject to judicial notice, then why do you expect (or, for that matter, trust) a judge to so delineate them?
You know the sad thing? It's only the fourth worst movie I've ever seen:
1. Dancer in the Dark is so bad that I can't sit through Chicago due to flashbacks.
2. Glitter, because any good 5-digit slashdotter has had a woman or two in his life, and at least one regret among them.
3. Unknown. I remembered what it was 3 days ago and repressed it again.
4. Tammy and the T-Rex, one of the earliest movies I've seen with the worst Bond girl. I have actually seen the utterly gorgeous Denise Richards in at least 4 or 5 movies, and am still looking forward to a chance to see her act.
5. Ma Vie En Rose.
I personally have no problem with "Yankee" or "Yanks." I get called a Yank by my Canadian friends all the time, and I call them Canucks in return. For most people, Yank isn't very offensive at all. What matters more is the intent behind it. The classic example is the word "nigger." When one black American says it to another, it is generally meant as a term of endearment or brotherhood, to show solidarity. White Americans have used various other words for the same effect; "buddy" is one of them.
The word itself is generally considered horribly offensive, but when used with brotherly intent and when the person hearing it understands that intent and appreciates the meaning, it is not offensive at all. By contrast, when a white American calls someone a nigger, there are a few possible things that he might intend. One is plain and simple racism; this is bad. Another is an attempt at being brotherly; this is usually seen as idiotic. Finally, when one white person calls another white person a nigger, people just tend to think he's a total moron.
The point really is that the intent matters most. In this case, the original poster seems to agree that his intent was to be a little bit edgy with both Chink and Yank. Another person could have said either or both words with different intent. (That said, I don't know if there's a context in which "chink" is not at least a little bit racist.)
P.S. Don't worry about offending me; it's not easy to do. The only thing I've found even remotely offensive recently was the New Zealand story about accepting text-messaging-style writing on exams. Also, since you are in a fellow former part of the British Empire, go ahead and call us Yanks all you want.:)
Are you particularly fond of the term he used for American people? Are certain slurs acceptable because they don't hit as close to home, in the same way, or as hard? Are others bad because they are often used with racist intent even when there is no racist intent behind them?
I think that the blurb was more of a failed attempt at invoking a bad cliche than it was factual. Face it - the writing and editing here have always sucked and will always suck in the future. You just have to tune out the bad cliches, bad grammar, bad spelling, and bad humor. That usually leaves you with a link to an article, and if you use Google you can usually find the actual information that the article is re-reporting. That said, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em: never RTFA and post lots of comments. Doing anything else will grind the system to a halt.:P
"It accepted, but not formal. [sic]" Can you provide a source for this? I was never taught that elliptical clauses were informal and am always willing to learn new things.
I agree. That's the only arguable mistake in the original, which was strangely overlooked by the self-appointed grammar nazis. I just find it funny that people are referring to the second version as the original.
Fry: I tell you, bein' here really brings me back to my college days. (Flashback to Coney Island Community College.) Good old Coney Island College. Go Whitefish! Leela: Don't take this the wrong way, Fry, but you don't seem like the educated type. Fry: Oh yeah? (Produces Notice of Failure to Graduated from CICC.) Read it and weep. I'm a certified college drop-out. Leela: Please. Everyone knows twentieth century colleges were basically expensive day care centers. Professor: That's true. By current academic standards, you're merely a high school dropout. Fry: What? That's not fair. I deserve the same respect any other college dropout gets. By God, I'm going to enroll here at Mars University and drop out all over again!
Try running the Slashdot front page through crm114 sometime and see if it really is better than a human (specifically, better than you) at distinguishing spam from legitimate content.;)
Suing under a federal statute is even more interesting. There is not much to stop the defendant from removing the case to a federal district court, and if you are unlucky (read: you didn't hire a lawyer) then the defendant might get the case transferred to venue in another state. One trip to the venue jurisdiction will cost you more than the case is worth, so you drop the matter and the defendant wins with two court filings.
There are all sorts of loopholes. If the police delay (probably only non-purposeful delays work) in giving Miranda warnings, they can use your silence (even silence after asserting your right to remain silent) against you. If you assert the right to remain silent, you can get new Miranda warnings and be questioned further (i.e., they can keep bugging you with Miranda warnings until you waive your rights). Some states limit this to unrelated crimes but others do not. Note that I vehemently disagree with some of the case law in this area.
In short, post-arrest (you are correct - I forgot to mention the "make sure you are actually under arrest" step) silence is dangerous unless you have been promptly warned of your Miranda rights and asserted your right to counsel. Once you do that, almost everything is going to be safe. They can't even re-warn you of your Miranda rights and hope to get a different answer.
Please see my previous post for the fact that I'm not a lawyer, etc., and other disclaimers.
The Supreme Court case law on silence is bizarre. It goes something like this - if you are silent before being advised of your right to remain silent, it can be used against you. If you invoke your right to remain silent and then later speak up, it can be used against you. If you invoke your right to an attorney after being advised that you have the right and then later speak up, it can't be used against you. So if you get arrested, tell them to advise you of your rights and then immediately demand an attorney.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice or even a correct statement of the law. It's mostly based on hearsay and television drama shows about lawyers, such as E.R. and Futurama. Any reliance you take on this comment is foolish and unreasonable. &c &c &c.
You can't prosecute a corpse for refusing to hand over an encryption key. Also, in the US we have the Fifth Amendment which would likely protect a person from being compelled to turn over an encryption key if to do so would be tantamount to testifying against himself.
Slashdot Mirror
I participated in an apple tasting festival a year or so ago, and I only really learned one thing. The uglier the variety of apple, the better it tastes. A perfectly-colored, gargantuan Red Delicious from the store has nearly no flavor whatsoever. By contrast, if you find one that looks like a potato, you are in for a treat.
If you want to redefine what groups you are talking about to fit your conclusions, I won't stop you. The question you answered is not the one that was asked. I am not about to engage in a debate with someone whose M.O. involves redefining the debate at every turn.
However, I will make one comment regarding genocide of individual tribes: European settlers were not the first groups to kill off an entire American Indian tribe. Other tribes started it quite a long time beforehand.
But this will be my last comment on the matter, for the foregoing reason. G'day.
First off, I am a native American - I was born here and my ancestors immigrated no different from anyone else's, except that they took boats instead of walking. Second, I know enough American Indians to know that any such genocide was not any more successful than any other in history. Maybe you know fewer and thus are in a position to make such claims, though.
For all those of you, including the article submitter and the editor that approved the submission, who think that this is utterly insane or activist, please realize that the statute doesn't define what "electronic mail" means. What is the difference between e-mail and instant messages? If you can't clearly delineate them in a way that is so unassailable as to be subject to judicial notice, then why do you expect (or, for that matter, trust) a judge to so delineate them?
You know the sad thing? It's only the fourth worst movie I've ever seen:
1. Dancer in the Dark is so bad that I can't sit through Chicago due to flashbacks.
2. Glitter, because any good 5-digit slashdotter has had a woman or two in his life, and at least one regret among them.
3. Unknown. I remembered what it was 3 days ago and repressed it again.
4. Tammy and the T-Rex, one of the earliest movies I've seen with the worst Bond girl. I have actually seen the utterly gorgeous Denise Richards in at least 4 or 5 movies, and am still looking forward to a chance to see her act.
5. Ma Vie En Rose.
As far as I know, Tammy and the T-Rex, starring Denise Richards, is not available on DVD or Betamax. How am I supposed to watch it now?
I personally have no problem with "Yankee" or "Yanks." I get called a Yank by my Canadian friends all the time, and I call them Canucks in return. For most people, Yank isn't very offensive at all. What matters more is the intent behind it. The classic example is the word "nigger." When one black American says it to another, it is generally meant as a term of endearment or brotherhood, to show solidarity. White Americans have used various other words for the same effect; "buddy" is one of them.
:)
The word itself is generally considered horribly offensive, but when used with brotherly intent and when the person hearing it understands that intent and appreciates the meaning, it is not offensive at all. By contrast, when a white American calls someone a nigger, there are a few possible things that he might intend. One is plain and simple racism; this is bad. Another is an attempt at being brotherly; this is usually seen as idiotic. Finally, when one white person calls another white person a nigger, people just tend to think he's a total moron.
The point really is that the intent matters most. In this case, the original poster seems to agree that his intent was to be a little bit edgy with both Chink and Yank. Another person could have said either or both words with different intent. (That said, I don't know if there's a context in which "chink" is not at least a little bit racist.)
P.S. Don't worry about offending me; it's not easy to do. The only thing I've found even remotely offensive recently was the New Zealand story about accepting text-messaging-style writing on exams. Also, since you are in a fellow former part of the British Empire, go ahead and call us Yanks all you want.
I dont like the term for Chinese people you used
Are you particularly fond of the term he used for American people? Are certain slurs acceptable because they don't hit as close to home, in the same way, or as hard? Are others bad because they are often used with racist intent even when there is no racist intent behind them?
I think that the blurb was more of a failed attempt at invoking a bad cliche than it was factual. Face it - the writing and editing here have always sucked and will always suck in the future. You just have to tune out the bad cliches, bad grammar, bad spelling, and bad humor. That usually leaves you with a link to an article, and if you use Google you can usually find the actual information that the article is re-reporting. That said, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em: never RTFA and post lots of comments. Doing anything else will grind the system to a halt. :P
Like I said, "arguable mistake." I had no problem with it as written, if you read through this entire ridiculous thread. Yikes, eh? :P
"It accepted, but not formal. [sic]" Can you provide a source for this? I was never taught that elliptical clauses were informal and am always willing to learn new things.
I agree. That's the only arguable mistake in the original, which was strangely overlooked by the self-appointed grammar nazis. I just find it funny that people are referring to the second version as the original.
Apparently, people here are confused with the definition of "original." I shouldn't be surprised.
The original did not have the word that in it at all.
Actually, it was correct as originally written. The fact that you can add words does not mean that you must.
Fry: I tell you, bein' here really brings me back to my college days. (Flashback to Coney Island Community College.) Good old Coney Island College. Go Whitefish!
Leela: Don't take this the wrong way, Fry, but you don't seem like the educated type.
Fry: Oh yeah? (Produces Notice of Failure to Graduated from CICC.) Read it and weep. I'm a certified college drop-out.
Leela: Please. Everyone knows twentieth century colleges were basically expensive day care centers.
Professor: That's true. By current academic standards, you're merely a high school dropout.
Fry: What? That's not fair. I deserve the same respect any other college dropout gets. By God, I'm going to enroll here at Mars University and drop out all over again!
Try running the Slashdot front page through crm114 sometime and see if it really is better than a human (specifically, better than you) at distinguishing spam from legitimate content. ;)
No, Data flies a starship. His evil brother Lore takes the bus.
Suing under a federal statute is even more interesting. There is not much to stop the defendant from removing the case to a federal district court, and if you are unlucky (read: you didn't hire a lawyer) then the defendant might get the case transferred to venue in another state. One trip to the venue jurisdiction will cost you more than the case is worth, so you drop the matter and the defendant wins with two court filings.
Theo being childishly abrasive and arrogant? You're kidding! Check out this masterpiece of social graces.
$ ls
evil-plans.txt
$ encrypt -i evil-plans.txt -o evil-plans.txt
$ ls
evil-plans.txt
That's why.
There are all sorts of loopholes. If the police delay (probably only non-purposeful delays work) in giving Miranda warnings, they can use your silence (even silence after asserting your right to remain silent) against you. If you assert the right to remain silent, you can get new Miranda warnings and be questioned further (i.e., they can keep bugging you with Miranda warnings until you waive your rights). Some states limit this to unrelated crimes but others do not. Note that I vehemently disagree with some of the case law in this area.
In short, post-arrest (you are correct - I forgot to mention the "make sure you are actually under arrest" step) silence is dangerous unless you have been promptly warned of your Miranda rights and asserted your right to counsel. Once you do that, almost everything is going to be safe. They can't even re-warn you of your Miranda rights and hope to get a different answer.
Please see my previous post for the fact that I'm not a lawyer, etc., and other disclaimers.
Yep, that's it. Sorry I was ambiguous. That's why I'm not a lawyer. ;)
The Supreme Court case law on silence is bizarre. It goes something like this - if you are silent before being advised of your right to remain silent, it can be used against you. If you invoke your right to remain silent and then later speak up, it can be used against you. If you invoke your right to an attorney after being advised that you have the right and then later speak up, it can't be used against you. So if you get arrested, tell them to advise you of your rights and then immediately demand an attorney.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice or even a correct statement of the law. It's mostly based on hearsay and television drama shows about lawyers, such as E.R. and Futurama. Any reliance you take on this comment is foolish and unreasonable. &c &c &c.
You can't prosecute a corpse for refusing to hand over an encryption key. Also, in the US we have the Fifth Amendment which would likely protect a person from being compelled to turn over an encryption key if to do so would be tantamount to testifying against himself.