Because the list only covers attempts to ban in the USA. The 'bible-haters' here aren't exactly a majority, probably in any non-planned community, whatever else they may be.
Sounds like someone doesn't live in hickville. Or belonged to a PTA anywhere. To believe that banning books is either temporally remote or over with is naive AND incorrect. These days parents seem to just are about different stuff, like 'promoting witchcraft' (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings). And sometimes, they succeed for a time (till a suit or injunction slaps them back into shape). Same shite, different decade.
Perhaps. Their homepage provides a phone number though. Anybody from PA who can call and check it out? (I hate long-distance charges.) As far as the story being ridiculous...I don't know. If you had asked me 20 years ago if I believed that the music industry would be hauling their customers to court for making personal copies of songs and trading songs with friends, I'd have called you crazy. And yet, here we are.
It depends on where you are. Most jurisdictions still operate on the rule that trash represents items that the person has released from their possession, and therefore their control. In some jurisdictions, trash scavenging and in particular dumpster diving is illegal because of trade secret protection (and, laterally, plausible deniability for illegal corporate activity).
That's like calling the guy who was attacked by a lion, tossed arond like a rag doll, disemboweled, but let go because he tasted bad a 'winner'. Sure, it's technically true, as he didn't get eaten, but that's really a small comfort for the guy. I bet he doesn't feel like a winner.;)
Or there is some other logic for this decision that hasn't been shared with us.
Yeah, the logic goes: 'When all are guilty, none are responsible.' If every member of the committee votes for it, it's the committee's fault if it goes bad, not any indiviudual member or subdivision. Blame is spread around more thinly, and so every member survives. It's the politician's number one way to avoid responsibility. I should know, I am one.;)
Rarely is it that rules exist for no reason, but this one is kind of like the king whose subjects suffered from paper cuts, so as a solution he banned all the books.
This may sound counterintitive, but I disagree strongly. I want the FBI to be partially on a different page as the Military, as the local police. Sure, it slightly increases the chance that a catastrophic attack might succeed, but there are much more important variables than this in that equation. No, the drag of having massively powerful agencies collaborating is that it makes their view all the more awesomely omniscient. Where then does privacy live?
Look, if you were able to coordinate all extraneous public bits of data that a person ejects into the environment through paperwork, shopping, loan apps, etc, it would, after a certain degree of sophistication and interdepartmental coopoeration, become nearly trivially easy to identify, say, AIDS patients, or gay people, or people who cheat on their spouse with a very high degree of confidence. At that point, all the on-paper privacy in the world doesn't mean squat. With increased automation and advances in data mining heuristics, the cost of correlating data per person keeps going down. Sure, it may be too expensive to do categorical surveillance on a wide scale now, but just wait twenty years.
The government isn't a collection of scientists at a symposium, and not all information *wants* to be free (or whatever the kids' rhetoric is these days). The government has direct power, to coerce, to control, to detain, and yes, even to kill, and do all of these facelessly and on a wide scale. That awesome power is checked somewhat significantly on paper, but the more important practical check on the use of that power usually is pragmatism brought on by bureacratic inefficiency. This isn't about sharing information in the abstract. This is about sharing personal data, the analysis of which may well control the fate of someone's life or freedom.
Let's say you live in the middle of nowhere, and I mean like the village that time forgot. It's cold where you live, so your village survives by stealing from other villages. Neat thing is though, this policy doesn't anger your neighbors, because the villages you are robbing aren't theirs, but some poor suckers a long way away. When your raiding parties return, they bring resoures to fix up your homes, roads, bridges, etc.
And probably for a second there, you thought I was talking about the Vikings, and not the U.S. Senate. But anyway, I digress from my original point, which was...
...if you were a member of that village, and you started raising ethical concerns about how the raiding parties do their business to give your family and others in the village warmth and food, how well do you think that argument would be received by your fellow villagers? Would they care?
Why are people sooooooo shocked these people keep getting re-elected? These guys are the Viking warriors raping and pillaging to bring home the bacon. His constituents love this stuff...and why shouldn't they? If you want this to stop, another poster might have had it right; stop federal direct taxes, and have the fed direcly dependent upon state grants for their funding. Practical? Maybe not, but it would certainly cut down on that village half a world away robbing you blind.
Maybe it doesn't even have to be so extreme. Simple rules changes would make things much better. How about instating a germaneness rule so that senators can't hang pork like christmas tree ornaments on unrelated bills? How about abolishing anonymous holds? How about reforming conference committee selection and procedures? Any one of these things alone would make pork more difficult and more visible.
What confuses the situation was that there were two Muslim conquests of Spain, by two very different groups of Muslims. And the GP was basically correct, while the second group were kinda pricks to the Jews, there were no wide persecutions under either Muslim rule; in contrast the Reconquista were horrible to both the Jews and the occupying Muslims...and everyone else, for that matter.
No problem. Sorry about calling you a ring-and-run, BTW. I understand your point and generally agree with it, also; people use quotes all the time to justify irrationality; Nietzsche, ironically, is probably the second runner-up in world history for getting screwed in this particular way. (That ranking is, of course, flexible.;) ) I rarely quote for that precise reason (but it just seemed to fit so well, y'know?) Also, don't feel bad in particular that you mistook my comments in particular for normative rather than descriptive ones; people do that to me all the time. I think people expect me to be spewing an opinion, it must be something about my style.
I was quoting from memory, so pardon the inaccuracy. Hey, buddy, how's this. How about "read posts". The other half of the thread makes clear that a. Nietzsche isn't applauding that behavior and b. I knew that. I just got through reading Kaufmann's fantastic study of Nietzsche's works, and I find a great deal of value in his philosophy (which I had studied extensively prior to getting the Kaufmann book). I don't agree with all, or even most of what he had to say, but his criticisms of politics, among other things, were spot on.
And, yes, exactly what I was saying was that many mac users buy macs to feel part of the club, or to feel in opposition to another club. SAme thing with windows users. I didn't say I approved, or even that my approval matters (because it obviously doesn't) but rather that they do it for an identifiable reason at all.
The only thing that makes me feel dirty about this argument is that I am having it with a ring-and-run AC. That, if anything, is stupid. But if I have a weakness, it is the overwhelming desire to yell at people who think they know something substantial about someone's intellect, education, or anything else just because they glanced at one of their posts.
I agree, and you are quite right. That was precisely Nietzsche's point; that quote was the beginning of a segment devoted to a diatribe against the inanities of partisan politics. (my favorite: "Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself right through the party.") The fact remains, however, that amongst options provided to a person (such as, apropos, Apple v. Microsoft), that is the decision making heuristic that people have to use--the least of all evils. Then choice boils down to application of personal prejudices. In order to escape that trap, people have to create their own options. Hey, I guess Nietzsche would have been a Linux fan.;)
"Often a person will subscribe to a position only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche
Sometimes, we decide what to do not by picking the best option, but rather by elminating all of the distasteful ones and going with whatever's left. Do I want to buy a Mac and be associated with the snootiness of these ads, much less the general stereotype of an Apple kool-aid drinker? I personally don't really care, but I can see how someone reasonably would.
True enough, but in his reasoning the judge absolutely evicerated the only argument that had a chance of prevailing for the state, that being that games have some feature which makes them less deserving of 1st Amendment protection.
I don't know about you, but I *liked* Dodgeball and Redrover. Damn modern parents and their precious kids; can't bleed a little for their fun. Don't feel pain! Don't feel discomfort! Don't feel loss! Bah! There's nothing that makes you feel alive so much as getting clotheslined...especially when you are ten years old.
The point is, if you are mature at 13, you stay mature, right? If people used to die at 40, then it was a quarter life...but I don't see why it couldn't be a much smaller proportional fraction now. Thirteen wasn't that far off for even the American colonial period (they pushed it maybe to 15).
Because, and I know how moral crusaders who think that one bad act makes a bad person missed this, Apple probably lost some good employees over this. You know, showed up early, stayed late, worked hard, etc.. And they got what is, at best, neutral press over the whole incident, and it's downright bad press when you consider that the customer applesphere is populted by bleeding-heart compassionate types. Besides, if the thing was overly curious marketing types and not something more nefarious (and it appears for all the world like it was just a sneak-a-peek sort of thing) it was eminently avoidable by Apple if they had either a. released specs to the sales people or b. just showed them the damn thing.
That's how Apple shot themselves in the foot. The employees? They shot themselves in the head. But, that's another topic altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the list only covers attempts to ban in the USA. The 'bible-haters' here aren't exactly a majority, probably in any non-planned community, whatever else they may be.
Sounds like someone doesn't live in hickville. Or belonged to a PTA anywhere. To believe that banning books is either temporally remote or over with is naive AND incorrect. These days parents seem to just are about different stuff, like 'promoting witchcraft' (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings). And sometimes, they succeed for a time (till a suit or injunction slaps them back into shape). Same shite, different decade.
Perhaps. Their homepage provides a phone number though. Anybody from PA who can call and check it out? (I hate long-distance charges.) As far as the story being ridiculous...I don't know. If you had asked me 20 years ago if I believed that the music industry would be hauling their customers to court for making personal copies of songs and trading songs with friends, I'd have called you crazy. And yet, here we are.
http://perseus.org/Perseus conjugates on a computer Ancient Greek and Latin. It even declines nouns and adjectives. Take that, Microsoft!
It depends on where you are. Most jurisdictions still operate on the rule that trash represents items that the person has released from their possession, and therefore their control. In some jurisdictions, trash scavenging and in particular dumpster diving is illegal because of trade secret protection (and, laterally, plausible deniability for illegal corporate activity).
That's like calling the guy who was attacked by a lion, tossed arond like a rag doll, disemboweled, but let go because he tasted bad a 'winner'. Sure, it's technically true, as he didn't get eaten, but that's really a small comfort for the guy. I bet he doesn't feel like a winner. ;)
Or there is some other logic for this decision that hasn't been shared with us.
Yeah, the logic goes: 'When all are guilty, none are responsible.' If every member of the committee votes for it, it's the committee's fault if it goes bad, not any indiviudual member or subdivision. Blame is spread around more thinly, and so every member survives. It's the politician's number one way to avoid responsibility. I should know, I am one. ;)
Rarely is it that rules exist for no reason, but this one is kind of like the king whose subjects suffered from paper cuts, so as a solution he banned all the books.
This may sound counterintitive, but I disagree strongly. I want the FBI to be partially on a different page as the Military, as the local police. Sure, it slightly increases the chance that a catastrophic attack might succeed, but there are much more important variables than this in that equation. No, the drag of having massively powerful agencies collaborating is that it makes their view all the more awesomely omniscient. Where then does privacy live?
Look, if you were able to coordinate all extraneous public bits of data that a person ejects into the environment through paperwork, shopping, loan apps, etc, it would, after a certain degree of sophistication and interdepartmental coopoeration, become nearly trivially easy to identify, say, AIDS patients, or gay people, or people who cheat on their spouse with a very high degree of confidence. At that point, all the on-paper privacy in the world doesn't mean squat. With increased automation and advances in data mining heuristics, the cost of correlating data per person keeps going down. Sure, it may be too expensive to do categorical surveillance on a wide scale now, but just wait twenty years.
The government isn't a collection of scientists at a symposium, and not all information *wants* to be free (or whatever the kids' rhetoric is these days). The government has direct power, to coerce, to control, to detain, and yes, even to kill, and do all of these facelessly and on a wide scale. That awesome power is checked somewhat significantly on paper, but the more important practical check on the use of that power usually is pragmatism brought on by bureacratic inefficiency. This isn't about sharing information in the abstract. This is about sharing personal data, the analysis of which may well control the fate of someone's life or freedom.
If you don't look, then obviously you are insinuating that she is ugly, or a prude.
Well, only a woman can understand how the light socket is feeling and empathize. All guys know is the bulb, and the bulb knows no feelings.
Ducks.
(Quack!)
It's like a Wiki, but SQUARED!!!
Thanks, Epimenides.
It's called Vermont. Also, as a bonus, really good maple syrup.
Let's say you live in the middle of nowhere, and I mean like the village that time forgot. It's cold where you live, so your village survives by stealing from other villages. Neat thing is though, this policy doesn't anger your neighbors, because the villages you are robbing aren't theirs, but some poor suckers a long way away. When your raiding parties return, they bring resoures to fix up your homes, roads, bridges, etc.
And probably for a second there, you thought I was talking about the Vikings, and not the U.S. Senate. But anyway, I digress from my original point, which was...
...if you were a member of that village, and you started raising ethical concerns about how the raiding parties do their business to give your family and others in the village warmth and food, how well do you think that argument would be received by your fellow villagers? Would they care?
Why are people sooooooo shocked these people keep getting re-elected? These guys are the Viking warriors raping and pillaging to bring home the bacon. His constituents love this stuff...and why shouldn't they? If you want this to stop, another poster might have had it right; stop federal direct taxes, and have the fed direcly dependent upon state grants for their funding. Practical? Maybe not, but it would certainly cut down on that village half a world away robbing you blind.
Maybe it doesn't even have to be so extreme. Simple rules changes would make things much better. How about instating a germaneness rule so that senators can't hang pork like christmas tree ornaments on unrelated bills? How about abolishing anonymous holds? How about reforming conference committee selection and procedures? Any one of these things alone would make pork more difficult and more visible.
What confuses the situation was that there were two Muslim conquests of Spain, by two very different groups of Muslims. And the GP was basically correct, while the second group were kinda pricks to the Jews, there were no wide persecutions under either Muslim rule; in contrast the Reconquista were horrible to both the Jews and the occupying Muslims...and everyone else, for that matter.
No problem. Sorry about calling you a ring-and-run, BTW. I understand your point and generally agree with it, also; people use quotes all the time to justify irrationality; Nietzsche, ironically, is probably the second runner-up in world history for getting screwed in this particular way. (That ranking is, of course, flexible. ;) ) I rarely quote for that precise reason (but it just seemed to fit so well, y'know?) Also, don't feel bad in particular that you mistook my comments in particular for normative rather than descriptive ones; people do that to me all the time. I think people expect me to be spewing an opinion, it must be something about my style.
I was quoting from memory, so pardon the inaccuracy. Hey, buddy, how's this. How about "read posts". The other half of the thread makes clear that a. Nietzsche isn't applauding that behavior and b. I knew that. I just got through reading Kaufmann's fantastic study of Nietzsche's works, and I find a great deal of value in his philosophy (which I had studied extensively prior to getting the Kaufmann book). I don't agree with all, or even most of what he had to say, but his criticisms of politics, among other things, were spot on.
And, yes, exactly what I was saying was that many mac users buy macs to feel part of the club, or to feel in opposition to another club. SAme thing with windows users. I didn't say I approved, or even that my approval matters (because it obviously doesn't) but rather that they do it for an identifiable reason at all.
The only thing that makes me feel dirty about this argument is that I am having it with a ring-and-run AC. That, if anything, is stupid. But if I have a weakness, it is the overwhelming desire to yell at people who think they know something substantial about someone's intellect, education, or anything else just because they glanced at one of their posts.
I agree, and you are quite right. That was precisely Nietzsche's point; that quote was the beginning of a segment devoted to a diatribe against the inanities of partisan politics. (my favorite: "Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself right through the party.") The fact remains, however, that amongst options provided to a person (such as, apropos, Apple v. Microsoft), that is the decision making heuristic that people have to use--the least of all evils. Then choice boils down to application of personal prejudices. In order to escape that trap, people have to create their own options. Hey, I guess Nietzsche would have been a Linux fan. ;)
"Often a person will subscribe to a position only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche
Sometimes, we decide what to do not by picking the best option, but rather by elminating all of the distasteful ones and going with whatever's left. Do I want to buy a Mac and be associated with the snootiness of these ads, much less the general stereotype of an Apple kool-aid drinker? I personally don't really care, but I can see how someone reasonably would.
That is some seriously funny shit, especially the 'upgrade' one. Wish I had some 'interesting/funny' mod points to give ya.
True enough, but in his reasoning the judge absolutely evicerated the only argument that had a chance of prevailing for the state, that being that games have some feature which makes them less deserving of 1st Amendment protection.
I don't know about you, but I *liked* Dodgeball and Redrover. Damn modern parents and their precious kids; can't bleed a little for their fun. Don't feel pain! Don't feel discomfort! Don't feel loss! Bah! There's nothing that makes you feel alive so much as getting clotheslined...especially when you are ten years old.
The point is, if you are mature at 13, you stay mature, right? If people used to die at 40, then it was a quarter life...but I don't see why it couldn't be a much smaller proportional fraction now. Thirteen wasn't that far off for even the American colonial period (they pushed it maybe to 15).
Because, and I know how moral crusaders who think that one bad act makes a bad person missed this, Apple probably lost some good employees over this. You know, showed up early, stayed late, worked hard, etc.. And they got what is, at best, neutral press over the whole incident, and it's downright bad press when you consider that the customer applesphere is populted by bleeding-heart compassionate types. Besides, if the thing was overly curious marketing types and not something more nefarious (and it appears for all the world like it was just a sneak-a-peek sort of thing) it was eminently avoidable by Apple if they had either a. released specs to the sales people or b. just showed them the damn thing.
That's how Apple shot themselves in the foot. The employees? They shot themselves in the head. But, that's another topic altogether.