It takes three parties to have censorship. One that wants to transmit, one that wants to receive, and a third party that forcibly prevents the transmission.
The most common misuse of the word is when some third party that could assist in the transmission chooses not to do so. This is not censorship, this is non-participation. It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used.
You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience. Find me a credible source for that definition. I warn you though, it's not what the word actually means, so you'll have a hard time finding one that isn't from some random nut. You might want to accept that you have misunderstood what censorship is, after a few dictionaries tell you you're wrong. I fear that you may have missed the thrust of my original post. I didn't label it "Commonly accepted definition of censorship" or "Webster's definition of censorship"; I labeled it "Botch's definition of censorship", thereby implying that it is not most people's definition.
Yes, I can read a dictionary. And, yes, you are perfectly correct, any dictionary would offer a definition different from mine. Any current dictionary.
But check a dictionary from pre-WWII - or any dictionary dating back to ancient Rome - and you'll get a completely different view. In most places and most times thoughout history censorship was understood to be absolute suppresion of information. If you want a credible source, look at a 1933 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary ( way too long to quote here )
The term 'censorship' is derived from the Roman office of 'censor'. A censor was charged with the protection of public morals. To excercise censorship was to be able to eradicate any idea from the public sphere. They regarded it much the way that we regard the eradication of communicable diseases. Allowing even one vector to spread a disease is a failure. All disease vectors have to be stopped. It is this absolute nature of censorship that our modern definition has lost.
The whole point of my original post is that the commonly used definition is a bad one. Once we allow for a non-absolute definition ( ie: one in which partial limitation is considered censorship ) we are on a slippery slope. Then any limitation of your speech can be considered censorship. If I turn off my computer without reading your post, that is censorship. If I mod you down, that is censorship.
Lani Guinier ( of Clinton SCOTUS nomination fame ) even went so far as to claim that freedom of speech meant that the government had to supply an audience. That, BTW, was what the "You don't have a right to an audience" was referring to.
We live in a time with unprecedented freedom off speech and press ( despite the efforts of the current administration. ) Our culture seems to have forgoton what censorship really was, and uses a water-down version that is so weak that it eventually means nothing.
Ahh, I think I understand; It's only censorship if you never hear about it Yes. Or to be precise: It's only successful censorship if you never hear about it
It takes three parties to have censorship. One that wants to transmit, one that wants to receive, and a third party that forcibly prevents the transmission.
The most common misuse of the word is when some third party that could assist in the transmission chooses not to do so. This is not censorship, this is non-participation. It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used.
You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience.
I don't think profit is the driving force here. They stand a good chance of taking a loss on this due to attorney's fees.
If making money were the primary goal they could sell it to a tv show.
Re:Piracy is marker of immature market
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I should have been more precise about the 'dozen versions' comment. Sure, the have several versions ( Itanium or not, 32 bit, 64 bit, etc ). These are what one might call 'horizontal' versions.
I was thinking of 'vertcal' versions, in which each version is a superset of the lesser version. The more you pay, the more frills and features you get. Supporting the low-end versions would not be too difficult because most of the features would be 'off'.
Piracy is marker of immature market
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Or the marker of a market that changes very quickly. And I think that currently the OS market is both.
Once a market is mature and stable, each major supplier within that market will have a product for all market segments. ( With cars, almost every manufacturer has a cheap sedan, a mid-size, an SUV, etc. Books come in limited signed editions, then the hardcover, then the quality size paperback, then the pocket paperback. )
There are some markets that are inherently unstable - like fashion - in which illegal knock-offs will always be practical. But in most mature makets the legitimate sellers fill every niche so well that the marginal costs of piracy are not worth it.
MS will get pirated until they have half a dozen or a dozen versions of their product. It would be practical for them to give away the low end version.
PS: This even applies to labor markets. In that case we call the piracy 'slavery', and the low end versions 'volunteers'.
...glass bottles holding ammonia solutions That logic should equally apply to glass bottles holding water. Indeed, due to the geometry involved, water is more polar than ammonia, and thus should be the stronger solvent.
Actually, both water and ammonia should dissolve a glass bottle. At room temperature they just do it very very very slowly.
TFA concludes that water had to be present as a solvent. I'm sceptical.
Silica is a polar molecule ( tetraheral: two oxygen atoms and two unlinked electron pairs equally spaced around a silion atom ). It ought to dissolve in any polar solvent, such as ammonia. And ammonia was almost certainly present during the formation of mars.
"You are not permited to access myspace. Your IP is on the Sentinel watchlist"
JS: WTF??? What is 'Sentinel'??? Ok, >google 'Sentinel'
"We at Google regret to inform you that you cannot access Google at this time. Your name has been flagged by the Arkansas State Outstanding Warrants Project"
JS: I've never been to Arkansas in my whole fucking life!!!! >Yahoo search
"Yahoo does not do business with people who have overdue library books"
JS: Ok, I'll ask slashdot! People there know everything. >slashdot.org
---Message from Southwestern Cable Services: Your account has been terminated. &%.,78(*...NO CARRIER,.^$.!G*...
I agree, except I think you're giving Bush way too much credit. He probably believed that Iraq would turn itself into a liberal democracy as soon as the tyrant at the top was removed. ( It's not surprising that he should have that view; it will probably work in his own country...)
For those who don't study history or are too young to remember ( a union which is probably 90+% of slashdot ), parent is presumably referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
TFA says"teleworkers are growing rapidly as a direct result of the cost of driving."
Yep, now I never have to leave my Mom's basement except for trips to 7-11 to restock the fridge.
Ohhh! You meant the number of teleworkers?? Oops. Never mind.
Re:4 Minutes in Space
on
Scotty Scooped Up
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I seem to recall from an interview with Rutan ( or one of his Spaceship One engineers? I forget ) they mentioned that the energy difference between getting to 'space' ( approx 100 miles ) and getting there with enough speed to stay in orbit differed by a factor of 30. Escape velocity of course would be more than that.
I process cards for customers every day that have 'ask for id' in big letters on them. It is the card owner's way of making it harder for a thief to use his card.
Makes more sense to allow you to drive on your credit card. ( I'd rather trust Visa's or AmEx's opinion of your reliability than the opinion of some govt bureaucrat ).
And if it's overdrawn you shold only be allowed to drive to and from work.:-)
You're right: we have no style in inventing words. The problem is that you think that style matters. It doesn't. What matters is functionality. That is why so many people in the world speak English as a second language.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm...wasn't it a Russian icebreaker?
The most common misuse of the word is when some third party that could assist in the transmission chooses not to do so. This is not censorship, this is non-participation. It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used.
You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience. Find me a credible source for that definition.
I warn you though, it's not what the word actually means, so you'll have a hard time finding one that isn't from some random nut. You might want to accept that you have misunderstood what censorship is, after a few dictionaries tell you you're wrong. I fear that you may have missed the thrust of my original post. I didn't label it "Commonly accepted definition of censorship" or "Webster's definition of censorship"; I labeled it "Botch's definition of censorship", thereby implying that it is not most people's definition.
Yes, I can read a dictionary. And, yes, you are perfectly correct, any dictionary would offer a definition different from mine. Any current dictionary.
But check a dictionary from pre-WWII - or any dictionary dating back to ancient Rome - and you'll get a completely different view. In most places and most times thoughout history censorship was understood to be absolute suppresion of information.
If you want a credible source, look at a 1933 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary ( way too long to quote here )
The term 'censorship' is derived from the Roman office of 'censor'. A censor was charged with the protection of public morals. To excercise censorship was to be able to eradicate any idea from the public sphere. They regarded it much the way that we regard the eradication of communicable diseases. Allowing even one vector to spread a disease is a failure. All disease vectors have to be stopped. It is this absolute nature of censorship that our modern definition has lost.
The whole point of my original post is that the commonly used definition is a bad one. Once we allow for a non-absolute definition ( ie: one in which partial limitation is considered censorship ) we are on a slippery slope. Then any limitation of your speech can be considered censorship. If I turn off my computer without reading your post, that is censorship. If I mod you down, that is censorship.
Lani Guinier ( of Clinton SCOTUS nomination fame ) even went so far as to claim that freedom of speech meant that the government had to supply an audience. That, BTW, was what the "You don't have a right to an audience" was referring to.
We live in a time with unprecedented freedom off speech and press ( despite the efforts of the current administration. ) Our culture seems to have forgoton what censorship really was, and uses a water-down version that is so weak that it eventually means nothing.
There is lots of hot air.
Everything gets grilled.
The idea is analagous to car technology.
And there was a patent involved.
It takes three parties to have censorship. One that wants to transmit, one that wants to receive, and a third party that forcibly prevents the transmission.
The most common misuse of the word is when some third party that could assist in the transmission chooses not to do so. This is not censorship, this is non-participation. It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used.
You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience.
I don't think profit is the driving force here. They stand a good chance of taking a loss on this due to attorney's fees.
If making money were the primary goal they could sell it to a tv show.
Parent asks how the data in TFA is calulated. And he gets modded offtopic??
Do it by halves. Use IPv5 to ease the transition.
Sorry, I should have been more precise about the 'dozen versions' comment. Sure, the have several versions ( Itanium or not, 32 bit, 64 bit, etc ). These are what one might call 'horizontal' versions.
I was thinking of 'vertcal' versions, in which each version is a superset of the lesser version. The more you pay, the more frills and features you get. Supporting the low-end versions would not be too difficult because most of the features would be 'off'.
Or the marker of a market that changes very quickly. And I think that currently the OS market is both.
Once a market is mature and stable, each major supplier within that market will have a product for all market segments. ( With cars, almost every manufacturer has a cheap sedan, a mid-size, an SUV, etc. Books come in limited signed editions, then the hardcover, then the quality size paperback, then the pocket paperback. )
There are some markets that are inherently unstable - like fashion - in which illegal knock-offs will always be practical. But in most mature makets the legitimate sellers fill every niche so well that the marginal costs of piracy are not worth it.
MS will get pirated until they have half a dozen or a dozen versions of their product. It would be practical for them to give away the low end version.
PS: This even applies to labor markets. In that case we call the piracy 'slavery', and the low end versions 'volunteers'.
...glass bottles holding ammonia solutions That logic should equally apply to glass bottles holding water. Indeed, due to the geometry involved, water is more polar than ammonia, and thus should be the stronger solvent.Actually, both water and ammonia should dissolve a glass bottle. At room temperature they just do it very very very slowly.
" ...ergo there must be water."
TFA concludes that water had to be present as a solvent. I'm sceptical.
Silica is a polar molecule ( tetraheral: two oxygen atoms and two unlinked electron pairs equally spaced around a silion atom ). It ought to dissolve in any polar solvent, such as ammonia. And ammonia was almost certainly present during the formation of mars.
Joe Slashdot: >www.myspace.com
,.^$.!G*...
"You are not permited to access myspace. Your IP is on the Sentinel watchlist"
JS: WTF??? What is 'Sentinel'??? Ok, >google 'Sentinel'
"We at Google regret to inform you that you cannot access Google at this time. Your name has been flagged by the Arkansas State Outstanding Warrants Project"
JS: I've never been to Arkansas in my whole fucking life!!!! >Yahoo search
"Yahoo does not do business with people who have overdue library books"
JS: Ok, I'll ask slashdot! People there know everything. >slashdot.org
---Message from Southwestern Cable Services: Your account has been terminated. &%.,78(*...NO CARRIER
They don't know what transitive/intrasitive verbs are either.
It requires 1 lb of recycleable aluminum per mile. GP is right; it is a closed system.
Correction: instead of 100 miles, I meant to say 100K meters, which is about 60 miles.
In the midst of vacuous chatter, parent supplies a fact. A real, honest-to-god fact. Please, someone, mod him 'informative'.
I agree, except I think you're giving Bush way too much credit. He probably believed that Iraq would turn itself into a liberal democracy as soon as the tyrant at the top was removed. ( It's not surprising that he should have that view; it will probably work in his own country...)
For those who don't study history or are too young to remember ( a union which is probably 90+% of slashdot ), parent is presumably referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
TFA says"teleworkers are growing rapidly as a direct result of the cost of driving."
Yep, now I never have to leave my Mom's basement except for trips to 7-11 to restock the fridge.
Ohhh! You meant the number of teleworkers?? Oops. Never mind.
I seem to recall from an interview with Rutan ( or one of his Spaceship One engineers? I forget ) they mentioned that the energy difference between getting to 'space' ( approx 100 miles ) and getting there with enough speed to stay in orbit differed by a factor of 30. Escape velocity of course would be more than that.
I process cards for customers every day that have 'ask for id' in big letters on them. It is the card owner's way of making it harder for a thief to use his card.
Makes more sense to allow you to drive on your credit card. ( I'd rather trust Visa's or AmEx's opinion of your reliability than the opinion of some govt bureaucrat ). :-)
And if it's overdrawn you shold only be allowed to drive to and from work.
But when you try to upgrade they take half of everthing you own.
You're right: we have no style in inventing words. The problem is that you think that style matters. It doesn't. What matters is functionality. That is why so many people in the world speak English as a second language.