Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad?
No, you're not the only one. Burning the flag is also free speech, but burning the flag in violation of fire codes doesn't magically become protected. We also have freedom of religion, but when your religion conflicts with the laws the laws take precedent.
That's a problem with the system.. if your competitor is doing it then you sort of are forced to do it too.
You can't have it both ways, and your excuse doesn't hold up. You made the claim Google was special and didn't feel the need to do whatever their "evil" competitors were doing to maximize profits.
Google could afford to pay these taxes, and they are in no way "forced" to dodge them. If you're going to make flag-waving arguments about Google and "sense of civic duty" and "care about the fate of this nation", then Google needs to be held to those standards. They should pay their taxes instead of using loopholes, advertise that they do, and lobby the government to close the loopholes.
Bitch all you want about government, but they do provide essential services that everybody benefits from. If you don't think that's the case, try moving to a country without a functioning government like Somalia. When the rich dodge their taxes, it's just more burden that has to be taken up by everybody else.
Google (whom I do not work for) does seem to me to be a company apart.
You really need to open your eyes and stop buying into propaganda. I agree to a certain extent that Google puts some effort into behaving, but at the end of the day they are a for-profit company bent on creating a digital empire.
Google have pretty much lived up to the "don't be evil" slogan, a bout of WIFI panty-sniffing excepted.
Google now has a long history of disregarding privacy, and the WiFi sniffing is just one example. Other examples are not deleting email when requested by the user, the Buzz privacy fiasco, pervasive tracking (including forcing cookies on Safari via a loophole), and keeping data around for too long. Most of these problems have been addressed after public outcry, though the pervasive tracking is still there.
Comcast and Verizon and ATT are purely evil in that they want only money and the larger society can go fuck itself. They have no sense of civic duty nor do they care about the fate of this nation or its peoples , except as a PR move.
So is that why Google dodges taxes using tax havens?
"Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.
Google's income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich" -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries. "
I feel for the kid. He shouldn't have been so trusting, but kids are by definition not schooled in all potential betrayal vectors.
He was an adult making adult decisions. Even at his young age he should have known that opening your mouth is the classic way to get caught, especially considering all the security flaws he mockingly pointed out in his coversaion with Lamo.
After all, a laser doesn't degrade as it travels through space like it does through the atmosphere, so it'll just keep on going and going at the speed of light until it hits something, somewhere.
That is why I described it as 'original energy'.. the people pushing it though knew that not enough people would care so they tweaked it to tie into other narratives
So where's your evidence for this? Without it, all you've got is a pet theory born out of fashionable hate for American stereotypes.
Context does matter, and that's been my whole point all along. What you've been trying to do is strip that context (it's just humor) or use a completely different context (jokes about suicide).
However, when I bring up a context that is almost exactly the same, but for a different issue (health care mandate versus copyright), you've ducked the question every single time. It's because you have no answer for it, so you squirm around like a worm.
What's important about the effect of various starches is the rate at which you get those glucoses. HFCS = instant glucose. Oatmeal = 2-3 hour slow release of glucose. Since your enzymes are rate-limited, your foods should be as well.
It's been mentioned a fair amount on Slashdot: fructose seems to be the worst part about the high sugar intake, not the glycemic index. High-GI foods like rice are popular in Asia without the corresponding diabetes. Also, there have been a lot of studies now that explain how fructose can lead to diabetes.
Of course, if you already have Type II diabetes, you're better off eating a diet that isn't high in carbs.
Indeed, though that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
By definition, diabetes stands for excessive urination. Mellitus stands for sweet urine (sweet because the only way to diagnose in the early days was tasting). This is how diabetes mellitus is defined.
That sounds like an old-school definition being taken too literally in the modern world. Here's what an actual medical dictionary says:
"a variable disorder of carbohydrate metabolism caused by a combination of hereditary and environmental factors and usually characterized by inadequate secretion or utilization of insulin, by excessive urine production, by excessive amounts of sugar in the blood and urine, and by thirst, hunger, and loss of weightâ"see type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes"
"diabetes mellitus of a common form that develops especially in adults and most often in obese individuals and that is characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from impaired insulin utilization coupled with the body's inability to compensate with increased insulin production"
Once again you have ignored all the points raised and come back with a shallow response.
I asked you, precisely, if somebody had made the exact same "joke" in the healthcare context what you would think. You changed the quote to a strawman version that you could knock down.
You're a shameful coward that can't face the argument head on.
You have yet again dodged a direct question. I gave a specific example, one quite similar to the lobbyist example, and asked for your opinion on it. It's obvious you are afraid to give a direct answer because it either highlights your hypocrisy or puts you in support of the rabid fringe on the conservative side.
You have also neglected, yet again, the point about similar threats being made right on this very story without the humor. You've also ignored the other points which I'm not going to repeat again, but they all show that your claim of mere humor and not an incitement to violence don't stand up.
And finally, while I found his "joke" pretty pathetic, even if it was funny doesn't mean it is just a joke. I've already given a real-world example of that with the Martin Luther King Day joke.
Do you understand that in some cases it is ok, and hilarious, to joke about death, and in other cases, it is not?
Yes, of course, and I've already explained why in this context it is not OK: Other comments were violent without the humor, threats of violence in response to political disagreements is common and wrong, and these kinds of comments have become more prevalent.
However, so far you've been avoiding an explanation of what makes this case OK and my other examples not. Let's just pick one and hear your explanation. After the healthcare mandate passed the Supreme Court, I was reading the comments on a conservative blog and they were very negative and sometimes ugly, much like the comments on this story. So if one of them had said:
"Simple, we have to thin the herd.
Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting actibist judges!"
Is that OK with you? If so, why, and if not, why not, and please drop the "because it's funny", as I've already explained that's not good enough given the context. If you can't supply an explanation, then you're just defending a violent comment because it was made in favor of your side of an issue.
The issue is, you think it's not funny, everyone else thinks it's hilarious.
Who is this "everyone else" besides you and the original poster? If it was even remotely funny then at least it would have something going for it.
I'll bet you also have problems when someone jokes about suicide.
Yeah, I'm sure it would be hilarious to make a joke about suicide when somebody killed themselves because they were secretly videotaped by their roommate in a gay encounter, and to post these jokes on comments in the story.
I've given numerous examples that you have chosen not to address, despite multiple chances to do so, and that's because you're a shameful coward defending the advocation of political violence in the guise of unfunny humor.
You haven't addressed the issues and have only hidden behind the skirt of humor. In particular, you've ignored the environment in which the comment was made, and you've ignored other examples where you wouldn't so quickly just let a comment go as simple humor.
You want some humor? Here's some by a professional:
"Today is Martin Luther King's birthday. You know, I've always felt strongly that the nation should commemorate this day as a national holiday. People should not have to work on this day, the children should all have a day off from school. In fact, I felt so strongly that I even went before Congress to lobby for making this day a national holiday. IN FACT, KILL FOUR MORE AND we can take the whole week off."
It's funny, right? No problem making that joke in a public forum, right? Or maybe some good jokes about killing abortion doctors, activist judges, or the politicians responsible for the healthcare mandate when those stories come up?
Can you address these issues instead of hiding behind a skirt?
You wouldn't think it was funny if somebody was making a joke about murdering you and there were already non-joke threats to do so, now would you? Or if it was joking about hunting Democrat politicians, or activist judges, or abortion doctors. This continued insistence that it was merely a joke is shameful.
And if you really want to keep playing this "no sense of humor" card, one of my Slashdot Achievements is "Comedian". I enjoy a good joke now and then, not this pro-violence masquerading as humor bullshit.
There's nothing funny about advocating murder under the guise of humor when lots of people have been doing the same thing without the guise, right here in this very forum, and in fact in the comments on this very story.
Enough is enough. We've got idiots advocating this crap all around the spectrum of political issues, regardless of the label or which side of the argument you're on.
Just remember that you're picking from classics when you watch old movies. I think every year there are at least 2 or 3 good movies made, probably more, depending on your tastes. And there are lots of modern movies with good acting and intricate plotlines that aren't 3D or CGI spectacles. You just have to seek them out instead of watching the latest blockbuster.
Considering all the similar rabble-rousing that people on Slashdot have been doing, lots of it not even attempted at being veiled, trying to claim it is just a joke is transparently false.
So that's all you got? Ad hominem? No response to the kind of world we live in when murder is the answer to political disagreements? OK to kill abortion doctors? OK to kill over healthcare laws? OK to kill you for advocating killing? Or is it only your pet issue?
Or do you want to now claim that you were only joking? Ha ha, we need to "thin the herd"?
So in summary, it's a bunch of dopey hackers justifying their actions because the world isn't perfect. *golf clap*
Nevermind that these "disgusting corporations" give these turds the computers that they hack with and jobs to their parents so that they may live in their basements.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad?
No, you're not the only one. Burning the flag is also free speech, but burning the flag in violation of fire codes doesn't magically become protected. We also have freedom of religion, but when your religion conflicts with the laws the laws take precedent.
That's a problem with the system.. if your competitor is doing it then you sort of are forced to do it too.
You can't have it both ways, and your excuse doesn't hold up. You made the claim Google was special and didn't feel the need to do whatever their "evil" competitors were doing to maximize profits.
Google could afford to pay these taxes, and they are in no way "forced" to dodge them. If you're going to make flag-waving arguments about Google and "sense of civic duty" and "care about the fate of this nation", then Google needs to be held to those standards. They should pay their taxes instead of using loopholes, advertise that they do, and lobby the government to close the loopholes.
Bitch all you want about government, but they do provide essential services that everybody benefits from. If you don't think that's the case, try moving to a country without a functioning government like Somalia. When the rich dodge their taxes, it's just more burden that has to be taken up by everybody else.
What do you mean my ISP flipped a switch, pushed firmware or configuration and now I'm on IPv6? What is IPv6? I don't see anything different.
I actually noticed I had IPv6 when I anonymously edited a Wikipedia article and the address was IPv6. I was quite surprised.
Why is this informative post modded down? Oh no, reality intrudes!
Google (whom I do not work for) does seem to me to be a company apart.
You really need to open your eyes and stop buying into propaganda. I agree to a certain extent that Google puts some effort into behaving, but at the end of the day they are a for-profit company bent on creating a digital empire.
Google have pretty much lived up to the "don't be evil" slogan, a bout of WIFI panty-sniffing excepted .
Google now has a long history of disregarding privacy, and the WiFi sniffing is just one example. Other examples are not deleting email when requested by the user, the Buzz privacy fiasco, pervasive tracking (including forcing cookies on Safari via a loophole), and keeping data around for too long. Most of these problems have been addressed after public outcry, though the pervasive tracking is still there.
Comcast and Verizon and ATT are purely evil in that they want only money and the larger society can go fuck itself. They have no sense of civic duty nor do they care about the fate of this nation or its peoples , except as a PR move.
So is that why Google dodges taxes using tax havens?
"Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.
Google's income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich" -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries. "
Get over it. It's the American spelling, and Google is an American company.
I feel for the kid. He shouldn't have been so trusting, but kids are by definition not schooled in all potential betrayal vectors.
He was an adult making adult decisions. Even at his young age he should have known that opening your mouth is the classic way to get caught, especially considering all the security flaws he mockingly pointed out in his coversaion with Lamo.
After all, a laser doesn't degrade as it travels through space like it does through the atmosphere, so it'll just keep on going and going at the speed of light until it hits something, somewhere.
Sorry, even lasers in space diverge.
That is why I described it as 'original energy'.. the people pushing it though knew that not enough people would care so they tweaked it to tie into other narratives
So where's your evidence for this? Without it, all you've got is a pet theory born out of fashionable hate for American stereotypes.
And you're a big poopy-head.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, you did attempt to answer with strawmen. It's so obvious you don't answer because you can't. I'm done here.
Context does matter, and that's been my whole point all along. What you've been trying to do is strip that context (it's just humor) or use a completely different context (jokes about suicide).
However, when I bring up a context that is almost exactly the same, but for a different issue (health care mandate versus copyright), you've ducked the question every single time. It's because you have no answer for it, so you squirm around like a worm.
What's important about the effect of various starches is the rate at which you get those glucoses. HFCS = instant glucose. Oatmeal = 2-3 hour slow release of glucose. Since your enzymes are rate-limited, your foods should be as well.
It's been mentioned a fair amount on Slashdot: fructose seems to be the worst part about the high sugar intake, not the glycemic index. High-GI foods like rice are popular in Asia without the corresponding diabetes. Also, there have been a lot of studies now that explain how fructose can lead to diabetes.
Of course, if you already have Type II diabetes, you're better off eating a diet that isn't high in carbs.
Definition and diagnosis should not be confused.
Indeed, though that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
By definition, diabetes stands for excessive urination. Mellitus stands for sweet urine (sweet because the only way to diagnose in the early days was tasting). This is how diabetes mellitus is defined.
That sounds like an old-school definition being taken too literally in the modern world. Here's what an actual medical dictionary says:
"a variable disorder of carbohydrate metabolism caused by a combination of hereditary and environmental factors and usually characterized by inadequate secretion or utilization of insulin, by excessive urine production, by excessive amounts of sugar in the blood and urine, and by thirst, hunger, and loss of weightâ"see type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes"
Notice that urine is just one characterization.
and for type 2:
"diabetes mellitus of a common form that develops especially in adults and most often in obese individuals and that is characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from impaired insulin utilization coupled with the body's inability to compensate with increased insulin production"
Once again you have ignored all the points raised and come back with a shallow response.
I asked you, precisely, if somebody had made the exact same "joke" in the healthcare context what you would think. You changed the quote to a strawman version that you could knock down.
You're a shameful coward that can't face the argument head on.
You have yet again dodged a direct question. I gave a specific example, one quite similar to the lobbyist example, and asked for your opinion on it. It's obvious you are afraid to give a direct answer because it either highlights your hypocrisy or puts you in support of the rabid fringe on the conservative side.
You have also neglected, yet again, the point about similar threats being made right on this very story without the humor. You've also ignored the other points which I'm not going to repeat again, but they all show that your claim of mere humor and not an incitement to violence don't stand up.
And finally, while I found his "joke" pretty pathetic, even if it was funny doesn't mean it is just a joke. I've already given a real-world example of that with the Martin Luther King Day joke.
Do you understand that in some cases it is ok, and hilarious, to joke about death, and in other cases, it is not?
Yes, of course, and I've already explained why in this context it is not OK: Other comments were violent without the humor, threats of violence in response to political disagreements is common and wrong, and these kinds of comments have become more prevalent.
However, so far you've been avoiding an explanation of what makes this case OK and my other examples not. Let's just pick one and hear your explanation. After the healthcare mandate passed the Supreme Court, I was reading the comments on a conservative blog and they were very negative and sometimes ugly, much like the comments on this story. So if one of them had said:
"Simple, we have to thin the herd.
Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting actibist judges!"
Is that OK with you? If so, why, and if not, why not, and please drop the "because it's funny", as I've already explained that's not good enough given the context. If you can't supply an explanation, then you're just defending a violent comment because it was made in favor of your side of an issue.
The issue is, you think it's not funny, everyone else thinks it's hilarious.
Who is this "everyone else" besides you and the original poster? If it was even remotely funny then at least it would have something going for it.
I'll bet you also have problems when someone jokes about suicide.
Yeah, I'm sure it would be hilarious to make a joke about suicide when somebody killed themselves because they were secretly videotaped by their roommate in a gay encounter, and to post these jokes on comments in the story.
I've given numerous examples that you have chosen not to address, despite multiple chances to do so, and that's because you're a shameful coward defending the advocation of political violence in the guise of unfunny humor.
You haven't addressed the issues and have only hidden behind the skirt of humor. In particular, you've ignored the environment in which the comment was made, and you've ignored other examples where you wouldn't so quickly just let a comment go as simple humor.
You want some humor? Here's some by a professional:
"Today is Martin Luther King's birthday. You know, I've always felt strongly that the nation should commemorate this day as a national holiday. People should not have to work on this day, the children should all have a day off from school. In fact, I felt so strongly that I even went before Congress to lobby for making this day a national holiday. IN FACT, KILL FOUR MORE AND we can take the whole week off."
It's funny, right? No problem making that joke in a public forum, right? Or maybe some good jokes about killing abortion doctors, activist judges, or the politicians responsible for the healthcare mandate when those stories come up?
Can you address these issues instead of hiding behind a skirt?
You wouldn't think it was funny if somebody was making a joke about murdering you and there were already non-joke threats to do so, now would you? Or if it was joking about hunting Democrat politicians, or activist judges, or abortion doctors. This continued insistence that it was merely a joke is shameful.
And if you really want to keep playing this "no sense of humor" card, one of my Slashdot Achievements is "Comedian". I enjoy a good joke now and then, not this pro-violence masquerading as humor bullshit.
There's nothing funny about advocating murder under the guise of humor when lots of people have been doing the same thing without the guise, right here in this very forum, and in fact in the comments on this very story.
Enough is enough. We've got idiots advocating this crap all around the spectrum of political issues, regardless of the label or which side of the argument you're on.
Just remember that you're picking from classics when you watch old movies. I think every year there are at least 2 or 3 good movies made, probably more, depending on your tastes. And there are lots of modern movies with good acting and intricate plotlines that aren't 3D or CGI spectacles. You just have to seek them out instead of watching the latest blockbuster.
Considering all the similar rabble-rousing that people on Slashdot have been doing, lots of it not even attempted at being veiled, trying to claim it is just a joke is transparently false.
So that's all you got? Ad hominem? No response to the kind of world we live in when murder is the answer to political disagreements? OK to kill abortion doctors? OK to kill over healthcare laws? OK to kill you for advocating killing? Or is it only your pet issue?
Or do you want to now claim that you were only joking? Ha ha, we need to "thin the herd"?
So in summary, it's a bunch of dopey hackers justifying their actions because the world isn't perfect. *golf clap*
Nevermind that these "disgusting corporations" give these turds the computers that they hack with and jobs to their parents so that they may live in their basements.