Just because Ron Paul doesn't believe that the federal government should be telling states how to write their civil rights legislation doesn't mean that he opposes civil rights. I don't see why the states shouldn't follow the Bill of Rights. That is, if these rights were so important as to be explicitly listed as protected from violation by the federal government, why is it ok for the states to violate them?
Now some argue that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Whether it legally does or doesn't, why is Ron Paul against protecting such fundamental freedoms? Is free speech not worth protecting? Due process? Liberty?
What you're arguing for is complete world war until there's one monolithic government. Just as I wouldn't want some country enforcing their ideals on my country, I don't want my country doing so to others.
You might consider debated laws like the death penalty. The United States is in a minority of countries that still has it. I don't want the rest of the world uniting against America to "annihilated with extreme prejudice".
That argument applies to everything we do. "The state knows best for you and society". Anybody who is for limited government should keep government out of marriage and any other "family values" issues.
Whether the risk was actual or perceived was not central to my argument. In context, I was explaining why copyright still survives as a business based on individual actions. Sometimes semantic differences matter greatly, sometimes not.
In the context of this thread, you were replying to a Chinese poster who was correcting the perceived level of free speech allowed. Your statement was shallow, binary, and extreme, completely dismissive of the point the Chinese poster was making.
The Chinese poster never claimed the ideal, and explicitly placed the level as nowhere near as bad as 1984, though not as good as the United States. You turned it into an all or nothing proposition, which is completely useless. This is the central argument. That your argument was bracketing by the following statements:
"If it's restricted even a little bit, it isn't free."
"But I did NOT say that free speech is the same as unrestricted speech."
shows just how much you ended up waffling and backpedaling to explain yourself. I'm tired of going in circles, so this is my last reply.
You were asked to explain the shallow and binary comment you made to the Chinese poster. in the course of that explanation you managed to completely contradict yourself -- no ifs, ands, or buts.
If you caught a politician making these kinds of statements you'd have a field day with it.
Your arguments are inconsistent. Your initial comment was shallow and binary, completely dismissive of the point the Chinese pointer was making. Since then you have waffled considerably, to the point where your statements from the first comment to the last comment were in direct contradiction with each other. This is not an accident.
That is why I say you should run for office. You aren't accountable.
Are you going to bust my balls over an inconsistent use of the word "restricted"? Yeah, how terrible of me to point out blatant inconsistencies in your statements that are central to the argument. You should run for office.
But I did NOT say that free speech is the same as unrestricted speech. Try re-reading your original post that started this thread. You said: "You can't have just a little freedom of speech. If it's restricted even a little bit, it isn't free."
Also, I have not implied that having some unrestricted speech is not useful. Yes you did, when you responded to the original Chinese poster. His only point was that speech isn't as restricted as some make it out to be. He never claimed the ideal "free speech", which no country has anyways. So what was the point of your reply?
Thing is he might have done it, he might not. Without a body you only have 'suspicious behavior' which is not the same as 'cold, hard evidence' in my book. That's not the way the law works. You don't need a body. This point has been made numerous times in these stories. Even a body isn't proof of Reiser's guilt. What everybody would like is video tape from a God-like observer showing what happened. Sorry, instead what you get is a bunch of circumstantial evidence that, when taken as a whole, points to Reiser committing murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyway, last thing I'm saying in this case because even just trying to prove my point (media reports rule the public opinion in such a 'big' case) I start to sound like a Reiser nutcase. You are here passing judgment along with everybody else -- stating that the guilty verdict was incorrect because there was reasonable doubt.
nor was I defending him Yes you were, when you stated ' "Beyond reasonable doubt" my ass...'. That's what everybody who defends him says: That there's reasonable doubt.
Except in this case, I don't see reasonable doubt. The missing car seat, washing out his car, and claims to having slept in the washed out car don't make any sense. He had the motive, the opportunity, and his behavior all point to murder. At some point you have to stop saying "well maybe" and assume guilt.
Reiser was always a murderer to some people right from the start because it was repeated over and over. And to some people he was innocent right from the start because they looked up to him.
I was arguing that if free speech is infringed in the slightest, then there's not really any free speech at all. But the world is not black and white, and clearly some places have more free speech than others. Since no place has free speech as you define it, it's important to talk about how much or how little of it we have, what is allowed, and what the consequences are.
If I make speech 'A' in the context of a riot and it makes the riot worse, that can be limited. Even in this case there are people who say (not me, but extreme Libertarian types) that the speech should not be limited, and any negative consequences are ultimately the fault of those who took action. It's a defensible argument, and merely goes to show that there are tradeoffs involved, and the 100% absolute ideal is never obtained or can even be agreed on what it means.
I agree. That was my original point. If speech is infringed even a little bit, it's not really free, is it? But you seemed to be arguing that we had "free speech", as you defined it, in the United States. Whereas sydneyfong's original point was that it's not black and white, and in practice people have varying degrees of free speech.
So I ask the Slashdot audience - What other computer/hacker/technology movies out there actually measure up on a technical level? This question sounded familiar, and after a little digging: What Movies Got Computers Right?
What is interesting to note is that this site is for stock investors so think middle aged, none-technical crowd. Lots of people in tech invest in stocks. There were 300 comments on the "Google to Offer Real-Time Stock Quotes" story, a decent number.
Tech people tend to have surplus money and like to think they can outsmart the market.
These ideas are not my own. I'm just reporting on the law as it currently stands. Try reporting the contents of a national security letter. Also, if you told somebody else to commit murder, that would be conspiracy to commit murder, regardless of whether the murder was actually committed.
And what about "obscenity" laws? That's got to be the biggest slap in the face of freedom of speech there is. The Supreme Court has ruled that "obscenity" is not protected under the First Amendment.
There's no such thing as 100% free speech. Not in the United States, not anywhere.
Highlighting occurrences is one of my favorite features. It's great to double-click on an variable/method/class and see where it's used throughout the file. You can even do stuff like highlight embedded returns in a method.
However, there is one preference I had to change to make it usable: I unset "Keep marks when the selection changes", so that if you click away the highlighting goes away too. Without that setting I was annoyed too when I first came across this feature.
Sometimes it is worth spending the effort to stifle speech Yes, and lots of people feel that way about copyright.
I think it is foregone. Individuals want to share this stuff, and there's no practical way to keep them from doing it. Copyright infringement on a massive scale is now something anyone can take part in, and despite the industry's efforts, it isn't going away. Not everybody copies, as the sales still exist, and in practice lawsuits do have an impact. In reality, if copyright had no teeth, nearly everybody would be illegally copying. I know several people that stopped getting music off the net after the first Napster suits (myself included). People know they are taking a risk when they copy, so for a lot of people it just isn't worth it. For me, when Apple started offering $1 downloads, that removed most of my reasons for copying.
Copyright infringement isn't going away, and it has always existed in some form or another, but then copyrighted material as a business has too. Books, movies, songs, and software still continue to be sold. The fight continues.
Do you feel the same way concerning laws like HIPAA? They are, after all, trying to fight large forces that want access to your information. You could easily give up here, and say "too hard to lock down this information, don't bother".
It's just as foolish to build a business on the assumption that people will have to buy certain information from you, rather than sharing it with each other, because it's just not practical to maintain that kind of control. Yet the business still exists and is making money. The question is will it remain so? Is the fight impossible? I don't think the conclusion is foregone, neither do I accept the position that people violating copyright are on the high ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Now some argue that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Whether it legally does or doesn't, why is Ron Paul against protecting such fundamental freedoms? Is free speech not worth protecting? Due process? Liberty?
What you're arguing for is complete world war until there's one monolithic government. Just as I wouldn't want some country enforcing their ideals on my country, I don't want my country doing so to others.
You might consider debated laws like the death penalty. The United States is in a minority of countries that still has it. I don't want the rest of the world uniting against America to "annihilated with extreme prejudice".
That argument applies to everything we do. "The state knows best for you and society". Anybody who is for limited government should keep government out of marriage and any other "family values" issues.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Whether the risk was actual or perceived was not central to my argument. In context, I was explaining why copyright still survives as a business based on individual actions. Sometimes semantic differences matter greatly, sometimes not.
In the context of this thread, you were replying to a Chinese poster who was correcting the perceived level of free speech allowed. Your statement was shallow, binary, and extreme, completely dismissive of the point the Chinese poster was making.
The Chinese poster never claimed the ideal, and explicitly placed the level as nowhere near as bad as 1984, though not as good as the United States. You turned it into an all or nothing proposition, which is completely useless. This is the central argument. That your argument was bracketing by the following statements:
"If it's restricted even a little bit, it isn't free."
"But I did NOT say that free speech is the same as unrestricted speech."
shows just how much you ended up waffling and backpedaling to explain yourself. I'm tired of going in circles, so this is my last reply.
Debian does not have a commercial model. It's very foundation is exactly the opposite:
The Debian Manifesto
I wasn't making an extreme statement about absolute risk like you were about absolute freedom of speech.
You were asked to explain the shallow and binary comment you made to the Chinese poster. in the course of that explanation you managed to completely contradict yourself -- no ifs, ands, or buts.
If you caught a politician making these kinds of statements you'd have a field day with it.
Your arguments are inconsistent. Your initial comment was shallow and binary, completely dismissive of the point the Chinese pointer was making. Since then you have waffled considerably, to the point where your statements from the first comment to the last comment were in direct contradiction with each other. This is not an accident.
That is why I say you should run for office. You aren't accountable.
Does "Ooh, shiny!" have anything to do with it?
But there was NOT a recall -- you can't send your box in and get a new one unless it actually breaks:
http://www.xbox.com/en-CA/support/systemsetup/xbox360/resources/warrantyupdate.htm
Except in this case, I don't see reasonable doubt. The missing car seat, washing out his car, and claims to having slept in the washed out car don't make any sense. He had the motive, the opportunity, and his behavior all point to murder. At some point you have to stop saying "well maybe" and assume guilt. Reiser was always a murderer to some people right from the start because it was repeated over and over. And to some people he was innocent right from the start because they looked up to him.
Tech people tend to have surplus money and like to think they can outsmart the market.
And what about "obscenity" laws? That's got to be the biggest slap in the face of freedom of speech there is. The Supreme Court has ruled that "obscenity" is not protected under the First Amendment.
There's no such thing as 100% free speech. Not in the United States, not anywhere.
Highlighting occurrences is one of my favorite features. It's great to double-click on an variable/method/class and see where it's used throughout the file. You can even do stuff like highlight embedded returns in a method.
However, there is one preference I had to change to make it usable: I unset "Keep marks when the selection changes", so that if you click away the highlighting goes away too. Without that setting I was annoyed too when I first came across this feature.
Copyright infringement isn't going away, and it has always existed in some form or another, but then copyrighted material as a business has too. Books, movies, songs, and software still continue to be sold. The fight continues.
There's a standard place to put your sig. It's common courtesy to use it.