I am willing to bet you absolutely could call them up and demand whatever you like. They don't have to do what you ask, but no one stops you from calling them and requesting whatever thing you like.
But that's not what some of the posters above were suggesting. They seemed to believe that the media outlet must accede to such demands. Indeed, it sounds like they're suggesting that even requiring a phone call or filling out an online form amounts to prior restraint and sensor sheep.
Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
But there is a right to be able to be heard. If there wasn't, then free speech would be nothing but a joke. "You can say whatever you want, but you're not allowed to say it where others can hear you."
Just because a lot of people are at my house doesn't mean I have to let you in just because you want to talk to them.
Is this really hard for you to understand? You have a right your speech, but you don't have a right to come on my property to deliver your speech. And whether or not you like the idea of private property, that's exactly what Facebook happens to be.
Wow, PopeRatzo, that was almost Libertarian of you, congratulations!
You have got to learn the difference between big-L Libertarian and small-L libertarian, mi. Anyone can be the latter, but it takes a special kind of goofball to be the former.
Don't you understand that in the countries where most of these people use these platforms there are laws that forbid governments to go and tell these platforms to shut down accounts just because they don't like what those accounts are saying?
That's a different issue entirely.
Twitter isn't doing anything involuntarily. Facebook, etc are willingly doing what they're doing.
My point was simply that freedom of speech does not mean I can insist that you publish my opinion. You can't call up the New York Times or Breitbart.com or whichever media outlet you desire and tell them that they have to feature your opinion on the front page. Or on any page. Why is this a controversial opinion?
"Turbo" and "Super" don't really mean anything and are simply marketing terms.
They are terms of art.
If Elon Musk said he was going to put a "turbocharger" on his new Tesla model, people would say, "What the fuck, nerd?" Well, for those of us who are into the automotive arts, "supercharger" is the same thing. When I tell someone that I have owned a 1969 Nova with a supercharger, I don't want them thinking that I had some kind of glorified wall plug installed on some of the greatest Detroit iron that ever trod the roads.
Would you have been happier if Musk called them "ultra-super-duper-chargers"?
Yes, because "ultra-super-duper-chargers" doesn't already mean something very specific having to do with cars. I understand we're supposed to be all up on Elon's dick around here because he's totally gonna take us to Mars and give us financing for that bitchin' idea we have for creating Uber, except for toothbrushes, but enough is enough.
Can we stop calling these things superchargers? In the realm of the automotive arts, "supercharger" has a very specific meaning. What's next, is Elon Musk going to brand the electric motor in his next car a "351 Cleveland"?
I'm starting to hate that precious little fucker with his so-called electric cars and his so-called reusable rocket boosters.
This is all just negotiating with death. "Let's move industry off-world!" instead of just coming to terms with the fact that we've hit the ceiling of the benefits of a consumer economy.
We're so consumed with the idea that we need higher and higher standards of living that we've lost sight of the whole purpose of a "standard" of living.
The only ones who would benefit from moving industry off-world are billionaires like Bezos and his.01% buddies. Fuck him and his breakaway civilization.
I note now that you have a fixed idea, to which you do not seem to consider worthy of discussing alternatives, that people who grow up without the arts are less well-rounded, less happy, worse coders and probably less smart.
Correct.
I'm going to note that you have provided absolutely no evidence for your assertions
Never learning art or music does not make that person less of a worthwhile person.
Did I say something about "worthwhile"? The "worth" of a person is not something I care to evaluate. However, it will make you more well-rounded and happy and a better coder and probably even a little smarter.
With the atomic hypothesis of matter still centuries away from being proven, with its tinker toy-like molecular children, the idea of transforming one thing into another using only chemistry is quite reasonable. I mean, gold must come from some combo, right? We just need the right one.
It's a pain having to do this again, but here goes:
Alchemy was not about transmuting lead into gold. It was a systematic scientific study of consciousness, of the self and had nothing to do with metals except as allegory. Because of the power of the Church and theocratic monarchies, alchemists had to couch their writing as materials science to keep from being labeled as occultists and heretics. Nothing church leaders and monarchs like more than the idea of more gold, so the cover story about transmuting lead into gold was perfect for keeping alchemists heads attached to their bodies. But alchemy had nothing to do with purifying lead into gold, but rather a purification of the self and understanding of human consciousness and psychology.
And by the way, the model for consciousness, the self and psychology that the alchemists used is still as valid and predictive as anything else "modern science" has come up with to date.
Another interesting fact is that alchemy existed, intact, in all major cultures of the time worldwide. There's Chinese alchemy, Hebrew alchemy, Greek and Eastern European alchemy they developed during different era, and mostly removed from one another (because in most cases they were forced to stay underground so as not to be burned at the stake). And yet they all pretty much worked on the same principles, had the same findings and developed similarly.
So, to summarize: Yes, alchemy is science. No, it's not about magic, and no, Newton, Flamel, Jung, etc were not trying to make gold out of lead.
Considering how many "crackpot" conspiracy theories turn out to be true
The MK-Ultra one always gets me. I was sure it was all just a made-up kookie conspiracy theory and when it turned out to be true I had to really adjust my thinking.
Also, Ronald Reagan flooding the inner cities with crack cocaine. As much as I hated Reagan, I figured that had to be a crazy fever dream. But no...
I am far down the libertarian trail and I not only believe in tests for driver's licenses
That convention was for big-L Libertarians, which is very different from small-l libertarians like you.
Your form of libertariansism is probably shared in part by most people in this country. Unfortunately, the two get mixed up and you get painted with the same brush as the naked party chair candidate with the Iron Cross tattooed on his arm and the people who think traffic lights are examples of a tyrannical nanny-state.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed.
But that's not what some of the posters above were suggesting. They seemed to believe that the media outlet must accede to such demands. Indeed, it sounds like they're suggesting that even requiring a phone call or filling out an online form amounts to prior restraint and sensor sheep.
Yes. He could be held in the same prison as the entire Republican Party.
Not if it's really a joke.
You must be new here.
Just because a lot of people are at my house doesn't mean I have to let you in just because you want to talk to them.
Is this really hard for you to understand? You have a right your speech, but you don't have a right to come on my property to deliver your speech. And whether or not you like the idea of private property, that's exactly what Facebook happens to be.
OK, from now on, I'll send you my comments to post. And I'm going to give you a t-shirt with my message on it and you have to wear it.
Dumb fuck.
Yes, indeed I am.
You have got to learn the difference between big-L Libertarian and small-L libertarian, mi. Anyone can be the latter, but it takes a special kind of goofball to be the former.
That's a different issue entirely.
Twitter isn't doing anything involuntarily. Facebook, etc are willingly doing what they're doing.
My point was simply that freedom of speech does not mean I can insist that you publish my opinion. You can't call up the New York Times or Breitbart.com or whichever media outlet you desire and tell them that they have to feature your opinion on the front page. Or on any page. Why is this a controversial opinion?
Don't you understand that there is no right to be heard? Nobody owes you a platform.
You know me!
They are terms of art.
If Elon Musk said he was going to put a "turbocharger" on his new Tesla model, people would say, "What the fuck, nerd?" Well, for those of us who are into the automotive arts, "supercharger" is the same thing. When I tell someone that I have owned a 1969 Nova with a supercharger, I don't want them thinking that I had some kind of glorified wall plug installed on some of the greatest Detroit iron that ever trod the roads.
Yes, because "ultra-super-duper-chargers" doesn't already mean something very specific having to do with cars. I understand we're supposed to be all up on Elon's dick around here because he's totally gonna take us to Mars and give us financing for that bitchin' idea we have for creating Uber, except for toothbrushes, but enough is enough.
Can we stop calling these things superchargers? In the realm of the automotive arts, "supercharger" has a very specific meaning. What's next, is Elon Musk going to brand the electric motor in his next car a "351 Cleveland"?
I'm starting to hate that precious little fucker with his so-called electric cars and his so-called reusable rocket boosters.
This is all just negotiating with death. "Let's move industry off-world!" instead of just coming to terms with the fact that we've hit the ceiling of the benefits of a consumer economy.
We're so consumed with the idea that we need higher and higher standards of living that we've lost sight of the whole purpose of a "standard" of living.
The only ones who would benefit from moving industry off-world are billionaires like Bezos and his .01% buddies. Fuck him and his breakaway civilization.
Correct.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content...
http://www.health.harvard.edu/...
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/comput...
Exposure to what?
You mean at the site that has, on its masthead, "Alex Jones' Prison Planet"?
If Watson was sane, why would he submit an article to Prison Planet?
I don't think we need to worry about a shortage of idiots to laugh at.
This is what Slashdot has come to. Alex fucking Jones.
Did I say something about "worthwhile"? The "worth" of a person is not something I care to evaluate. However, it will make you more well-rounded and happy and a better coder and probably even a little smarter.
It's a pain having to do this again, but here goes:
Alchemy was not about transmuting lead into gold. It was a systematic scientific study of consciousness, of the self and had nothing to do with metals except as allegory. Because of the power of the Church and theocratic monarchies, alchemists had to couch their writing as materials science to keep from being labeled as occultists and heretics. Nothing church leaders and monarchs like more than the idea of more gold, so the cover story about transmuting lead into gold was perfect for keeping alchemists heads attached to their bodies. But alchemy had nothing to do with purifying lead into gold, but rather a purification of the self and understanding of human consciousness and psychology.
And by the way, the model for consciousness, the self and psychology that the alchemists used is still as valid and predictive as anything else "modern science" has come up with to date.
Another interesting fact is that alchemy existed, intact, in all major cultures of the time worldwide. There's Chinese alchemy, Hebrew alchemy, Greek and Eastern European alchemy they developed during different era, and mostly removed from one another (because in most cases they were forced to stay underground so as not to be burned at the stake). And yet they all pretty much worked on the same principles, had the same findings and developed similarly.
So, to summarize: Yes, alchemy is science. No, it's not about magic, and no, Newton, Flamel, Jung, etc were not trying to make gold out of lead.
The MK-Ultra one always gets me. I was sure it was all just a made-up kookie conspiracy theory and when it turned out to be true I had to really adjust my thinking.
Also, Ronald Reagan flooding the inner cities with crack cocaine. As much as I hated Reagan, I figured that had to be a crazy fever dream. But no...
They were also Freemasons. Does that mean the worship of Baphomet is a core value of the United States?
That convention was for big-L Libertarians, which is very different from small-l libertarians like you.
Your form of libertariansism is probably shared in part by most people in this country. Unfortunately, the two get mixed up and you get painted with the same brush as the naked party chair candidate with the Iron Cross tattooed on his arm and the people who think traffic lights are examples of a tyrannical nanny-state.