In every country a person can be arrested and held before a trial. They still have a set of rights, but it's a smaller set.
Trying to silence a group is an admission that their message is attractive and important.
That's one theory. Again, every country has laws against inciting violence. There is no place on Earth - there has never been - where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech.
The Prophet Mohamed was a dick, by the way. And Muslims, Scientologists and Mormons are all idiots for following "religions" founded by cruel scam artists.
Some might respond that ISIS is world's different than Martin Luthor King, Jr., but it's the same general concept. If companies or governments decide what people/groups get to say what online, they'll start with groups like ISIS - which I'm sure we can all agree has violent speech.
Violent speech? You think the problem with ISIS is violent speech?
Then, they'd gradually shift until they get to people...
Stop right there. Slippery slope arguments are so much horseshit. Purposeful violence against civilians is a breaking of the basic social contract and deserves a forfeiture of rights. Or do you believe that imprisoning a murderer is a violation of his civil rights?
If you think that ISIS and "Martin Luthor King, Jr" (sic) are "the same general concept, then you don't really know anything about either. There's no excuse, either, since Monday was Dr King's holiday and you could have found any number of thorough articles about him and his beliefs.
It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.
The people in power don't need "operational slips" to find out what ISIS is up to.
"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you speaking for the entire medical establishment?
And if you think that the removal of THC from cannabis has anything to do with "side effects", then you haven't seen any recent pharmaceutical commercials.
Plus, it's the 21st century. Who really lies about smoking pot as a teenager any more?
We've got an FBI that's having trouble recruiting new agents because it turns out the applicants are all honest on their FBI applications when asked if they ever smoked pot?
"Wait, you mean you don't want me because I smoked herb in high school? Well, thanks anyway. I think I'll go work for the NSA instead. And tell J Edgar that the corset and garter belt made him look fat. Byeee!"
Cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are different thngs. THC is psychoactive, CBD is not.
It's a sad comment on our society where we are so worried that there might be some natural substance that makes people feel good that before an effective drug can be approved the feel-good properties have to be removed.
You posted an comment so vague it is meaningless. You did not provide anything agreeing with or refuting what was written.
You posted an comment so vague it is meaningless. You did not provide anything agreeing with or refuting what was written.
There's nothing to agree with or refute. If you take even a cursory look at the story, you will see that this was not the kind of study that the GP assumed it was.
Teenagers were not subjected to drug use for this study. Adults who had used marijuana as teens were studied.
The first hint was right there in the summary:
scientists have analyzed long-term marijuana use in teens, comparing IQ changes in twin siblings who either used or abstained from marijuana for 10 years.
If we're studying the effects of marijuana use on teens, and ten fucking years have gone by, then what exactly is the probability that these subjects are still teens at the time of the study?
Go ahead, get out your calculator and I'll wait here for your answer.
Are any of them really "competing" for viewers anymore?
Yes.
It's 2015 and almost every home has an internet connection and a 4 tuner DVR.
That's silly. Only about 50% of homes that have pay TV have DVRs, much less "4 tuner DVR". So, if 80% of homes have pay TV, and only 50% of them have DVR, then you don't make it to "almost every home".
I will say that competition has been good for broadcast TV. They've started upping their game in the last few years. There's room for both I feel.
You're right. Let them compete for viewers.
The broadcasters complaints about Netflix not having to release viewership numbers is just silly. Who cares about Nielson ratings when you're not selling advertising anyway? My biggest worry about Netflix is that they're going to want to start adding commercials. I still remember when the big selling point of cable television was "it'll be commercial free because you're paying subscription fees".
What is more ironically amusing is that people who use irrelevant statistics to determine something as personal as individual traits such as intelligence are ironically showing a bit of stupidity themselves.
It's something that a particular set of racists do whenever they are faced with a brilliant person of a different race. The only way they can make themselves feel better under those circumstances is to point to some discredited "scientific study" that demonstrates their intellectual superiority as a group..
Slashdot Mirror
The slippery slope argument is fallacious.
Do you know how Encyclopedia Britannica is made? Of course they remove content and rewrite history as they see fit.
If they're fictional, then how are their rights being violated?
In every country a person can be arrested and held before a trial. They still have a set of rights, but it's a smaller set.
That's one theory. Again, every country has laws against inciting violence. There is no place on Earth - there has never been - where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech.
That's not the same as saying Google has a legal responsibility to include all links in search results or allow all videos on YouTube.
I'm pretty sure you see the difference.
You left a few out:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/stati...
https://desertpeace.files.word...
Violent speech? You think the problem with ISIS is violent speech?
Stop right there. Slippery slope arguments are so much horseshit. Purposeful violence against civilians is a breaking of the basic social contract and deserves a forfeiture of rights. Or do you believe that imprisoning a murderer is a violation of his civil rights?
If you think that ISIS and "Martin Luthor King, Jr" (sic) are "the same general concept, then you don't really know anything about either. There's no excuse, either, since Monday was Dr King's holiday and you could have found any number of thorough articles about him and his beliefs.
The people in power don't need "operational slips" to find out what ISIS is up to.
Oh, I realize that. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
I especially object to the term, "foreseeable future". What does that even mean? 20 years? 5? Maybe six months?
I remember when IBM and Sun were the tech companies that were going to be on top for the foreseeable future.
"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you speaking for the entire medical establishment?
And if you think that the removal of THC from cannabis has anything to do with "side effects", then you haven't seen any recent pharmaceutical commercials.
Plus, it's the 21st century. Who really lies about smoking pot as a teenager any more?
We've got an FBI that's having trouble recruiting new agents because it turns out the applicants are all honest on their FBI applications when asked if they ever smoked pot?
"Wait, you mean you don't want me because I smoked herb in high school? Well, thanks anyway. I think I'll go work for the NSA instead. And tell J Edgar that the corset and garter belt made him look fat. Byeee!"
It's a sad comment on our society where we are so worried that there might be some natural substance that makes people feel good that before an effective drug can be approved the feel-good properties have to be removed.
Unlike cocaine where you just chew your own face off.
You can prove it yourself under your covers by giving yourself a dutch oven.
See how quickly a greenhouse gas (methane) warms up the atmosphere.
You posted an comment so vague it is meaningless. You did not provide anything agreeing with or refuting what was written.
There's nothing to agree with or refute. If you take even a cursory look at the story, you will see that this was not the kind of study that the GP assumed it was.
Teenagers were not subjected to drug use for this study. Adults who had used marijuana as teens were studied.
The first hint was right there in the summary:
If we're studying the effects of marijuana use on teens, and ten fucking years have gone by, then what exactly is the probability that these subjects are still teens at the time of the study?
Go ahead, get out your calculator and I'll wait here for your answer.
Who cares what they think? If they're so smart, why ain't they rich?
Oh wait...
I want you to know that I've always liked you. You're not like the other Anonymous Cowards, and I have long admired the cut of your jib.
Can I get you a beer? Seriously, you look thirsty.
Yes.
That's silly. Only about 50% of homes that have pay TV have DVRs, much less "4 tuner DVR". So, if 80% of homes have pay TV, and only 50% of them have DVR, then you don't make it to "almost every home".
You're right. Let them compete for viewers.
The broadcasters complaints about Netflix not having to release viewership numbers is just silly. Who cares about Nielson ratings when you're not selling advertising anyway? My biggest worry about Netflix is that they're going to want to start adding commercials. I still remember when the big selling point of cable television was "it'll be commercial free because you're paying subscription fees".
Here's how:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...
It's called "white male privilege", and it takes a damn long time to change:
http://edyoucatives.com/wp-con...
It's something that a particular set of racists do whenever they are faced with a brilliant person of a different race. The only way they can make themselves feel better under those circumstances is to point to some discredited "scientific study" that demonstrates their intellectual superiority as a group..
She wasn't an engineer. She was a mathematician and physicist. Don't demote her to engineer just to make yourself feel better.
In low-gravity no less!
No, of course not. "Neo-reactionary", on the other hand... well, it's like the difference between conservative and neo-conservative.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/N...
Yes. If you went into space, you'd be a neo-reactionary dummy. Except in space.