No, you're missing the point. Is it being used politically? No, the vast majority of Thais love the King and truly and genuinely offended by insults, red, yellow, whatever.
And your laziness claims are so over the top, there is no way to hide the bigotry behind a few words of Thai. (jing jing)
No, you're missing the point. Is it being used politically?
Please re-read my post, and the question the OP asked. I answered it correctly.
You seemed to have missed the point.
No, the vast majority of Thais love the King and truly and genuinely offended by insults,
I never said anything to the contrary. This is why you need to re-read both my and the GP's post.
The GP asked if censorship was used to silence political speech, since you full well know the King has no real political power we are taking about censoring groups like the Red Shirts and pro-thaksin organisations with the current govt (khun mark, well last time I checked). But as I also said, this is highly ineffective as there are too many bickering entities within the ruling party itself.
Also these groups tend or organise using other means (mobile phones and public rallies)
And your laziness claims are so over the top
Next time your in Thailand, look up to the power poles and look at the coils of telephone wire, some of them add over 100 metres to DSL connections.
Tell me that again.
There are hard working thais, but there are a lot of dishonest ones, they tend to coalesces around the government (this I also pointed out). Unless you're trying to tell me the Boys in Brown would never shake down anyone for a few hundred baht.
there is no way to hide the bigotry behind a few words of Thai.
Nice way to imagine something that isn't there. No bigotry, just simple fact. I like the Thai people but their government services are almost completely corrupt and ineffective. Are you going to try to deny this?
Are you one of those Farang who tries too hard to be Thai, cursing the roundness of their eyes?
I bought a 24" monitor a few years back for $170, and a 23" last black frideay for $109. Why fuss about such a minor expense? If two monitors make developers 1% more producrtive, or just make developers feel "pampered" then why not?
Cost times no of developers.
Then you have the "monitor envy" problem. Steve got a slightly larger monitor then frank (or the bezel is smaller). Suddenly Steve's superiority is challenged. Steve requires a larger monitor then Frank to prove that Steve's position is higher. Thus Steve complains to IT services until Steve gets a bigger monitor. Now Frank's e-peen is reduced and Frank begins the cycle all over again.
Meanwhile perfectly good monitors that no-one wants because they are all too important to have "only a 24" monitor" pile up, not to mention the ever increasing demands on the company financially.
No, giving into their demands is not the answer, it will just lead to more demands. A good IT department does not offer danemonitors to appease petulant developers.
I was on the front lines during the great CRT crisis of 04. This is when we got our first shipment of LCD monitors into our company, 10 19" 4:3 dells. Of course I was in charge of assigning them to 10 out of the 90 staff. A throng of Developers poured into my office complaining of headaches caused by CRT "oh the pain, the horror, the flickering of the refresh rate, I cannot bear it," (grabs the collar of my shirt) "I must have an LCD, how can you subject me to more pain".
They tried everything, bribery, blackmail, threats, one even "accidentally" dropped his CRT. No matter how many times I told them, "the monitors would be assigned according to need, not wants". They complained, they complained to my boss, to their boss, to the bookkeeper who had an ancient 17" CRT. They were unrelenting. In the end, management made the decision, they continued infighting for months over who got them. In early 06 we bought 15 22" LCD's. of course the developers made anther ruckus, the headache plauge returned but I made sure the bookkeeper got the first one. She said something that not one of those developers said to me, not once, she said "thank you".
So to reward complaining, will only bring about more complaining and inevitably more cost. For my entire tenure, the developers did not stop fighting for monitors, at one point I had to chain monitors to desks as developers would appropriate them for themselves without asking. I get a phone call from one of the GIS analysts, literally in tears because a developer had stolen her monitor, then yelled at her when she asked for it back.
So never give in, no matter how trifling the cost,
For once you have given the dev monitor's, you'll never be rid of the dev.
I found myself eating a lot of "Asian" and "Middle Eastern" types of food.
.
That's what we call "being Australian".
In a typical day you may consume:
- Indian curry,
- Pad Thai
- English Fish and Chips.
- German Beer.
- Italian Pasta.
- MSG based noodle (AKA dodgy Chinese).
- Something from an American burger or chicken franchise.
- Nando's (South African chicken franchise which is dangerously addictive).
- Irish stout.
- Turkish Kebab.
- Greek Souvlaki.
Following that you'll travel home in a Japanese made car to watch American shows on a Chinese made TV sitting in a Swedish couch.
Not forgetting the traditional meat pie and sauce. The meat pie was invented in Australia when Australians realised that you had to put down your beer at the footy to eat. Thus some bright spark came up with the idea of putting beef in gravy and wrapping it in pastry that can be eaten single handedly.
In all seriousness, I think Australia is lucky to have such varied cuisine available.
No.
Give me a citation to the definitive cause of the crash.
You don't think being spread out over hundreds of miles of the Atlantic is a spectacular crash?
You've said nothing about the cause.
Using that evidence I propose that they upset the invisible pink unicorn and were torn asunder by the noodly appendages of the Blessed FSM.
Of course I'm not going to provide a citation because there was a spectacular crash that proves everything I said.
What I was saying is that he choose to describe the end result of flying large planes without fly-by-wire using a same description of what undoubtedly happened to Air France 447
Bad strawman is bad.
You have not provided any link between potential risks using FBW and AF447.
Further more you've failed to even prove there is a significant danger of fly by wire systems when we have several decades of proof to the contrary.
Also swearing and demanding I find the evidence for you provides seals the case that you have no clue what you're on about. Please learn how to do research and some manners.
Care to provide a citation. As far as I know CASA and other agencies dont have a clue why AF447 crashed.
This is why the black box will take so long to analyse (including verifying the contents of the black box itself).
Until then, I'm sticking with what Luckyo said. Modern planes, especially the tail-less delta winged variety are not easy to fly unassisted.
BTW, in the age of fly by wire, pilot error remains the number one cause of accidents. Not begrudging pilots mind you, air accidents are rare and flying isn't easy.
By dissuading they prevent it. You're next statement would add wieght to that, if it were not based on bad assumptions.
As I said, laws have no bearing on your ability to commit a crime
Actually they do, law changes the likelihood of a person commuting a crime. The fear that they will be fined or jailed for doing so, this is an effective motivator. This motivation is a good prevention mechanism.
A metal detector is a form of prevention,
A metal detector will not stop you from carrying a gun into an airport. You have this a bit backwards.
Just so you're 100% clear on this, a metal detector is a form of detection (surprise, surprise) not enforcement or prevention.
a law that says you can't carry a gun into an airport does not actually prevent you from doing it.
This is what stops you, a metal detector does no such thing, as evidenced by the security guards which walk through them with firearms attached to their hip (in Australia, Federal Police agents must walk through the metal detector, cutting around it is illegal).
What stops the average Joe from walking into the airport with a firearm is the knowledge that the law will punish them for doing so. The aforementioned Australian Federal Police officers will stop him, charge him and the justice system will punish him. This thought is what prevents Joe from thinking about taking a firearm through an airport security station. If not for the law, the justice system would not be able to do anything, the AFP would merely be thugs.
You seem to be stuck on the wrong idea that the law or the consequences of breaking them does not decrease the likelihood that someone will commit a crime, where as in reality it does because a potential criminal knows they will be punished for breaking that law.
The rest of your post seems to be restating what I said,
That is because you continue to hold on to this bad belief that the law is not effective at curbing crime, where as you admit that it is dissuasion but insist that this is different to prevention. If this were true, laws would have no effect on crime what so ever.
Especially considering the natural tendency to discard information that is in contradiction to ones personal views on the world. If the actual inputs are then skewed to support that view, then it just gets even more extreme as a person tends to discard the more moderate views in favor of more extreme ones.
Basically there's a business in telling people what they want to hear.
TFA tells us old news, they've just added a technological slant. I doubt wilful content filtering will have much of an effect on society in general. Those who would feel they require such filtering would have ignored it or worse yet, actively fought the sources*.
In simple terms, people who want to exist in a "bubble" will do so without technological aid. Cognitive dissonance is a very strong motivator, people who cannot handle it (I.E. hearing things they don't like) will not benefit from unfiltered information as their own defence mechanisms will kick in regardless.
* My problem with Fox News is not that it exists, my problem is that it's advertised as factual news when it isn't. If the channel was Fox Editorials I wouldn't care.
Laws don't prevent anything, just because somebody wrote somewhere 'Thou shalt not kill' has no bearing on your ability to kill.
What a very odd definition of "law". What planet do you live on where laws work like that?
Laws do prevent crime, they prevent it by providing a disincentive to commuting an act. A law is written "if you kill, you will go to jail" not "Thou shalt not kill". A written law must define an act and a punishment. It is the risk of that punishment which prevents crime.
Now a law that is not enforced (I.E. no punishment is applied), that is completely ineffective.
it will deter some people, the
fact that it won't deter 100% is immaterial
So punish those it does not deter, as I said above, a law is only effective if it is enforced.
During an ongoing court case, maintaining the privacy of the accused is paramount to a fair trial. Even if they are guilty as sin, they deserve to have their trial heard fairly. I assume you dont disagree with this.
Now the media is well known to be very biased and unfair when dealing with almost anything. Excess media attention can alter the outcome of a trial, even to a point where an unjust decision can be made to appease the media as was the case with Lindsey Chamberlin.
You made no sense to begin with, you're trying to get other people worked up to cover this up by swearing and trying to insult them (it's not working BTW, you're the only one getting your knickers in a knot over this).
You're trolling.. badly and frankly I'm losing interest in playing with you.
You got caught out calling constitutional monarchs absolute monarchs. You were wrong, show some maturity and admit it. Your post contradicts itself.
You are the one who is not capable of arguing rationally. Swearing and talk of killing only proves you're point is not a sane one.
You didn't make much sense in the first place, then you attack people who point this out? Are you 13? Because you're not acting like an adult who should be allowed out in public unescorted.
Go ahead and tax iPods, which actually *are* used for copying music - but don't try and kill off the photography industry by adding useless taxes.
Further more, taxes from this should go into state or federal coffers as it is a disincentive to commit an undesirable act, not a revenue stream for already rich companies.
i said monarchy. a constitutional monarchy is very different.
A constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy.
If you meant absolute monarchy you should have said absolute monarchy instead of trying to change what you said after being proven wrong.
BTW, insults and swearing only make you look immature whilst still being wrong.
you're obviously intelligent enough to understand the difference between a monarchy pre-french or russian revolution style,
You, however are not. From your OP:
death to the queen of england
death to the emperor of japan
death to the king of thailiand
All three of these nations are constitutional monarchies.
So you're trying to tell me you want to destroy constitutional monarchs? Or do you honestly beleive England and Japan are absolute monarchies in disguise?
Fair enough if you didn't know that the Thai king holds no real power, but the rest of your posts make no sense what so ever.
so i didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment
When facts do not coincide with your accepted view of the world, ignore the facts because this makes them go away.
You could have taken the honest way out and admitted you're wrong, instead you just admitted you're ignorant.
are you honestly going to say a monarchy is better?
Currently living in a constitutional monarchy and doing quite well for ourselvesm thank you for asking.
Same with most of the constitutional monarchies in the world. Especially in Europe.
for example, china is better off as a democracy
You're high aren't you?
China? Democracy?
He, he, he, very funny good sir.
China is currently very dictatorial.
Meanwhile, how's Japan doing?
its called growing pains
Funny thing US to UK English.
You call it "growing pains".
We call it "bloodthirsty dictatorship".
Your initial examples were terrible, rather then trying to create better ones, you've dug the hole even deeper by trying to use China as an example of democracy.
You really don't know what you're on about do you.
He does hold some responsibility. I don't know the precise details of the situation
The king holds no political power what so ever. If he did wield political power, the Leste Majesty laws would be gone by now. Several times he's called for them to be changed or removed and he grants a royal pardon to anyone convicted by them.
The king has popular power, which is used against him as much as for him. Politico's invoke his name to create bad laws, even if the King speaks out against them he is powerless as the monarch wields not actual power in Thailand.
Plus the King is not in good health, he does not have the strength to fight the entrenched political families that rule Thailand.
the french, the russians, the nepalese, they had the right idea
The French:
Ushered in a dictator called Napoleon who launched France on two major wars which they lost both of, losing much of their overseas colonies in the process. Not to mention the bloody executions which were not just restricted to the monarch and royalist but any kind of political dissident.
The Russians
Ushered in a group of dictators called the Bolsheviks which robbed their resource rich nation of prosperity for a century, a legacy which continues to this very day.
Me thinks you didn't think that statement through.
One question I have is, are they actually censoring things that do in fact insult the monarchy, or are they using that to suppress other political speech.
Yes, but not very effectively.
Political bickering and infighting is so intense and changes in government so frequent in Thailand that no one really has enough power for long enough to silence political speech. Second thing is, political speech isn't really on-line in Thailand, most of it is done through public speech and SMS with mobile phones being a lot more prolific then computers. Political motivation is often bought, people can get paid to put on the right colour of shirt and turn up at a protest, 200 Baht (US$8) a day
After this comes the fact that the people doing the censorship really don't give a shit. "Mai bpen rai" is the Thai phrase, roughly equivalent to "she'll be right" in Australia, the people actually in charge of the implementation will be doing the minimal amount of work possible, think of the laziest government employee you've ever met, multiply that laziness by 10 and you'll have some idea.
Unstable politics + practically no work ethic = ineffective censorship. More Porn gets blocked, but you can still access RedTube in Thailand without a proxy.
The only surprise I have is that they're using cold calling for this instead of just dumping a fake AV on her machine.
Not really,
If Aunt Gladys gets a fake AV pop up she'll either ignore it or call someone to fix it. When she gets a cold call, she is more likely to act as "it's a real person". Success rate would be much higher then with a fake AV, I'd say the actual success rate would be up there with telemarketers.
I've received a cold call from "The PC doctor" before and went along with it to see where it headed. Whilst obviously scripted it was sophisticated enough to make someone who was not technically literate, the call culminated in them asking me to install something, at this point I pressed them for details (company name, ABN, office number) and they promptly hung up.
Given the cheapness of running a call centre out of somewhere like India and the higher success rate would make this operation profitable if it went on long enough.
If you are looking at the macbook pro, you need to ask yourself whether having the latest Sandy Bridge processors and the Thunderbolt interface is worth the 25% difference.
Comparing it to the latest Asus laptops (looking for a 13" so it's the U30SD) which has the same Sandy Bridge processors it's definitely not worth the extra 50%.
Personally waiting for the U36SD as that will have USB 3.
"Illegal discounts"? What in the world are you on about?
What's illegal isn't the discount, it's what they ask in payment.
I.E. unless you agree to never sell one of our competitors products, we will charge you full retail pricing, which is about 5 times what your competitors are charging. In effect they remove the ability of a manufacturer to compete by denying them the special deals that their competitors receive. As a monopoly, this is quite easy to do.
It's those sort of proviso's are illegal and as the GP said, hurt both consumers and business alike.
Competent jocks in team sports tend to do well in life.
Nope,
They either end up in dead end labouring jobs or demeaning white collar positions. In the case of Australia, they got into a pile of debt and are now having trouble paying it off.
Basically, because the Jock neglected their studies and the Geek did not, they end up working for Geeks and the Jock resents this later in life.
Jocks don't even get into sales positions, sales requires intelect and the abiltiy to be able to talk to people into something, skills which the Jock lacks (the jock threatened you with violence in high school, he didn't talk your head into a locker). So Sales it's the domain of sociopaths.
In reality, most Jocks ended up in an early marriage with kids by their late 20's working a crappy thankless job and spends their week waiting to get blind drunk on the weekend watching Football and pretend that their lives went somewhere. Al Bundy was modelled on real people.
I was a non conformist, in both my high schools. In my first school, people found out I had a good sense of humour (I.E. making jokes, not being them) after about 18 months, made the last 18 months there brilliant, despite the fact I sucked at sports and had social problems up the wazoo people simply stopped picking on me, I got along with most people even though I didn't conform and typically did better in class (I.E. some of them would blatantly copy my classwork). The thing is, it actually started with one person pointing out I made a joke, then the rest just kind of went along with the groupthink.
Now lets go to High School no 2. These people aped American high schools, it was like lord of the flies, a "king" decided if you were or weren't acceptable. For me, not being a sycophant and absolutely hating Rap (I apparently was the only one with a sense of hearing) I was declared "not acceptable" and was to be tormented for the next 2 years, fortunately I still lived where my old high school was, so I associated with those people outside of school hours.
The same thing happened to other non-conformists at this school, even the girl who was attractive and good at sports. But you see, not only is conformism required, acceptance is also entirely arbitrary, even if you do conform the "lord" can still deem you unacceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
This is literally a Ministry of Truth.
Considering the Ministry of Truth was deidcated to lies,
Wouldn't this be more aptly named the Ministry of Lies?
No, you're missing the point. Is it being used politically? No, the vast majority of Thais love the King and truly and genuinely offended by insults, red, yellow, whatever.
And your laziness claims are so over the top, there is no way to hide the bigotry behind a few words of Thai. (jing jing)
Please re-read my post, and the question the OP asked. I answered it correctly.
You seemed to have missed the point.
I never said anything to the contrary. This is why you need to re-read both my and the GP's post.
The GP asked if censorship was used to silence political speech, since you full well know the King has no real political power we are taking about censoring groups like the Red Shirts and pro-thaksin organisations with the current govt (khun mark, well last time I checked). But as I also said, this is highly ineffective as there are too many bickering entities within the ruling party itself.
Also these groups tend or organise using other means (mobile phones and public rallies)
Next time your in Thailand, look up to the power poles and look at the coils of telephone wire, some of them add over 100 metres to DSL connections.
Tell me that again.
There are hard working thais, but there are a lot of dishonest ones, they tend to coalesces around the government (this I also pointed out). Unless you're trying to tell me the Boys in Brown would never shake down anyone for a few hundred baht.
Nice way to imagine something that isn't there. No bigotry, just simple fact. I like the Thai people but their government services are almost completely corrupt and ineffective. Are you going to try to deny this?
Are you one of those Farang who tries too hard to be Thai, cursing the roundness of their eyes?
I bought a 24" monitor a few years back for $170, and a 23" last black frideay for $109. Why fuss about such a minor expense? If two monitors make developers 1% more producrtive, or just make developers feel "pampered" then why not?
Cost times no of developers.
Then you have the "monitor envy" problem. Steve got a slightly larger monitor then frank (or the bezel is smaller). Suddenly Steve's superiority is challenged. Steve requires a larger monitor then Frank to prove that Steve's position is higher. Thus Steve complains to IT services until Steve gets a bigger monitor. Now Frank's e-peen is reduced and Frank begins the cycle all over again.
Meanwhile perfectly good monitors that no-one wants because they are all too important to have "only a 24" monitor" pile up, not to mention the ever increasing demands on the company financially.
No, giving into their demands is not the answer, it will just lead to more demands. A good IT department does not offer danemonitors to appease petulant developers.
I was on the front lines during the great CRT crisis of 04. This is when we got our first shipment of LCD monitors into our company, 10 19" 4:3 dells. Of course I was in charge of assigning them to 10 out of the 90 staff. A throng of Developers poured into my office complaining of headaches caused by CRT "oh the pain, the horror, the flickering of the refresh rate, I cannot bear it," (grabs the collar of my shirt) "I must have an LCD, how can you subject me to more pain".
They tried everything, bribery, blackmail, threats, one even "accidentally" dropped his CRT. No matter how many times I told them, "the monitors would be assigned according to need, not wants". They complained, they complained to my boss, to their boss, to the bookkeeper who had an ancient 17" CRT. They were unrelenting. In the end, management made the decision, they continued infighting for months over who got them. In early 06 we bought 15 22" LCD's. of course the developers made anther ruckus, the headache plauge returned but I made sure the bookkeeper got the first one. She said something that not one of those developers said to me, not once, she said "thank you".
So to reward complaining, will only bring about more complaining and inevitably more cost. For my entire tenure, the developers did not stop fighting for monitors, at one point I had to chain monitors to desks as developers would appropriate them for themselves without asking. I get a phone call from one of the GIS analysts, literally in tears because a developer had stolen her monitor, then yelled at her when she asked for it back.
So never give in, no matter how trifling the cost,
For once you have given the dev monitor's, you'll never be rid of the dev.
. That's what we call "being Australian".
In a typical day you may consume:
- Indian curry,
- Pad Thai
- English Fish and Chips.
- German Beer.
- Italian Pasta.
- MSG based noodle (AKA dodgy Chinese).
- Something from an American burger or chicken franchise.
- Nando's (South African chicken franchise which is dangerously addictive).
- Irish stout.
- Turkish Kebab.
- Greek Souvlaki.
Following that you'll travel home in a Japanese made car to watch American shows on a Chinese made TV sitting in a Swedish couch.
Not forgetting the traditional meat pie and sauce. The meat pie was invented in Australia when Australians realised that you had to put down your beer at the footy to eat. Thus some bright spark came up with the idea of putting beef in gravy and wrapping it in pastry that can be eaten single handedly.
In all seriousness, I think Australia is lucky to have such varied cuisine available.
No. Give me a citation to the definitive cause of the crash.
You've said nothing about the cause.
Using that evidence I propose that they upset the invisible pink unicorn and were torn asunder by the noodly appendages of the Blessed FSM.
Of course I'm not going to provide a citation because there was a spectacular crash that proves everything I said.
What I was saying is that he choose to describe the end result of flying large planes without fly-by-wire using a same description of what undoubtedly happened to Air France 447
Bad strawman is bad.
You have not provided any link between potential risks using FBW and AF447.
Further more you've failed to even prove there is a significant danger of fly by wire systems when we have several decades of proof to the contrary.
Also swearing and demanding I find the evidence for you provides seals the case that you have no clue what you're on about. Please learn how to do research and some manners.
Where did you read that?
Care to provide a citation. As far as I know CASA and other agencies dont have a clue why AF447 crashed.
This is why the black box will take so long to analyse (including verifying the contents of the black box itself).
Until then, I'm sticking with what Luckyo said. Modern planes, especially the tail-less delta winged variety are not easy to fly unassisted.
BTW, in the age of fly by wire, pilot error remains the number one cause of accidents. Not begrudging pilots mind you, air accidents are rare and flying isn't easy.
By dissuading they prevent it. You're next statement would add wieght to that, if it were not based on bad assumptions.
Actually they do, law changes the likelihood of a person commuting a crime. The fear that they will be fined or jailed for doing so, this is an effective motivator. This motivation is a good prevention mechanism.
A metal detector will not stop you from carrying a gun into an airport. You have this a bit backwards.
Just so you're 100% clear on this, a metal detector is a form of detection (surprise, surprise) not enforcement or prevention.
This is what stops you, a metal detector does no such thing, as evidenced by the security guards which walk through them with firearms attached to their hip (in Australia, Federal Police agents must walk through the metal detector, cutting around it is illegal).
What stops the average Joe from walking into the airport with a firearm is the knowledge that the law will punish them for doing so. The aforementioned Australian Federal Police officers will stop him, charge him and the justice system will punish him. This thought is what prevents Joe from thinking about taking a firearm through an airport security station. If not for the law, the justice system would not be able to do anything, the AFP would merely be thugs.
You seem to be stuck on the wrong idea that the law or the consequences of breaking them does not decrease the likelihood that someone will commit a crime, where as in reality it does because a potential criminal knows they will be punished for breaking that law.
That is because you continue to hold on to this bad belief that the law is not effective at curbing crime, where as you admit that it is dissuasion but insist that this is different to prevention. If this were true, laws would have no effect on crime what so ever.
Especially considering the natural tendency to discard information that is in contradiction to ones personal views on the world. If the actual inputs are then skewed to support that view, then it just gets even more extreme as a person tends to discard the more moderate views in favor of more extreme ones.
Basically there's a business in telling people what they want to hear.
TFA tells us old news, they've just added a technological slant. I doubt wilful content filtering will have much of an effect on society in general. Those who would feel they require such filtering would have ignored it or worse yet, actively fought the sources*.
In simple terms, people who want to exist in a "bubble" will do so without technological aid. Cognitive dissonance is a very strong motivator, people who cannot handle it (I.E. hearing things they don't like) will not benefit from unfiltered information as their own defence mechanisms will kick in regardless.
* My problem with Fox News is not that it exists, my problem is that it's advertised as factual news when it isn't. If the channel was Fox Editorials I wouldn't care.
What a very odd definition of "law". What planet do you live on where laws work like that?
Laws do prevent crime, they prevent it by providing a disincentive to commuting an act. A law is written "if you kill, you will go to jail" not "Thou shalt not kill". A written law must define an act and a punishment. It is the risk of that punishment which prevents crime.
Now a law that is not enforced (I.E. no punishment is applied), that is completely ineffective.
it will deter some people, the fact that it won't deter 100% is immaterial
So punish those it does not deter, as I said above, a law is only effective if it is enforced.
During an ongoing court case, maintaining the privacy of the accused is paramount to a fair trial. Even if they are guilty as sin, they deserve to have their trial heard fairly. I assume you dont disagree with this.
Now the media is well known to be very biased and unfair when dealing with almost anything. Excess media attention can alter the outcome of a trial, even to a point where an unjust decision can be made to appease the media as was the case with Lindsey Chamberlin.
My question is,
Do you think at all.
Your own posts contradict themselves. Please think before posting in future.
Reply to: Re:to hell with all monarchies "we know we are talking about an absolute monarchy
Then why did you list three constitutional monarchies in this post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2155070&cid=36128884
So you were saying?
You made no sense to begin with, you're trying to get other people worked up to cover this up by swearing and trying to insult them (it's not working BTW, you're the only one getting your knickers in a knot over this).
You're trolling.. badly and frankly I'm losing interest in playing with you.
What point.
You got caught out calling constitutional monarchs absolute monarchs. You were wrong, show some maturity and admit it. Your post contradicts itself.
You are the one who is not capable of arguing rationally. Swearing and talk of killing only proves you're point is not a sane one.
You didn't make much sense in the first place, then you attack people who point this out? Are you 13? Because you're not acting like an adult who should be allowed out in public unescorted.
Go ahead and tax iPods, which actually *are* used for copying music - but don't try and kill off the photography industry by adding useless taxes.
Further more, taxes from this should go into state or federal coffers as it is a disincentive to commit an undesirable act, not a revenue stream for already rich companies.
A constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy.
If you meant absolute monarchy you should have said absolute monarchy instead of trying to change what you said after being proven wrong.
BTW, insults and swearing only make you look immature whilst still being wrong.
You, however are not. From your OP:
death to the queen of england
death to the emperor of japan
death to the king of thailiand
All three of these nations are constitutional monarchies.
So you're trying to tell me you want to destroy constitutional monarchs? Or do you honestly beleive England and Japan are absolute monarchies in disguise?
Fair enough if you didn't know that the Thai king holds no real power, but the rest of your posts make no sense what so ever.
so i didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment
When facts do not coincide with your accepted view of the world, ignore the facts because this makes them go away.
You could have taken the honest way out and admitted you're wrong, instead you just admitted you're ignorant.
Good day to you sir and Gud save the Kween.
are you honestly going to say a monarchy is better?
Currently living in a constitutional monarchy and doing quite well for ourselvesm thank you for asking.
Same with most of the constitutional monarchies in the world. Especially in Europe.
for example, china is better off as a democracy
You're high aren't you?
China? Democracy?
He, he, he, very funny good sir.
China is currently very dictatorial.
Meanwhile, how's Japan doing?
its called growing pains
Funny thing US to UK English.
You call it "growing pains".
We call it "bloodthirsty dictatorship".
Your initial examples were terrible, rather then trying to create better ones, you've dug the hole even deeper by trying to use China as an example of democracy.
You really don't know what you're on about do you.
Ever since my mum's computer became useless, I've had no problems either.
The king holds no political power what so ever. If he did wield political power, the Leste Majesty laws would be gone by now. Several times he's called for them to be changed or removed and he grants a royal pardon to anyone convicted by them.
The king has popular power, which is used against him as much as for him. Politico's invoke his name to create bad laws, even if the King speaks out against them he is powerless as the monarch wields not actual power in Thailand.
Plus the King is not in good health, he does not have the strength to fight the entrenched political families that rule Thailand.
the french, the russians, the nepalese, they had the right idea
The French:
Ushered in a dictator called Napoleon who launched France on two major wars which they lost both of, losing much of their overseas colonies in the process. Not to mention the bloody executions which were not just restricted to the monarch and royalist but any kind of political dissident.
The Russians
Ushered in a group of dictators called the Bolsheviks which robbed their resource rich nation of prosperity for a century, a legacy which continues to this very day.
Me thinks you didn't think that statement through.
One question I have is, are they actually censoring things that do in fact insult the monarchy, or are they using that to suppress other political speech.
Yes, but not very effectively.
Political bickering and infighting is so intense and changes in government so frequent in Thailand that no one really has enough power for long enough to silence political speech. Second thing is, political speech isn't really on-line in Thailand, most of it is done through public speech and SMS with mobile phones being a lot more prolific then computers. Political motivation is often bought, people can get paid to put on the right colour of shirt and turn up at a protest, 200 Baht (US$8) a day
After this comes the fact that the people doing the censorship really don't give a shit. "Mai bpen rai" is the Thai phrase, roughly equivalent to "she'll be right" in Australia, the people actually in charge of the implementation will be doing the minimal amount of work possible, think of the laziest government employee you've ever met, multiply that laziness by 10 and you'll have some idea.
Unstable politics + practically no work ethic = ineffective censorship. More Porn gets blocked, but you can still access RedTube in Thailand without a proxy.
The only surprise I have is that they're using cold calling for this instead of just dumping a fake AV on her machine.
Not really, If Aunt Gladys gets a fake AV pop up she'll either ignore it or call someone to fix it. When she gets a cold call, she is more likely to act as "it's a real person". Success rate would be much higher then with a fake AV, I'd say the actual success rate would be up there with telemarketers.
I've received a cold call from "The PC doctor" before and went along with it to see where it headed. Whilst obviously scripted it was sophisticated enough to make someone who was not technically literate, the call culminated in them asking me to install something, at this point I pressed them for details (company name, ABN, office number) and they promptly hung up.
Given the cheapness of running a call centre out of somewhere like India and the higher success rate would make this operation profitable if it went on long enough.
Comparing it to the latest Asus laptops (looking for a 13" so it's the U30SD) which has the same Sandy Bridge processors it's definitely not worth the extra 50%.
Personally waiting for the U36SD as that will have USB 3.
What's illegal isn't the discount, it's what they ask in payment.
I.E. unless you agree to never sell one of our competitors products, we will charge you full retail pricing, which is about 5 times what your competitors are charging. In effect they remove the ability of a manufacturer to compete by denying them the special deals that their competitors receive. As a monopoly, this is quite easy to do.
It's those sort of proviso's are illegal and as the GP said, hurt both consumers and business alike.
Nope,
They either end up in dead end labouring jobs or demeaning white collar positions. In the case of Australia, they got into a pile of debt and are now having trouble paying it off.
Basically, because the Jock neglected their studies and the Geek did not, they end up working for Geeks and the Jock resents this later in life.
Jocks don't even get into sales positions, sales requires intelect and the abiltiy to be able to talk to people into something, skills which the Jock lacks (the jock threatened you with violence in high school, he didn't talk your head into a locker). So Sales it's the domain of sociopaths.
In reality, most Jocks ended up in an early marriage with kids by their late 20's working a crappy thankless job and spends their week waiting to get blind drunk on the weekend watching Football and pretend that their lives went somewhere. Al Bundy was modelled on real people.
they are physically unattractive
Nope,
bad at sports,
Wrong
and have social anxiety problems of various kinds
Sorry but three incorrect guesses.
Unwillingness to conform
I was a non conformist, in both my high schools. In my first school, people found out I had a good sense of humour (I.E. making jokes, not being them) after about 18 months, made the last 18 months there brilliant, despite the fact I sucked at sports and had social problems up the wazoo people simply stopped picking on me, I got along with most people even though I didn't conform and typically did better in class (I.E. some of them would blatantly copy my classwork). The thing is, it actually started with one person pointing out I made a joke, then the rest just kind of went along with the groupthink.
Now lets go to High School no 2. These people aped American high schools, it was like lord of the flies, a "king" decided if you were or weren't acceptable. For me, not being a sycophant and absolutely hating Rap (I apparently was the only one with a sense of hearing) I was declared "not acceptable" and was to be tormented for the next 2 years, fortunately I still lived where my old high school was, so I associated with those people outside of school hours.
The same thing happened to other non-conformists at this school, even the girl who was attractive and good at sports. But you see, not only is conformism required, acceptance is also entirely arbitrary, even if you do conform the "lord" can still deem you unacceptable.
You want into the iNeighbourhood, yous gotta pay. We are the only way you're getting in there.
Mention Android and you're out of here. We own your ass^H^Hpp
That's nice application, shame if anything were to "happen" to it. $99 per year and we'll make sure it wont.