Silly atheist. Religion doesn't have to be true for people to buy into it. That's the beauty of it. Most Christians would probably shit themselves if it turned out to be true.
For some reason, the only way I can analogize bitcoin to people is "it's what you'd get if you explained Star Trek's energy credit system to a stoner, who then ran for US congress and implemented it." I write science fiction constantly and would be hard pressed to come up with a zanier scheme.
Does anyone really, really, I MEAN REALLY, understand how this EM crap works? I mean, just a few years ago, they discovered that effect, whatever they call it, friedsnell or something, where the stuff bounces back and hits other stuff. I think. And now they want to shoot RADIATION at us? BAN IT!!! What's next? Chernobyls on every street corner? Will someone PLEASE think of the children????
No, they can't. But wait! It's worse! Banning wireless internet and cellphones doesn't allow them to. You see, the planet is bombarded by EM radiation constantly...
There isn't really such a thing as unbiased news. I've been seeing an effect more and more - perfectly non-biased stories being selected in such a way as to create positive or negative portrayals, all while not actually injecting any bias into the stories themselves. The Drudge Report is a great example. It seems non-biased. I mean, how could it be biased? It links to other sites! Yet, if you take a close look at the stories selected, especially the photo stories... you start to see a pattern.
The real bias in news now is in selection, not confusing opinion with news. Passing off opinion as news does happen, of course, but it is not the real danger. People who watch channels like Fox News already have a decision and want it to be reinforced. It is the covert bias in selection which is a real danger.
"In every other thread, those two things are usually made up by a global conspiracy of socialist scientists and/or Al Gore for the sole purpose of grabbing your hard earned and well deserved money."
Uhh, no. I think you're confusing slashdot with Fox News. Easy mistake to make.
Seems to me like you can't deal with the fact there might be people of different opinions on slashdot, and want to use that to demean anyone you disagree with. Like the GP said, basically, but worse.
If you burn coal for power, you have to mine more coal. Pretty simple stuff I thought. You can't simply ignore the dangers of mining the fuel, and your handwaving is not winning you any arguments.
"Diablo canyon and Chernobyl also points out that if a good reactor design can be made, building it to spec is still a problem."
Chernobyl was most certainly not a good design, even by the standards of the day. The fact they made it worse doesn't mean the original design was good.
I reply anonymously when I feel my post does not contribute to the actual discussion, so that with -1 others do not have to read it. Just clarifying that to anyone curious.
"When a reporter in Russia gets disappeared for saying the wrong things; when a man in Afghanistan gets his organs spread around town square for dancing with his wife; when an elderly Chinese woman is sentenced to a lifetime of hard labor for requesting a permit to protest at the Olympics... that is a lack of freedom."
Because some people are worse off does not necessarily mean you are well off. However, I would agree that in the US we have it well. I'm not saying otherwise, but rather, that no government truly respects free speech, and all are constantly moving against it (among many other freedoms.)
The fact that there is absolutely no freedom of speech at all in some countries is exactly why we should be so concerned about letting it be trampled upon. If you know your American history, you'll know it was not always that great here, especially for some groups. It is not unreasonable to fear the fact that could happen again, especially with a massive social movement afoot to bring our politics back to the 19th century. Freedoms aren't free, and simply having them is not a guarantee you always will.
I think you're reading too much into what I said, then. I'm not saying that ANY restriction at all automatically makes it as bad as total dictatorial censorship, which would be absurd. I'm saying that free speech is constantly under assault by those who claim to have good intentions, and that as a nation, we never really were fully behind free speech, but instead always willing to make exceptions to suit the current political and social climate.
I definitely sympathize with those who have it worse, and wish there was more that could be done to help them. Unfortunately, to a large extent, that is their own fight, at least to start.
Perhaps, but a restriction upon free speech still is one. I am not necessarily saying it is wrong necessarily to have a law restricting it, but that it is wrong to lie about your intentions. Redefining free speech to not include what you dislike is dishonest and despicable.
"Outright abuse is another. Only an immature twit can't tell the difference."
Or a person who actually knows where this kind of thinking leads. Not long ago did we have committees to determine if you were a communist. It isn't immature to know that such a travesty is only a few "well intentioned" laws away from returning, especially with the constant assault on our freedoms from every angle. Neither political party cares about them, and people like you are too clueless to realize when they are at risk.
"Being permitted to say something does not protect you from the consequences of saying it. The typical example is yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre. That's illegal and I'm fine with that, not because I don't like free speech or only like some free speech, but because acting to harm others should be against the law."
Do you people have like a book you get this crap out of? People thinking that statement is an argument for why they can pick and choose what certain freedoms mean is way too common, especially here on slashdot.
Laws restricting what you can legally say or placing penalties upon certain forms of speech are restrictions upon free speech. It is as simple as that, and I don't really see why the concept is so confusing to some people.
If it is an acceptable restriction on free speech is an entirely different discussion, although one that I personally believe should not be given serious consideration. However, it is, without question, a restriction upon free speech to create any laws regulating free communication. That's why it is called what it is. Once you cut out certain kinds of speech, it is far to easy to expand the definitions. We've seen it happen again and again across the world and right at home.
So please, be honest and say what you mean: you disagree with this particular freedom, at least to some extent. I find it offensive to the entire human race to go about redefining freedoms to only what you personally find acceptable.
Wait, what? That's the most batshit definition of "free" I have ever heard. So it only is a restriction on free speech if you do it beforehand, and call it that? Well, North Korea must be the freest fucking country on the planet - they just kill you after the fact if you say what they don't like!
"Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs."
It only protects speech you like, right? Sorry, there is no free speech if it comes with strings attached. I might disagree with what they say - even find it sickening - but it is their right to say it, and not yours to say otherwise. Why? Redefining "free" to be only what you want is more despicable than anything a person could say.
We've never had free speech in the US and probably never will, as long as people can make excuses to suppress it like "national security," "cyber bullying," and "copyright." So, how could anything be a threat to what we haven't got?
Good luck with that. The teabaggers and other mentally deficient groups will just claim you're soft on kiddie porn, and probably end up arresting you sooner or later.
I typically take it as a sign of a right-wing nutjob when they claim CNN is left-wing. I'd give you NBC, but seriously, man. Get out of your bubble. You need context.
"Serious Tubes Networks"? What is it, an ISP run by/b/tards?
Although, really, it is rare to see a company, especially (like) Comcast, actually doing something good for users. Going out of their way to fix the connection to the Pirate Bay - that's a pretty ballsy move, and they should get some credit for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Free for developers looking to make closed derivative works. Not free for society, other developers, and certianly not users.
If you want it to be "free," just go public domain it. GPL is about actually keeping software free, not providing a toolkit to proprietary developers.
Silly atheist. Religion doesn't have to be true for people to buy into it. That's the beauty of it. Most Christians would probably shit themselves if it turned out to be true.
...who thought the rapture would come, and asking them the obvious question, "Where is your god now?"
For some reason, the only way I can analogize bitcoin to people is "it's what you'd get if you explained Star Trek's energy credit system to a stoner, who then ran for US congress and implemented it." I write science fiction constantly and would be hard pressed to come up with a zanier scheme.
Woosh.
Does anyone really, really, I MEAN REALLY, understand how this EM crap works? I mean, just a few years ago, they discovered that effect, whatever they call it, friedsnell or something, where the stuff bounces back and hits other stuff. I think. And now they want to shoot RADIATION at us? BAN IT!!! What's next? Chernobyls on every street corner? Will someone PLEASE think of the children????
/s
No, some of us live in a scientific age, but many choose to live in a self-inflicted medieval age. Problem is, they want us all to.
No, they can't. But wait! It's worse! Banning wireless internet and cellphones doesn't allow them to. You see, the planet is bombarded by EM radiation constantly...
There isn't really such a thing as unbiased news. I've been seeing an effect more and more - perfectly non-biased stories being selected in such a way as to create positive or negative portrayals, all while not actually injecting any bias into the stories themselves. The Drudge Report is a great example. It seems non-biased. I mean, how could it be biased? It links to other sites! Yet, if you take a close look at the stories selected, especially the photo stories... you start to see a pattern.
The real bias in news now is in selection, not confusing opinion with news. Passing off opinion as news does happen, of course, but it is not the real danger. People who watch channels like Fox News already have a decision and want it to be reinforced. It is the covert bias in selection which is a real danger.
"In every other thread, those two things are usually made up by a global conspiracy of socialist scientists and/or Al Gore for the sole purpose of grabbing your hard earned and well deserved money."
Uhh, no. I think you're confusing slashdot with Fox News. Easy mistake to make.
Seems to me like you can't deal with the fact there might be people of different opinions on slashdot, and want to use that to demean anyone you disagree with. Like the GP said, basically, but worse.
Resistance in the relay lines would make a world grid extremely inefficient.
If you burn coal for power, you have to mine more coal. Pretty simple stuff I thought. You can't simply ignore the dangers of mining the fuel, and your handwaving is not winning you any arguments.
Are all cars bad because of the Ford Pinto?
"Diablo canyon and Chernobyl also points out that if a good reactor design can be made, building it to spec is still a problem."
Chernobyl was most certainly not a good design, even by the standards of the day. The fact they made it worse doesn't mean the original design was good.
I reply anonymously when I feel my post does not contribute to the actual discussion, so that with -1 others do not have to read it. Just clarifying that to anyone curious.
"When a reporter in Russia gets disappeared for saying the wrong things; when a man in Afghanistan gets his organs spread around town square for dancing with his wife; when an elderly Chinese woman is sentenced to a lifetime of hard labor for requesting a permit to protest at the Olympics... that is a lack of freedom."
Because some people are worse off does not necessarily mean you are well off. However, I would agree that in the US we have it well. I'm not saying otherwise, but rather, that no government truly respects free speech, and all are constantly moving against it (among many other freedoms.)
The fact that there is absolutely no freedom of speech at all in some countries is exactly why we should be so concerned about letting it be trampled upon. If you know your American history, you'll know it was not always that great here, especially for some groups. It is not unreasonable to fear the fact that could happen again, especially with a massive social movement afoot to bring our politics back to the 19th century. Freedoms aren't free, and simply having them is not a guarantee you always will.
I think you're reading too much into what I said, then. I'm not saying that ANY restriction at all automatically makes it as bad as total dictatorial censorship, which would be absurd. I'm saying that free speech is constantly under assault by those who claim to have good intentions, and that as a nation, we never really were fully behind free speech, but instead always willing to make exceptions to suit the current political and social climate.
I definitely sympathize with those who have it worse, and wish there was more that could be done to help them. Unfortunately, to a large extent, that is their own fight, at least to start.
"THis guy is just being an abusive idiot."
Perhaps, but a restriction upon free speech still is one. I am not necessarily saying it is wrong necessarily to have a law restricting it, but that it is wrong to lie about your intentions. Redefining free speech to not include what you dislike is dishonest and despicable.
"Outright abuse is another. Only an immature twit can't tell the difference."
Or a person who actually knows where this kind of thinking leads. Not long ago did we have committees to determine if you were a communist. It isn't immature to know that such a travesty is only a few "well intentioned" laws away from returning, especially with the constant assault on our freedoms from every angle. Neither political party cares about them, and people like you are too clueless to realize when they are at risk.
"Being permitted to say something does not protect you from the consequences of saying it. The typical example is yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre. That's illegal and I'm fine with that, not because I don't like free speech or only like some free speech, but because acting to harm others should be against the law."
Do you people have like a book you get this crap out of? People thinking that statement is an argument for why they can pick and choose what certain freedoms mean is way too common, especially here on slashdot.
Remember that next time you feel like complaining about a politician. If your definition of freedom is adopted, it could land you in jail.
Laws restricting what you can legally say or placing penalties upon certain forms of speech are restrictions upon free speech. It is as simple as that, and I don't really see why the concept is so confusing to some people.
If it is an acceptable restriction on free speech is an entirely different discussion, although one that I personally believe should not be given serious consideration. However, it is, without question, a restriction upon free speech to create any laws regulating free communication. That's why it is called what it is. Once you cut out certain kinds of speech, it is far to easy to expand the definitions. We've seen it happen again and again across the world and right at home.
So please, be honest and say what you mean: you disagree with this particular freedom, at least to some extent. I find it offensive to the entire human race to go about redefining freedoms to only what you personally find acceptable.
Wait, what? That's the most batshit definition of "free" I have ever heard. So it only is a restriction on free speech if you do it beforehand, and call it that? Well, North Korea must be the freest fucking country on the planet - they just kill you after the fact if you say what they don't like!
"Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs."
It only protects speech you like, right? Sorry, there is no free speech if it comes with strings attached. I might disagree with what they say - even find it sickening - but it is their right to say it, and not yours to say otherwise. Why? Redefining "free" to be only what you want is more despicable than anything a person could say.
We've never had free speech in the US and probably never will, as long as people can make excuses to suppress it like "national security," "cyber bullying," and "copyright." So, how could anything be a threat to what we haven't got?
Good luck with that. The teabaggers and other mentally deficient groups will just claim you're soft on kiddie porn, and probably end up arresting you sooner or later.
I typically take it as a sign of a right-wing nutjob when they claim CNN is left-wing. I'd give you NBC, but seriously, man. Get out of your bubble. You need context.
"Serious Tubes Networks"? What is it, an ISP run by /b/tards?
Although, really, it is rare to see a company, especially (like) Comcast, actually doing something good for users. Going out of their way to fix the connection to the Pirate Bay - that's a pretty ballsy move, and they should get some credit for it.