By reporting about this incident, these outlets are providing the video a vast amount of exposure that it otherwise would not receive.
This story certainly gives the animation publicity, but I would definitely file this one under bad publicity. The animation itself contains very little convincing rhetoric. It seems to just explain why people don't want to hear about global warming. I reckon that the only purpose it serves is to strengthen the opposition to global warming, but the kind of publicity it's receiving should convince the other way. Who wants to play into the hands of oil tycoon anyway?
Does this mean you will no longer be able to cry "prior art"? If so, this is a bad thing IMHO.
I agree, and if that's true, it spells trouble for FOSS. The GPL has always impressed me with its clever catch 22 system of preventing piracy (ie distribute w/ no source), but it doesn't protect against patents effectively. According to the preamble, you aren't allowed to patent the software you receive under the GPL. Unfortunately, this clause is just like any other EULA: only some courts uphold it. It worries me that the one semi-effective thing protecting FOSS from software patents (prior art), could well be in danger.
Should any public official have a right to privacy when acting in the line of duty?
You've nailed it. That's a very good question.
I think that a lack of privacy leads to problems, even in public officials. We vehemently protect our right to privacy. Without our privacy, our secrets, our mistakes, our illegal activity (we all do it) is visible. This carries enormous pressure on us to be perfect, or be humilliated. The same pressure lies on public officials. Total transperancy will help eliminate illegal practices, when applied to us or them, but none of us like it.
I honestly can't see a solution to the dilemma. One way leads to corruption, the other leads to an over-cautious, personnel-starved police force.
But one thing I'm sure of -- radio stations aren't playing music for free.
I know I know nothing about the radio business, but isn't there some idea running about the corporate conspiracy theorists called payola?
I would have thought that the record industry would try to keep a relatively tight hold on the radio medium. After all, it's essentially free advertising.
There's absolutely no incentive to upgrade to WinXP
I don't know if you know how hard it is to administrate a system that is shoddy, unstable, and insecure for a group of people, like a school. Everyone expects you to know how to fix your problems, and what's worse, many also have their own solutions. The vast majority are unfeasable, and the small minority who actually know what they are talking about don't realise the bureaucratic restrictions in place. There is a lt of strain placed on network administrators, who, more often than not, are teachers with a side job and an above average appreciation (not saying much there) of computers.
Windows 98 is a nightmare. Between network limitations, instability, insecurity, etc, it is a crappy OS. If the OS is crappy, then so is the feedback you get. I get "Word isn't working", "I can't get the internet", "I can't get my thumb drive to work", "Why don't you install Linux?", "You should save up and buy [some piece of software - often photoshop]", and lots, lots more. With Windows XP, stability is much improved, restrictions are tighter on restricted users (a BIG relief), built in firewall, proper plug and play drivers, etc. There is plenty of reason to upgrade to Windows XP.
The Linux route is no good because the differences between Windows and Linux is too great for kids to be bothered with. Add in compatibility issues (which restricts the usage of the sort of cheap hardware that schools go for), and you can see why schools are stuck with Windows.
Having only watched the video (not RTFA), my question is how the liquid will prevent damage to the body. The video shows that the material will repel the bullet, but not that it will prevent the momentum from transerfing to what it protects. Will it spread the damage enough to prevent fatality in someone who gets shot? Or is this only good for armoured cars in war zones?
Maybe it is redundant to suggest this, but it does need to be said. Computing is secondary to these things. It's a lovely idea, but it's only a distraction from the main issue. I'd rather be alive (and hopefully secure in the knowledge that I would remain so) than computer (read internet) educated or literate.
I'm assuming you also have the money to keep it refuelled, plus the space and money to build a runway (that needs to be perfectly flat), as well as money for maintenance, right?
Oh, and I'd also guess that you'd be content flying only where there's a runway that you can use?
And you don't mind that other people would rather be hit, or have their property hit, by a runaway jetpack than a runaway plane?
It's like a liberal rite of passage. How can you call yourself a liberal, if you can't worm out of an arrest? I mean, it's not like any of the people in that video were innocent. [/flamebait]
Now, please don't get the wrong impression about me. I don't consider myself conservative, I don't think we should all be slaves to the law, but I see little point in dancing around the fact that liberalism and the law don't mix. They are simply opposites. One strives to eliminate freedoms for the greater good, the other sees freedom as THE greater good. I can't quite place one as better or more right than the other, really.
The traditional image of police is protectors, but to be honest, they are just paid to arrest people.
Yeah, I can see why anyone who'd listen to the load of propoganda in that video would think that. I guess it depends on what you want police to be. Some see police as people who cause problems, some see them as people who solve problems. If they cause problems for you, you'll want to restrict them. As soon as you start putting more restrictions on police, the easier it will be for them to step over the line. Your rights, in other words, come at the expense of theirs. If they solve problems for you, you'll be happy for them to go beyond their duties. Unlike what the video suggests, they are not power-hungry arrest-making machines. They are human. They generally have compassion, and some idea of morality.
A highly visible police patrolling the ghetto does us more good than a traffic trap. One actually lowers crime, the other gets arrests.
One allows you to act as though you're obeying the law, the other actually makes you wonder whether you can get away with it or not. I don't think we need studies to tell us that hidden police are a bigger disincentive to commit a crime than the patrol car.
Sorry about that, I get carried away with people posting crappy liberal propoganda
In reality what you say is very true, and to me, very depressing.
It can definitely be depressing, like a lot of things about life (the fact that it's so limited is a popular one). I take solace in the fact that no-one has the means yet to accurately predict my actions to any significant extent. In my opinion, the one greatest threat to our privacy is the theoretical supercomputer that can take into account all environmental variables to predict our actions flawlessly. Until then, I'll be quite comfortable.
"Just following orders" does not justify anything.
Yes and no. Yes, they commited the crime personally, and they could've refused (possibly at the expense of their jobs). But, realistically, can we expect them to? The law is supposed to prevent, not to punish. They will likely keep their job rather than uphold the law. After all, they have worked hard, made friends, possibly had promotion prospects, earned good money, etc. Who's going to throw that all away for the relatively slim chance that the law will catch them doing something illegal?
Even if we do persecute them, are we actually doing anything effective? We haven't solved the problem of the people inciting crimes. With no responsibility, they will continue to order their employees to keep commiting crimes, at least untill it becomes economically inefficient to keep doing so. The same problem occurs when you persecute the employers for every crime their employees commit under their watch. It's a difficult issue, but I don't think that it's fair to simply persecute the person who did the deed.
For speech, earplugs are sufficient...How can we neutralize the real weapons?
Very good point. For that reason, I think that actions should be persecuted much more heavily than people who incite them. However, I think that earplugs are completely ineffectual against speech. If you're humilliated (by speech), the effects are more indirect than direct. It's easier to brush off a comment when no-one hears it, but when this person starts repeating to people who know you, how does your earplugs protect you then? It's easy to deal with someone who hates you, but it's harder to deal with people who know you and believe the other guy.
Also earplugs (your metaphor for ignorance) is frowned upon by society, compounding the problem.
...I'd like to say that it's been fun:)
I can't agree more.
When I read that, "agree more" was cut out by a Read the rest of this comment... link, and I got completely the wrong impression.
You seem to be a "little" unaware of how ubusive the state can, and has become.
I think your irony and subtle understatement detection must be a little out of whack. I am absolutely aware of how abusive a state can become. God, you must think I'm some kind of Holocaust denier or something like that. What I was trying to say is that authoritarianism leads to lower crime levels. Make of that what you will. Hitler, Stalin, etc, etc. are extreme examples of this happening. I wouldn't forget that extreme anti-authoritarianism can be equally dangerous.
If you have a free will, you have a choice not to react violently to speech. You must prosecute the violence, never the speech, no matter what. This is an absolute. If you can't control yourself then you are an animal. You must admit that you have no free will.
Last time I checked, I thought we were animals. We respond just like animals to systems of rewards and punishments. Our decision making, our free will, is simply that. We respond to outside stimulii and respond accordingly. Free will is basically dead in many forms of behavioural psychology. Free will is simply the blanket term we substitute for millions of predictable calculations that occur within the brain.
Every man has his price, as they say. Every man has a certain threshold where the incentives outweight the disincentives to do something (including reacting violently). Some people put a lot of stock in pride, and not a lot of stock in the law. They are still responsible for their actions. But, some of the responsibility does lie on the speaker. The question is which party the law should protect.
If I kill someone because their speech offended me, then by your guildlines, I would have the right to do just that, and you could not bring me up on charges.
I believe in shared responsibility. If you did that, I'd prosecute you heavily. I'd also consider prosecuting the party involved in provoking you (considerably less heavily), if it could be proven that they intended to provoke you. Saying that the speaker is not at all responsible is like persecuting employees of a corporation that has commited a crime. Sure you could do it, but it isn't exactly fair, since the orders came from upstairs. You may argue that they are different, but the difference is only superficial. These employees value their steady, well-paying, secure job, while some people value their pride. Once their pride is wounded (by undeniably indecent malicious behaviour), they may do anything to restore it. In that case, I would prosecute both parties.
Speech can only considered a weapon by those who wish to control it. To them it's a weapon to be used to subjugate others to their will.
Why? I don't plan on provoking, slandering, etc in the near future, so why am I considering it a weapon? I stand by my statement speech is the weapon of choice in today's society. We're not allowed to practice violence, so we argue to settle our gripes. It would definitely be naive to think that speech can't be used as a weapon. You can say that the link isn't direct (only if you believe that physical wounds are the only wounds that count), but you really can't deny that speech can provoke many reactions, including violence. I've gone over the point several times.
I tend to think that you are "a little authoritarian" in your beliefs.
Disclaimer: The following statement may sound "a little arrogant", but it's the only way to convey my motives for having this discussion. You have been warned
I'm not at all surprised you think that. I like to look at different sides of a debate and understand why people think that. It's too easy to put it down to them being ignorant, idiotic, or blind. The way to get these perspectives is to read a variety of opinions from a variety of sources. Remember my original reply? I was saying that it's important to rea
Speech is not violence. Violent acts are violence. Don't confuse the two.
I know speech is not violence, but it is naive to think that one doesn't lead to the other. Speech is society's weapon of choice. Think of lawyers who are the most aggressive force in our society. All they do is talk, nothing else. Yet pulling a lawyer out against someone is seen (informally, not legally) as an act of aggression, and incites aggressive behaviour in response. However, you don't need a lawyer to be aggressive. You can threaten, taunt, mock, humiliate. You can resort to violent acts. Some people don't have a way with words, so which option do you think they'll choose? Walk away? Possibily the first few times, but there is only so much one can take.
Freedom to offend must be held sacred. If you don't like something, then turn away. That's the only legitimate choice you have. Otherwise you must admit that free will does not exist amongst humans any more than animals.
Free will has nothing to do with it. By legislating against speech that incites violence, you are not necessarily stating that you think that all inflammitory speech will result in violence. You are stating that you think that the cost of such speech outweighs its benefits. There are many people who will be able to walk away, but there also many who will find it difficult and unpleasant to deal with such speech. The law is protecting them. Why should it protect those who want to say these things? Do they have something to contribute by saying such offensive things?
The fact is that free speech has always had the abillity to be used as a weapon, and a weapon that not everyone can weild or defend against. For that reason, I see little harm in regulating its use. If it were to be regulated, it would have to be done with the utmost care, so that concepts cannot be censored. I prefer the solution of public forums for people to express their views for two reasons. One, it means no risky almost-free-speech business. Two, encouraging people to express their gripes helps prevent the situation turning ugly in a way that supressing speech cannot hope to achieve.
If you give the state ultimate powere, no-one will steal from you, or abuse you...
Except the state.
Sorry, I forgot to elaborate on that statement when I wrote that last post (I saw it coming a mile away). The state can abuse you and steal from you, granted, but if you keep your head down and do whatever they say, you'll be largely safe. Sure totallitarian states can be a little irrational with suspected criminals, but I used it only as an example. The concept still stands.
Bush has done nothing but follow orders. He's the PR guy, not the policy maker. He is inconsequential. He's an unfunny Max Headroom. He will walk away from this without a care in the world. Confident that his daddy will always be able to him out of prison, where he belongs, right there with Saddam.
Possibly, but when I say Bush, I mean the Bush administration (ie everyone behind his leadership). I am quite aware that running the US is a team operation, rather than one guy making all the decisions.
To believe there is anything legitimate about this "War on Terror" requires a level of naiveté and/or indoctrination beyond conception.
You completely misunderstood me. I was saying that that was the purpose of the war (at least the one available to the public), not that I believe in it. I told you I disagree with the war (it was at the end, so maybe the post was too long). I agree with principle behind your argument, that Bush is responsible for attrocities that are no more righteous than terrorism acts. In a funny sort of way, the US is a lot like Al Quai'da (assuming it even exists). They are both out to protect their firm beliefs, both prepared to kill for them, both fuelled by religious zealotry, both dominated by a monotheistic religion that shares a common root.
And this will save grocers money how? Pay more for the stickers. Throw out more fruit as people only choose the least ripe.
Grocers will charge more for the fruit, advertising that customers can reliably choose fruit that will be ready to eat when they want it to be.
The problem is that lower prices are all that most people optimise for these days. The higher price tag will all the encouragement that people need to shop elsewhere, even though they might buy more duds from other grocers.
I will never equate the rights of the state to the rights of the individual. An individual generally has no authority over another.
Rubbish. Individuals have plenty of authority over one another. We have the right not to be victim of theft or abuse, we have the right to sue those who refuse to observe those rights. There is a huge amount of legislation concerning governments and individuals, and that's not counting taboos, which are quite effective in preventing certain types of behaviour. Politicians also must observe taboo in the public eye, as misconduct will lose them votes.
The government doesn't control the legal system. They are seperated for a reason, which you seem to be alluding to. The fact is that the govenrment traditionally has as much to do with the legal system as you or me. If anything, the government should (and does) have more restrictions than individuals. But still the most fundamental conduct laws are placed both on individuals and the government, which is why I think they can be equated to a certain extent.
it has been shown that society has grown much more authoritarian
I agree, but it isn't necessarily a disaster. We have lived through it before, we can do it again. I'm no conservative (I'm no liberal either, really), but don't see authoritarianism as a slippery slope that we slide down and never recover from. I see it as you see it: as a pendulum. All it means is that public opinion is reacting to anti-authoritarianism, and protesting that will become as fashionable as complaining how TV is too violent these days.
I don't slot myself into the liberal or conservative category because I can survive happily in both a liberal world, or a conservative world, and can see benefits in both. Some liberals can have some serious problems trying to swallow this concept. I see an authoritarian world as a peaceful one. Authority is there to keep the peace, so people obey. People are therefore untroubled, and secure in their knowledge that peace will continue. In an anti-authoritarian world, you get something like the internet: unkempt, inflammatory, uncensored, but completely free and a great tool of individual rights. Both have their own beauty.
More and more people are saying that the Bill of Rights grants too much freedom. Very sad.
These opinions on the bill of rights are quite legitimate and valid. I had the pleasure of reading a speech made by some Irish woman to Boston University. I can't remember her name, but I do remember her speech. It was called "In defence of free speech", or something like that. It talked about the problems of free speech. She basically talked about how free speech comes at the expense of peace. She talked about how a group of Neo-nazis wanted to perform a parade through a a villiage known for its large jewish population, how they wanted to put burning crosses in front of some of the houses. She talked about how free speech will favour the more powerful over the weaker, and how free speech can be used to pour salt on wounds. She eventually concluded by saying that people should be actively encouraged by the government, through public forums, to exercise their right to free speech. It was quite convincing and really turned my view on free speech.
What I'm trying to say is that the Bill of Rights isn't perfect (as if anything possibly can be) and criticisms aren't sad, they are simply a different viewpoint. They are not crankpots who have no care about throwing their rights away, they are people who want composite rights. If you remove free speech, no-one will speak out against you. If you give the state ultimate powere, no-one will steal from you, or abuse you, etc, etc. Those are extreme examples, but the principle is the same.
Censorship is there to protect the interests of the corporations, and of course, the government's power.
I will not deny that censorship protects corporations
While I agree that the internet should not be controlled, and that your crusade is defintely a worthy one, I think your idea of censorship is a little misguided. I believe that the government, like any party, will attempt to controll what the public sees and hears. Isn't that the point of privacy, to censor the information available to the public?
I don't think the government has much power over the newspapers. In a society that is growing ever more anti-authoritarian, the government has less and less power over the people. The war on terrorism has been viewed by some as a way to regain this power through a FUD campign (I don't know, so I won't speculate).
Newspapers are more controlled by sales than the government. They make sure they alienate as few people as possible, so no stories that pander to the more extreme views at the expense of the core consumers. No offence intended, but the view that the government is majorly censoring our media is considered extreme. What you'll find is that blogs are released from this restriction as they report on what they feel passionate about. The more moderate you are in your beliefs, the less you'll feel the need to make your voice heard. Why report the news on a blog when the news said it perfectly?
This is why I think that a neutral internet is important. It provides vital information on how all groups feel about the state of the world. I think this is just as valuable as the regular news.
Nope, the funnies are all I read now. The headlines are just flashing lights and pretty colors. I'll become interested in them when I see a real call to stand up for individual rights and freedoms.
This tunnel-vision is politically unhealthy. If you want any hope of successfully advocating individual rights and freedoms, then RTFNews. It lets you know what everyone else reads, what everone else thinks (by extrapolation), and what everyone else believes (by examining the bias of the story). Reading what you want to read will not benefit you nearly as much as reading something you object to.
Being informed has been demonstrated, over and over again, to be the best weapon for the individual.
Slashdot Mirror
This story certainly gives the animation publicity, but I would definitely file this one under bad publicity. The animation itself contains very little convincing rhetoric. It seems to just explain why people don't want to hear about global warming. I reckon that the only purpose it serves is to strengthen the opposition to global warming, but the kind of publicity it's receiving should convince the other way. Who wants to play into the hands of oil tycoon anyway?
I agree, and if that's true, it spells trouble for FOSS. The GPL has always impressed me with its clever catch 22 system of preventing piracy (ie distribute w/ no source), but it doesn't protect against patents effectively. According to the preamble, you aren't allowed to patent the software you receive under the GPL. Unfortunately, this clause is just like any other EULA: only some courts uphold it. It worries me that the one semi-effective thing protecting FOSS from software patents (prior art), could well be in danger.
You've nailed it. That's a very good question.
I think that a lack of privacy leads to problems, even in public officials. We vehemently protect our right to privacy. Without our privacy, our secrets, our mistakes, our illegal activity (we all do it) is visible. This carries enormous pressure on us to be perfect, or be humilliated. The same pressure lies on public officials. Total transperancy will help eliminate illegal practices, when applied to us or them, but none of us like it.
I honestly can't see a solution to the dilemma. One way leads to corruption, the other leads to an over-cautious, personnel-starved police force.
I know I know nothing about the radio business, but isn't there some idea running about the corporate conspiracy theorists called payola?
I would have thought that the record industry would try to keep a relatively tight hold on the radio medium. After all, it's essentially free advertising.
If anyone, ANYONE, touches my porn collection in that dimension...
I don't know if you know how hard it is to administrate a system that is shoddy, unstable, and insecure for a group of people, like a school. Everyone expects you to know how to fix your problems, and what's worse, many also have their own solutions. The vast majority are unfeasable, and the small minority who actually know what they are talking about don't realise the bureaucratic restrictions in place. There is a lt of strain placed on network administrators, who, more often than not, are teachers with a side job and an above average appreciation (not saying much there) of computers.
Windows 98 is a nightmare. Between network limitations, instability, insecurity, etc, it is a crappy OS. If the OS is crappy, then so is the feedback you get. I get "Word isn't working", "I can't get the internet", "I can't get my thumb drive to work", "Why don't you install Linux?", "You should save up and buy [some piece of software - often photoshop]", and lots, lots more. With Windows XP, stability is much improved, restrictions are tighter on restricted users (a BIG relief), built in firewall, proper plug and play drivers, etc. There is plenty of reason to upgrade to Windows XP.
The Linux route is no good because the differences between Windows and Linux is too great for kids to be bothered with. Add in compatibility issues (which restricts the usage of the sort of cheap hardware that schools go for), and you can see why schools are stuck with Windows.
Or, litigating to have another door closed, forcing the public to open the first door.
Having only watched the video (not RTFA), my question is how the liquid will prevent damage to the body. The video shows that the material will repel the bullet, but not that it will prevent the momentum from transerfing to what it protects. Will it spread the damage enough to prevent fatality in someone who gets shot? Or is this only good for armoured cars in war zones?
Maybe it is redundant to suggest this, but it does need to be said. Computing is secondary to these things. It's a lovely idea, but it's only a distraction from the main issue. I'd rather be alive (and hopefully secure in the knowledge that I would remain so) than computer (read internet) educated or literate.
I'm assuming you also have the money to keep it refuelled, plus the space and money to build a runway (that needs to be perfectly flat), as well as money for maintenance, right?
Oh, and I'd also guess that you'd be content flying only where there's a runway that you can use?
And you don't mind that other people would rather be hit, or have their property hit, by a runaway jetpack than a runaway plane?
Sure, then. Planes are much better.
...is is any wonder why no-one uses desktops anymore?
Now, please don't get the wrong impression about me. I don't consider myself conservative, I don't think we should all be slaves to the law, but I see little point in dancing around the fact that liberalism and the law don't mix. They are simply opposites. One strives to eliminate freedoms for the greater good, the other sees freedom as THE greater good. I can't quite place one as better or more right than the other, really.
Yeah, I can see why anyone who'd listen to the load of propoganda in that video would think that. I guess it depends on what you want police to be. Some see police as people who cause problems, some see them as people who solve problems. If they cause problems for you, you'll want to restrict them. As soon as you start putting more restrictions on police, the easier it will be for them to step over the line. Your rights, in other words, come at the expense of theirs. If they solve problems for you, you'll be happy for them to go beyond their duties. Unlike what the video suggests, they are not power-hungry arrest-making machines. They are human. They generally have compassion, and some idea of morality.
One allows you to act as though you're obeying the law, the other actually makes you wonder whether you can get away with it or not. I don't think we need studies to tell us that hidden police are a bigger disincentive to commit a crime than the patrol car.
Sorry about that, I get carried away with people posting crappy liberal propoganda
He's trying to influence the moderation system by indirectly refering to it!
It can definitely be depressing, like a lot of things about life (the fact that it's so limited is a popular one). I take solace in the fact that no-one has the means yet to accurately predict my actions to any significant extent. In my opinion, the one greatest threat to our privacy is the theoretical supercomputer that can take into account all environmental variables to predict our actions flawlessly. Until then, I'll be quite comfortable.
Yes and no. Yes, they commited the crime personally, and they could've refused (possibly at the expense of their jobs). But, realistically, can we expect them to? The law is supposed to prevent, not to punish. They will likely keep their job rather than uphold the law. After all, they have worked hard, made friends, possibly had promotion prospects, earned good money, etc. Who's going to throw that all away for the relatively slim chance that the law will catch them doing something illegal?
Even if we do persecute them, are we actually doing anything effective? We haven't solved the problem of the people inciting crimes. With no responsibility, they will continue to order their employees to keep commiting crimes, at least untill it becomes economically inefficient to keep doing so. The same problem occurs when you persecute the employers for every crime their employees commit under their watch. It's a difficult issue, but I don't think that it's fair to simply persecute the person who did the deed.
Very good point. For that reason, I think that actions should be persecuted much more heavily than people who incite them. However, I think that earplugs are completely ineffectual against speech. If you're humilliated (by speech), the effects are more indirect than direct. It's easier to brush off a comment when no-one hears it, but when this person starts repeating to people who know you, how does your earplugs protect you then? It's easy to deal with someone who hates you, but it's harder to deal with people who know you and believe the other guy.
Also earplugs (your metaphor for ignorance) is frowned upon by society, compounding the problem.
When I read that, "agree more" was cut out by a Read the rest of this comment... link, and I got completely the wrong impression.
I think your irony and subtle understatement detection must be a little out of whack. I am absolutely aware of how abusive a state can become. God, you must think I'm some kind of Holocaust denier or something like that. What I was trying to say is that authoritarianism leads to lower crime levels. Make of that what you will. Hitler, Stalin, etc, etc. are extreme examples of this happening. I wouldn't forget that extreme anti-authoritarianism can be equally dangerous.
Last time I checked, I thought we were animals. We respond just like animals to systems of rewards and punishments. Our decision making, our free will, is simply that. We respond to outside stimulii and respond accordingly. Free will is basically dead in many forms of behavioural psychology. Free will is simply the blanket term we substitute for millions of predictable calculations that occur within the brain.
Every man has his price, as they say. Every man has a certain threshold where the incentives outweight the disincentives to do something (including reacting violently). Some people put a lot of stock in pride, and not a lot of stock in the law. They are still responsible for their actions. But, some of the responsibility does lie on the speaker. The question is which party the law should protect.
I believe in shared responsibility. If you did that, I'd prosecute you heavily. I'd also consider prosecuting the party involved in provoking you (considerably less heavily), if it could be proven that they intended to provoke you. Saying that the speaker is not at all responsible is like persecuting employees of a corporation that has commited a crime. Sure you could do it, but it isn't exactly fair, since the orders came from upstairs. You may argue that they are different, but the difference is only superficial. These employees value their steady, well-paying, secure job, while some people value their pride. Once their pride is wounded (by undeniably indecent malicious behaviour), they may do anything to restore it. In that case, I would prosecute both parties.
Why? I don't plan on provoking, slandering, etc in the near future, so why am I considering it a weapon? I stand by my statement speech is the weapon of choice in today's society. We're not allowed to practice violence, so we argue to settle our gripes. It would definitely be naive to think that speech can't be used as a weapon. You can say that the link isn't direct (only if you believe that physical wounds are the only wounds that count), but you really can't deny that speech can provoke many reactions, including violence. I've gone over the point several times.
Disclaimer: The following statement may sound "a little arrogant", but it's the only way to convey my motives for having this discussion. You have been warned
I'm not at all surprised you think that. I like to look at different sides of a debate and understand why people think that. It's too easy to put it down to them being ignorant, idiotic, or blind. The way to get these perspectives is to read a variety of opinions from a variety of sources. Remember my original reply? I was saying that it's important to rea
Trusted Computing is evil
You're screwing with my head, right?
I know speech is not violence, but it is naive to think that one doesn't lead to the other. Speech is society's weapon of choice. Think of lawyers who are the most aggressive force in our society. All they do is talk, nothing else. Yet pulling a lawyer out against someone is seen (informally, not legally) as an act of aggression, and incites aggressive behaviour in response. However, you don't need a lawyer to be aggressive. You can threaten, taunt, mock, humiliate. You can resort to violent acts. Some people don't have a way with words, so which option do you think they'll choose? Walk away? Possibily the first few times, but there is only so much one can take.
Free will has nothing to do with it. By legislating against speech that incites violence, you are not necessarily stating that you think that all inflammitory speech will result in violence. You are stating that you think that the cost of such speech outweighs its benefits. There are many people who will be able to walk away, but there also many who will find it difficult and unpleasant to deal with such speech. The law is protecting them. Why should it protect those who want to say these things? Do they have something to contribute by saying such offensive things?
The fact is that free speech has always had the abillity to be used as a weapon, and a weapon that not everyone can weild or defend against. For that reason, I see little harm in regulating its use. If it were to be regulated, it would have to be done with the utmost care, so that concepts cannot be censored. I prefer the solution of public forums for people to express their views for two reasons. One, it means no risky almost-free-speech business. Two, encouraging people to express their gripes helps prevent the situation turning ugly in a way that supressing speech cannot hope to achieve.
Sorry, I forgot to elaborate on that statement when I wrote that last post (I saw it coming a mile away). The state can abuse you and steal from you, granted, but if you keep your head down and do whatever they say, you'll be largely safe. Sure totallitarian states can be a little irrational with suspected criminals, but I used it only as an example. The concept still stands.
Possibly, but when I say Bush, I mean the Bush administration (ie everyone behind his leadership). I am quite aware that running the US is a team operation, rather than one guy making all the decisions.
You completely misunderstood me. I was saying that that was the purpose of the war (at least the one available to the public), not that I believe in it. I told you I disagree with the war (it was at the end, so maybe the post was too long). I agree with principle behind your argument, that Bush is responsible for attrocities that are no more righteous than terrorism acts. In a funny sort of way, the US is a lot like Al Quai'da (assuming it even exists). They are both out to protect their firm beliefs, both prepared to kill for them, both fuelled by religious zealotry, both dominated by a monotheistic religion that shares a common root.
Grocers will charge more for the fruit, advertising that customers can reliably choose fruit that will be ready to eat when they want it to be.
The problem is that lower prices are all that most people optimise for these days. The higher price tag will all the encouragement that people need to shop elsewhere, even though they might buy more duds from other grocers.
Rubbish. Individuals have plenty of authority over one another. We have the right not to be victim of theft or abuse, we have the right to sue those who refuse to observe those rights. There is a huge amount of legislation concerning governments and individuals, and that's not counting taboos, which are quite effective in preventing certain types of behaviour. Politicians also must observe taboo in the public eye, as misconduct will lose them votes.
The government doesn't control the legal system. They are seperated for a reason, which you seem to be alluding to. The fact is that the govenrment traditionally has as much to do with the legal system as you or me. If anything, the government should (and does) have more restrictions than individuals. But still the most fundamental conduct laws are placed both on individuals and the government, which is why I think they can be equated to a certain extent.
I agree, but it isn't necessarily a disaster. We have lived through it before, we can do it again. I'm no conservative (I'm no liberal either, really), but don't see authoritarianism as a slippery slope that we slide down and never recover from. I see it as you see it: as a pendulum. All it means is that public opinion is reacting to anti-authoritarianism, and protesting that will become as fashionable as complaining how TV is too violent these days.
I don't slot myself into the liberal or conservative category because I can survive happily in both a liberal world, or a conservative world, and can see benefits in both. Some liberals can have some serious problems trying to swallow this concept. I see an authoritarian world as a peaceful one. Authority is there to keep the peace, so people obey. People are therefore untroubled, and secure in their knowledge that peace will continue. In an anti-authoritarian world, you get something like the internet: unkempt, inflammatory, uncensored, but completely free and a great tool of individual rights. Both have their own beauty.
These opinions on the bill of rights are quite legitimate and valid. I had the pleasure of reading a speech made by some Irish woman to Boston University. I can't remember her name, but I do remember her speech. It was called "In defence of free speech", or something like that. It talked about the problems of free speech. She basically talked about how free speech comes at the expense of peace. She talked about how a group of Neo-nazis wanted to perform a parade through a a villiage known for its large jewish population, how they wanted to put burning crosses in front of some of the houses. She talked about how free speech will favour the more powerful over the weaker, and how free speech can be used to pour salt on wounds. She eventually concluded by saying that people should be actively encouraged by the government, through public forums, to exercise their right to free speech. It was quite convincing and really turned my view on free speech.
What I'm trying to say is that the Bill of Rights isn't perfect (as if anything possibly can be) and criticisms aren't sad, they are simply a different viewpoint. They are not crankpots who have no care about throwing their rights away, they are people who want composite rights. If you remove free speech, no-one will speak out against you. If you give the state ultimate powere, no-one will steal from you, or abuse you, etc, etc. Those are extreme examples, but the principle is the same.
I will not deny that censorship protects corporations
While I agree that the internet should not be controlled, and that your crusade is defintely a worthy one, I think your idea of censorship is a little misguided. I believe that the government, like any party, will attempt to controll what the public sees and hears. Isn't that the point of privacy, to censor the information available to the public?
I don't think the government has much power over the newspapers. In a society that is growing ever more anti-authoritarian, the government has less and less power over the people. The war on terrorism has been viewed by some as a way to regain this power through a FUD campign (I don't know, so I won't speculate).
Newspapers are more controlled by sales than the government. They make sure they alienate as few people as possible, so no stories that pander to the more extreme views at the expense of the core consumers. No offence intended, but the view that the government is majorly censoring our media is considered extreme. What you'll find is that blogs are released from this restriction as they report on what they feel passionate about. The more moderate you are in your beliefs, the less you'll feel the need to make your voice heard. Why report the news on a blog when the news said it perfectly?
This is why I think that a neutral internet is important. It provides vital information on how all groups feel about the state of the world. I think this is just as valuable as the regular news.
"e.g. not an issue" could have been shorthand for "the example provided is not an issue".
Being informed has been demonstrated, over and over again, to be the best weapon for the individual.
Probably one level. I haven't read TFA (snort), but I'd assume they would catch the stupid extra usage of their server.
That's interesting. You've really caught my interest now. I've been looking for online independent labels like these recently.
Thanks.