Booze has no other use than to make someone intoxicated. [...] When you're creating and selling a product that has no other use than something immoral and harmful...
Immoral to whom? You? Because it's not me.
I made a choice to stop drinking alcohol and have been sober for over 10 years now, but that still does not give me the right to determine the morals of other people. Why do you think you can or should dictate what other people choose to put into their own bodies?
I'm not a hunter or even a gun supporter, but even I can see the stupid in that remark. Guns are simply tools and have wide range of uses beyond hurting other people. Hunting for food comes to mind. Protection while out in the wilderness is another.
Essentially, you can say anything on the internet and not be responsible for it. Yet in real life, if you said those things, you would be taken to task for them.
Bullshit. Anonymity has always been an integral part of our society here in the US. From the founding fathers all the way up to the Supreme Court, the importance of anonymity in our society has been reiterated over and over again:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. [...] It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
You seem to want to remove this very important safeguard just because "it's on the internet". That's stupid and dangerous.
If a crime becomes popular enough, should we just revoke the law? If enough people get murders (say Chicago level all over the US), should the laws against murder be rescinded? When you start making laws based on popularity rather than what is better for society as a whole, you quickly turn towards anarchy.
Shouldn't ALL of a society determine what is "better for society as a whole"?
In regards to the specific examples I highlighted, I think disrespect for these laws is rooted in the perception of them being "victim-less crimes". (I'm not looking to get into an argument about drug use being a victim-less crime here, I'm just acknowledging that the the perception of it being a victim-less crime exists). If you asked 100 people if the crimes you listed in your first line were immoral you will get an overwhelming majority saying "yes". Ask 100 people if smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home is immoral and you'll get a drastically lower number saying "yes".
The confidence in police dropping is in no small part in a shift of much of the US towards a "me" mentality, where people break the law all the time and don't expect to be held accountable. Law enforcement are left in the unhappy situation of enforcing laws that people refuse to respect - because their personal needs are way more important than societal peace and harmony.
I disagree with your correlation here. The disrespect for overreaching laws stems from a smaller segment of society attempting to force their morals upon everyone else.
If you notice, both of those upticks correspond to attempts to impose the moral values of a few upon society as a whole. The first was Probation and the second was the beginning of the War on Drugs. In both cases, what was generally considered socially OK was all of a sudden prohibited. Neither actually stopped the activity, only drove it further underground which enabled the organized crime syndicates to move in and profit.
Re: Section 230 Protections exist only because courts haven't yet trimmed it to existing over-arching law.
Also, if a site, say, offers a public comment box, but actually allows only one kind of speech (*cough* piratey) and never "moderates" those who conform to its own views, while doing all it can to prevent other points of view from even being seen despite dozens of attempts that rule out all possibility of usual problems, then it has forfeited all Section 230 Protections.
You keep repeating this and you are still dead wrong, Blue. You cannot redefine a Federal statute just to sooth your butt-hurt at being shown the door by the Techdirt community every time you post a comment. Here's what an actual lawyer has to say about comment moderation and Section 230 protections:
The device has a range of about 300 feet and can be attached to a directional antenna to allow police to determine where the signal is coming from and obtain a warrant.
If that signal happens to originate within a person's residence then any warrants or evidence collected based on the usage of this device would be fruit of the poisonous tree, in my opinion.
The majority opinion in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) didn't allow the use of a device to detect heat levels emitting from a house where marijuana was being grown, so why would radio signals emitting from a private residence be any different?
Re: Another misinformed notion from Out_Of_The_Blue
Masnick clearly partisan abusing administrative position, which pretty much voids Section 230 protections for all time.
You are wrong. Dead wrong. Mike could delete comments and ban users all he wants and still remain protected by Section 230.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected... Source
Are you really claiming that Mike et al. follow widely-recognized journalistic standards? They don't. This isn't even a close call.
First off, Mike has always claimed Techdirt is an opinion blog that sometimes does journalism, so I'm not sure why this is an issue for you.
Secondly, based on my personal observations, Techdirt holds itself to higher standards than most of the mainstream media outlets. For example, if a MSM outlet published an incorrect story that came off the AP wire, they would simply disappear the article and act like it never happened. Mike, at the very least, has the testicular fortitude to leave the article in place and face up to the mistakes.
And lastly, I don't believe that MSM holds itself up to these "journalistic standards" you speak of and haven't for the last 30 years or so.
Re: Yes, I Was Deeked By Two Hoax Kim Davis Stories Today, more than usual.
By the way, there's no actual law that compels Kim Davis to act. Nope. Not in Kentucky.
What the hell are you yapping about here? Separation of church and state has been binding legal doctrine for quite awhile now.
Ms. Davis has every right to hold the beliefs she does, but on the other hand, she cannot use her position as a representative of the government to impose those views on others, which is exactly what she is doing. The highest court in our land has declared same-sex marriages legal and as a representative of the government she MUST grant those licenses, as per her job description. If she cannot do that with a clear conscience, then she must resign her position because she is unable to carry out the duties she was elected to perform.
One other thought to mull over: Would we allow Ms. Davis to deny marriage licenses to multi-racial couples because of her beliefs?
It is quite likely that the problem spreadsheets implement things that should never have been implemented in a spread sheet in the first place. Many of them are unmaintainable, never mind not portable; and a huge security risk as well.
Agreed. My experience with VBA was creating a "hack" to extract data from huge a Btrieve database into spreadsheets for upper management because spreadsheets were what they were used seeing even though we had a beautiful front-end for the database which could do what they wanted more efficiently.
VBA, which means it is a full feature window's programming environment.
I had forgotten about VBA. I haven't had to program with that crap since the 90's. I believe OpenOffice and LibreOffice are working on compatibility for VBA. They also have their own BASIC for writing macros.
But the fact is, most of the companies we deal with still use Excel, and LibreOffice Calc isn't ready to replace it.
Could you elaborate on this point?
I am not an accountant, but I have used spreadsheets for the the last 30 years or so and I haven't seen much change in the basic functionality of spreadsheet applications since Lotus 123. What is it that Calc cannot do that Excel can?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are all right and wrong.
Fair enough. I've never had too many hardware problems on any distos I've installed so far, but Ok.
And yes, the NVIDIA driver problems have always existed. But if you want to blame anyone for that, blame NVIDIA for being dicks and ignoring the Linux community for so long. Although those problems are being addressed and (hopefully) will be less of a pain in the future.
Ok. I'm bailing out of this discussion now. Bottom line, in my humble opinion, is that if you wish give up more and more of your privacy to Microsoft (because who knows what spyware the next update from Redmond will bring), because it might take a little bit of learning and patience to get going on Linux, have at it. I, on the the other hand, will opt to keep control of the hardware I purchase.