Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Free Speech (as long as it agreess with the mob (Score 1) 393

by PieceofLavalamp (#60355103) Attached to: Twitter Permanently Bans White Supremacist David Duke
Citizens United v FEC
Corporations are protected by the 1st Amendment as well. Who's rights take priority?

If twitter can't stop people putting things up on their site, do building owners have a right to prevent people spray painting ideas on their building, their site? Also banning an entire class of persons based on a physical trait is significantly different than banning someone based on past behavior. To use your example, you can choose not to say or do something but you can't choose to not be Asian.

Comment Re:Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score 1) 393

by PieceofLavalamp (#60355073) Attached to: Twitter Permanently Bans White Supremacist David Duke
So its okay to yell fire in crowded room? So you support a telemarketers right to call you as much as they want? So you support graffiti artists right to express their ideas on any building they want? You support making credible death threats as part of discussion? You don't support protecting of classified dangerous information that actually protects lives?

Reasonable limits on speech =/= thought control

Comment Re:Pretty UnAmerican (Score 1) 393

by PieceofLavalamp (#60355031) Attached to: Twitter Permanently Bans White Supremacist David Duke
So banning online bullying that causes children to commit suicide should be protected?
So revealing classified information to unauthorized people like say foreign powers should be protected?
Yelling fire in a crowded theater should be protected?
Telling the police a crime is being committed at someones house that you don't like because you think its funny should be protected?
So you think telemarketers calling you whenever they want should be protected?
So you support citizens united? You think corporations should be able to spend as much money as they want in support of their candidate?
So you support a persons right to spray paint their thoughts on any building they want? Whats the difference between spraying bs on twitter and spraying paint on a building?
There have to be limits even to free speech.

Comment Re: Obvious but painful (Score 1) 193

Thats interesting that you bring up confirmation bias, because you state your beliefs but give no examples to support your position. The only argument your giving is circular logic. Media is biased because your read them and see that they are biased. You are telling not showing. Thats fine that you don't have an example ready. But you should go get one.
And no you did not give an example of reputable source.

Comment Re:Chicken/Egg (Score 1) 193

But those (i'll use misguided instead of stupid) misguided people often then repost or discuss their misguided ideas which then proliferates them among their contacts on social media. Some of which will ignore it, but some will also repeat the cycle reposting the misguided ideas.

Comment Re:Rely on Social Media for news? (Score 1) 193

I appreciate the use of hyperbole, but in reality you have to trust somethings, or just accept being ignorant of everything you haven't personally seen. Maybe you could just do some critical thinking and possibly some research and cross referencing with other unrelated and reliable sources to get some and idea of what the truth is. At least for things that actually matter.
I personally think there is a proliferation of pointless news that doesn't matter really to anyone but that's a different topic entirely.

Comment Re:Fixed link (Score 1) 193

Being misunderstood because you're incoherent isn't a hoax. It's confusion caused by ineptitude and that's why people use speech writers.

Also a forum post is not generally considered a reliable source. Especially a sports forum post about a political topic. Linking to the politifact article the forum post links to would probably be better.

Your "fine people hoax" in context quoted from the politifact article

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

I struggle, like many, to understand what the president was trying to say, especially in this exchange. Maybe figuring out what he wanted to say ahead of time would have been wise and avoided the confusion.

Comment Re:Depends on the subject (Score 1) 193

... so badly blundered in attacking some teenagers from Covington high school that multiple news companies have had to pay millions in lawsuit settlements for defamation once the facts were known. ...

That link that says "millions in lawsuit settlements" is not supported by whats actually in the article it links to. The article says in the very last line "CNN settled with Sandmann in January. The terms of that settlement were not disclosed." Where are you getting that "millions" number?

Comment Re:I just wrote this guy an email: (Score 1) 973

by PieceofLavalamp (#32798480) Attached to: A Composer's-Eye View of the Copyright Wars

For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.

while this statement maybe correct i fail to see how it applies. So he's using concepts from separate time periods. As long as the concepts are being applied appropriately i fail to see the problem

The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.

Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.

Copyright aims to control, for a duration that for a single generation might as well be permanent, the spread of all ideas including new ones . Censorship is just a bit more extreme in that when it tries to exert control over an idea it tries to squash it entirely, instead of controlling it. And Censorship has no issue going after old ideas, thats why so many christian holidays were basically written over older pagan holidays.

Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.

It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.

And of course now its getting harder and harder to create because you might step on someones ancient copyright and be hugely liable.

I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are.

Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.

Yes but unlike copyrights i will see children grow up in my lifetime, or at least my son will. My son probably won't see the recently deceased Michael Jacksons works in public domain in his lifetime. He probably won't even know who he is beyond some vague zamani-ish concept. But his works will be protected.

A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.

Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?

Well if its a nicely designed house it will raise both property values by improving the neighborhood. Weird how when we share everyone can benefit sometimes.

Comment Re:Health insurance is a tax now (Score 1) 2424

by PieceofLavalamp (#31573648) Attached to: House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill, 219-212
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.

*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.

*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.

*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group

Having not read the full bill i might be missing other tax increases but if that doctor is getting his taxes increased by 100,000$ by a 1% increase i think he'll be okay.

Comment Re:Non-American: questions (Score 1) 2424

by PieceofLavalamp (#31573390) Attached to: House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill, 219-212
1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.

Why would getting extra money from the gov't make prices go up? What exactly are you asking about? Im confused

2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?

A large chunk of the legislation is to restrict what health insurance companies can do. To specifically address that i'll quote the reuters article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015
*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012
*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
The wealthy will always be treated better. That just the way things work. Will everyone recieve the care they need? Probably, it just might not be as cushy.

Slashdot Top Deals

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold

Close