Comment Re:Credible? (Score 2) 110
What does the medium of the threat have to do with its credibility?
What does the medium of the threat have to do with its credibility?
100k doesn't sound right at all for somebody making 140k a year in non-stock (base+bonus). I would have guessed more around the 30k-40k mark. Quick searches for some well-known Silicon Valley companies corroborate that. Can you support the claim that anybody making 140k should expect 100k of stock?
You don't think that deliberately causing a panic with the intent to hurt people is an action? I think you're being deliberately obstinate on this point. That's like saying it's not your fault for pulling the trigger, it's the bullet's fault for jumping out of the gun so quickly.
"This man murdered my son!", regarding a person who you know full well did no such thing, is an example of speech that is expressly intended to cause harm and has no real value. This is why when you're giving testimony in a courtroom your right to free speech is deliberately abrogated and perjury is criminalized.
You do realize that same court case was used to suppress war protestors, correct?
Sometimes people can make good points in the process of making bad arguments. This historical context is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Unless you intent to advance a slippery slope argument.
Speech does not possess people and force them to act, so you are mistaken.
Does a real fire in a packed theater force people to act? Suppose you set such a fire, but you cleverly arranged it so that people were in no real danger, but had every reason to believe that they were in real danger. You are the theater owner and harmed no-one else's property. People predictably panic. Have you committed no crime? You are completely innocent?
If not, what is the essential difference? In both cases, there was the impression of danger from fire without actual danger from fire.
If so, then if a man literally holds a gun to your head (and, for that matter, the heads of those close to you) and said he will kill you unless you aid him in stealing all the jewellery from the jewellery store, are you fully responsible for your actions? Even if it turns out the gun wasn't loaded?
What about the guy goes around yelling "fire", or "sniper", or whatever, whenever he sees a gathering by members of a political party he opposes? Is he not now an agent restricting free speech?
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a threat. Credible threats were never considered to be protected free speech by basically any society.
No, quantum mechanics is a thing humans invented. Newtonian mechanics is a thing humans invented.
Gravity (aka gravitational behaviours) and quantum behaviours existed previous to any human.
As for Einstein? Einstein "invented" quantum mechanics in about the same sense that Shakespeare "invented" English.
Because Star Trek was known for how tight its plotlines were?
You can *absolutely* be thrown out of a hotel for using running water, and I guarantee -- outright guarantee -- that some people will use this in hotels and not be kicked out. I'd say being obnoxious about running water is *way more likley* for you to get booted from a restaurant or hotel (and a hefty fine at that) than being an asshole with one of these.
You don't need a tablet, but people buy tablets.
No he didn't. He claimed that his statements were examples of existing institutional sexism.
The best part is:
by Anonymous Coward
[...] Or hide in your anonymity and know you are a coward [...]
IQ tests may or may not be good but none of the things he said tell us that.
Your statement is actually reinforcing his point.
You are *not* a business user. If you were, you:
a) would not have been able to get Windows into a state that requires a reinstall. For instance, you would not personally install or update anything.
b)
Your experience with a personal computer is irrelevant. This isn't mean as an insult -- you're just discussing a completely different thing.
You can't seriously believe this is the same thing.
Something more similar to the wearing provocative clothing would be somebody who was wearing clothing so glaringly unstylish that it provoked murder (which, I will note, happens, for certain values of "stylish"). Something more similar to advocating and cheering murder would be advocating and cheering rape (which, I will note, people do in prison contexts).
Yes, absolutely.
The older people where I grew up, grew up in a time when high school was not compulsory and was attached with real costs, and most did not partake in it. There is a sharp educational distinction between them and the younger generations which had University at least, and usually University.
(I'm in Canada, so it's not exactly the US system.)
Limit hold'em is real poker, and people actually do play it, at real casinos and everything.
I can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but "daily commute", even when it's not all that long, is consistently among the most hated timesinks. I don't think results like this are terribly surprising: http://www.economist.com/blogs.... A technical and economic advantage is you can do something else while "driving" between home and work, without taking on the compromises of public transit (which may not be available at all, may take a long time or be beholden to a schedule that's incompatible with your lifestyle, or may otherwise be unpleasant).
I can't *wait* to have a self-driving car.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
