Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:WTF UK? (Score 1) 350

by mi (#48674167) Attached to: UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

You have negative freedom, that is freedom from interference and limits on your behavior

And that's the only freedom there can be...

Then you have positive freedom, the freedom to participate in society and to prosper.

You are confused. The freedoms to participate in society and to prosper are the same as those from interference and limits. One does not have a right to prosperity and/or happiness, but only to a pursuit of them — America's founding fathers noted this right in the Declaration of Independence (before the war was won and the Constitution written).

In Europe that kind of thing would clash with a person's freedom to have a private life, i.e. to privately grieve for their loved on at the funeral.

This makes no sense — you can not have a right to privacy in a public place. Those crazy Democrats "thanking god" for dead American soldiers may be an extreme case, but if you devise a law to shut them up, will it not also apply to weddings and birthdays, which are bound to take place on the same block, where other folks are grieving?

We also see the right to a private life

I fail to see, how you can demand privacy while in public — and that includes your making connections to other people's servers.

US company's desire to profile everyone and use their personal data for commercial gain, which Europeans consider to be a massive loss of freedom but Americans consider to be a corporation exercising its free speech rights.

No, actually, one's right to record and remember whatever he has once observed has nothing to do with free speech. I, once again, fail to see, how you can possibly demand somebody forgets about you without opening yourself up to the same demands from others. Do you want your ex- to be able to force you to undergo a memory-alteration procedure — to make you forget, how she looks naked?

Comment: Re:WTF UK? (Score 5, Insightful) 350

by mi (#48669959) Attached to: UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

GP never said anything about the US being a paragon of free speech protections.

Well, somebody should have said it — and I applaud you for saying it fairly well. Thank you.

The US is a paragon of free speech — not because there is no room for improvement, but because all (certainly most) other societies are worse in this regard. And though various Illiberals do come up from time to time with seductively-sounding proposals to ban "hate" speech, and even claim, the Constitution is outdated and "people can’t really protest like that anymore", the prevailing opinion remains, that any speech should be allowed and countered only with one's own speech.

Back to the question about UK, that country is certainly sliding farther away from liberty — along with the rest of the Western world. When a fatwa was issued calling for death of Salman Rushdie, for example, over his insulting Islam in an otherwise unremarkable book, the man received police protection and other support from his government. Nobody — except, maybe, that valiant Illiberal Jimmie Carter — blamed the victim for "deserving" the danger.

Years later, reaction to Mohammed-mocking cartoons is rather more mixed. And while it is still legal to burn American flag, if you decide to burn Koran, everybody from local to federal authorities will be on your case pressuring you to abandon your exercise of free speech.

Comment: New meaning of "hate" (Score 1) 580

by mi (#48664595) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

"hates on Obama" isn't the same as someone who "hates Obama"

Neah, the slang "hate on" (according to your own link) still has the same meaning: "To ridicule, insult, or act hatefully [emphasis mine] toward," — as the regular "hate". That otherwise well-written and spoken people would denigrate their speech to slang is just what I was referring to. I'm glad, it passed...

"He hit the girl" and "He hit on the girl"

Well, here the word "hit" has a completely different and unrelated meaning. A "hit" of something (like cocaine) is yet another unrelated meaning. That's not like "hate (on)" at all...

Comment: Re:Why not push toward collapse? (Score 1) 435

by mi (#48627663) Attached to: In Breakthrough, US and Cuba To Resume Diplomatic Relations

I'm afraid you can't blame or give credit to Obama for that

BS. Of course, I can blame Obama — he could have and should have gotten Iraqi government to agree for us to stay there longer — based on the new developments.

Then, of course, if you are killing suspected terrorists instead of capturing and interrogating them (so that, heaven forbid, no new prisoners appear in Guantanamo), you might not even be aware of those new developments until you see some decapitations on YouTube. Either way, the affirmative action wonder is as sorry excuse of a president, as Carter was before him...

Comment: Sony is run by an Illiberal Moron (Score 0) 580

by mi (#48626687) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

That Sony Picture Entertainment — like most of Hollywood — are Illiberal-dominated is well-known.

That their systems were so easily and so thoroughly penetrated hints, that the company is mismanaged.

The revealed conversations confirm it. The particular item — which dwells on NYT's Maureen Down (herself an Illiberal icon) as willing to abolish fundamental journalist principles "for the Greater Good" — cites the following conversation-snippet:

  • Pascal emailed Dowd, saying “I THOUGHT THE STORY WAS GREAT I HOPE YOUR HAPPY"
  • Dowd responded: “I hope you’re happy! Thanks for helping. Let’s do another.”
  • Pascal replied, “Your my favorite person so yes”
  • Dowd finished the conversation with “you’re mine! you’re amazing”

After Obama was elected, when dissent stopped being patriotic, and the only possible reason underlying any sort of disapproval of government was racism, the "haters" were often accused of "hating on Obama". That use of "on" was hardly proper English, and I for one was wondering, if Illiberals are genuinely Illiterate, or are deliberately ruining their speech — perhaps, to better commiserate with the downtrodden. Fortunately, the "on" slowly disappeared and my question went away...

Ms. Pascal's repeated use of "your" instead of "you're" — even after being gently corrected by her wordsmith correspondent — makes me wonder again. Her use of ALL CAPS identifies her as a moron rather firmly in my book — any sort of stupid Sony does, while she remains at the helm, will not surprise me one bit.

Comment: Ah, those pesky RethugliKKKans (Score 2) 141

by mi (#48626347) Attached to: Who's To Blame For Rules That Block Tesla Sales In Most US States?

wrote that 22 states permit direct sales of automobiles by Tesla to retail buyers, and of those the majority--14 of them-- voted for President Obama

There is a much fresher data-point for the political leanings of those states — we had elections a month ago. That this non-biased and bi-partisan article — the kind we've come to expect from the Newspaper of Record — chose to use the two year old data instead to illustrate its point, means, the point probably is not supported by the more recent poll...

He suggested that Democratic California, Illinois, and New York "have freer markets in auto retailing than Texas," which is presently Republican.

Is it "freer markets" for everyone, or just for the "green" technology — which got a major government loan (on very sweet terms) to survive and ought to be helped to avoid embarrassing the Democratic administration? Would those Democratic bastions of free markets be as supporting of freedom, if it were about sale of, say, high-capacity toilets?

If you really care for free markets, you'll vote Libertarian — with anybody else you still need a bloody permit to do (or sell) almost anything. Splitting hairs about who is more likely to permit this vs. that is stupid — you have your right to pursue happiness. Selling cars the way you want certainly ought to be covered by that.

Is the small bit of evidence enough to make a case?

No, it is not. To show, which party supports freer markets, one would need to study the market-freedom across different goods and services. Cherry-picking one item, that is so dear to one party's heart, in an industry, that is heavily-regulated by all states (as well as Federal government) is meaningless and reveals nothing but bare partisanship.

Comment: Re:Stupid (Score 1) 394

by gmack (#48623579) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

That said, GP nails it: the problem with SSL is not the tech, it's the that the CAs are money grubbing semi-competent boobs, and the trusted certificate lists are administered by either OS or browser producers leaving a huge open arena for politics and perverse incentives.

Which is why it was really sad when chrome backed off on supporting DANE

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Working...