 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/03/2012 6:39 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
>> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
>
> And where exactly would you draw the line?
>
> You see how this is going to the direction of "if someone gets offended,
> it should be illegal", which in turn makes almost everything illegal, which
> in turn is completely unworkable.
>
I have really not made myself clear on this.
I am not an advocate for restricting what people say. I got side lined
To start at the beginning. I think that free speech whether it be verbal
or written is something that is impossible to have. It is a nice concept
but impractical, governments cannot allow it. State secrets for one
thing make it very hard for any government to allow you to say whatever
you want. Slander and libel laws are in opposition to free speech.
Get my drift?
When a government wants to change things in their country they can pass
laws. Or in the UK "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an
offence in 1986 (I think that this is a good thing but it could be
abused as all laws can). Since the act, race relations in the UK have
been better, as far as I can see. At least as far as I can see.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2012 8:49 AM, Warp wrote:
> OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
The non-criminal definition was something like, "the use of computer
skills or knowledge that is obtained by an informal means." An example
could be learning the features or capabilities of a system by a method
of trial-and-error (i.e., writing code and seeing what it does).
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 18/03/2012 14:41, John VanSickle escreveu:
> On 3/16/2012 8:49 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>> OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
>
> The non-criminal definition was something like, "the use of computer
> skills or knowledge that is obtained by an informal means." An example
> could be learning the features or capabilities of a system by a method
> of trial-and-error (i.e., writing code and seeing what it does).
http://www.jargon.8hz.com/html/meaning-of-hack.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 18:08, nemesis wrote:
> 1) you're an asshole. Why should you be offended with the truth?
> 2) you're not an asshole. Why should you be offended by a liar telling a lie?
The problem comes when you start getting statments like "Fred is a bad
credit risk", or "Joe is an awful dentist who cheats you by telling you your
teeth need work that they don't." It's more a matter of reputation.
And of course irrational people *will* get offended if you tell them their
god is a myth, for example, so you can't be having laws that say you're not
allowed to offend people.
But sure, face-to-face insults? I agree 100%
> In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.
I think you're after "Mu", not "Wu".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 18/03/2012 23:25, Darren New escreveu:
>> In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.
>
> I think you're after "Mu", not "Wu".
oh, seems got that reversed. :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
