"So ... how is that not exactly what is happening here?"
because they are not excluding or restricting members of a certain group, they're restricting everyone, regardless of colour, creed or sexual orientation, this is not discrimination.
You are not blocking anyone from communicating, only from accessing the sites that this filter has blocked. You can communicate through a vast array of mediums online (skype, facebook, msn to name a few) they are not blocking those.
Oh, and I appreciate the lack of insults in your last two posts.
Amtrack isn't filtering mail, if someone has sent you an email amtrack won't filter it.
And yes, they are offering this service for free (which they don't have to) and no, they are not blocking your right to speak out about it, they're blocking sites which have been filtered out by this badly constructed filter.
Agreed, I'm just making the point that 'filtering', in different forms, happens, and when it does it is not always deemed necessary to envoke arguments about the first amendment, it is just accepted.
Read my post's above @ 1:00am & 1:06am
I'm merely putting the point accross that 'filtering' happens all over the place and that a free service that a company wants to give to it's customers should not be taken away merely because of a poorly constructed filter.
Also, I make my point without insulting (intentionally at least). If it makes you feel you have a more valid point by throwing insults at another, then by all means carry on, however misguided your actions may be.
To be honest, they could filter all they want, if I find it intrusive to what I want to view, I won't use their free service.
Also, their not filtering 'speech' their filtering viewing, the old fella (Voltaire wasn't it?) didn't say "I don't agree with what you're looking at but I will defend to the death your right for you to do so" did he?
From Wiki:
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be used as an expression of derogatory racial prejudice in the 1830s from Thomas D. Rice's performances as "Jim Crow".
They are not treating gay people differently in this case, they're treating anyone who wants to view a site containing certain words which relate to gay relationships. Or are you too obtuse to realise that 'straight' people can and do look at sites containing these words (oh the horror).
So no, it's not discriminatory.
"Your beer analogy is the rambling of a retarded person and has no bearing on this conversation."
So something that is government owned filtering the options to its customers has no bearing on Amtrak (government owned?) filtering the internet options to it's customers?
I can see now, those two are miles apart.
"I would rather Amtrak didn't offer internet service at all than that they offer a filtered service."
Sounds like cutting your nose off to spite your face if you ask me.
But thanks for the initial insult, I shall add it to my collection, filed under U for 'unwarranted'.
I don't think it's discrimination, just a poorly constructed filter.
I woke up this morning and confirmed that I was ME, and that I, a humanoid, had certain opinions - I deduced from this that all humanoids have the same opinions and therefore anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong, I don't need a link to prove this, because, of course, I must be correct.
As another analogy, I used to work on a USAF base in England, I'm presuming that's government owned, and they had bars run by AAFES (all the employees were hired by AAFES at any rate) they only offered 6 different beers, which means they were 'filtering' all the other beers available worldwide from their customers (Army/Air Force & their families).
Is this also unconstitutional, should those bars be stopped from offering any beer because they cannot offer all beers?
I completely agree with the whole free speech/land of the free arguments in general, but isn't this going a little OTT?
I understand that you have the right to look up what you want on tinterweb, but as far as I know, this company isn't bound by any constitunal requirement to give you any internet access, can't you just accept the incredibly limited internet it does give you as a bit of a freebie?
Do you actually have an argument? You say "of course" like your point is obvious. It's not. Are you saying that this TROLL GRADING is illegal? Unconstitutional? Why does TROLL GRADING mean someone has "nothing to add to the conversation"?
If only there was human powered transportation which didn't involve the above mentioned technology ("bicycles" for one), or as I like to refer to it, witchcraft.
This could be WAY out there, but what if we could move by simply placing one of our feet in front of the other, then move the other foot in front of the first (forward) foot and repeat until destination reached?
It'll never catch on, too complicated I expect - I'll work on refining it...
Apologies, I was confusing digital with HD. however, as the point from PaulT below states, modern TV's can cope with multiple formats so converters, cheap or not, aren't necessary.
Composite should be fine as it's digital, so HDMI is yet another thing they're lagging behind in. There should also be a setting to change from PAL to NTSC (it's only to do with screen size and refresh rate after all, the picture should show, it'll just look shite until you switch to the correct settings.
The power plug shouldn't matter either, as long as the connection that goes into the wii is the same size, an american adaptor should be fine on a euro machine.
I'm not sure why we're arguing this though, it's still incredibly sad that a company of this size isn't taking criticism (constructive or not) seriously when designing/upgrading their products.
The sockets push that out, but if you use an american power adaptor on a european machine, won't that work? (or do wii's use internal power supplies to switch to DC?)
I think, cynically, that he's not bothered about people modding their consoles. If they're going to buy legit games from europe, nintendo still get the money, if the console breaks, the waranty is void.
I'm presuming that nintendo have a similar 'kill box' attitude that microsoft use against chipped xbox's, so if you go online your console is disabled.
However, can't you buy a european console (I assume the power adaptors push out the same power), and then use european games on your european machine and american games on your american machine.
Also, why won't the game(s) in question get released stateside?
"Again, I don't know if the guy is guilty or not, just that all that alleged evidence can have more simple explanations and that alone should not be viewed as prove of any wrong doing alone, it needs more than just that."
The DNA evidence probably helps, it's what forced his hand in admitting to manslaughter.
"This is not to say the guy is not guilty at this point I really don't know and it may be fun to accuse him of wrong doing, but one hopes that the evidence against him is a lot more stronger than just internet searches."
He's admitted to killing her, just not murdering her, this evidence is being used as firstly a sign of mental awareness (so he cannot try the diminished responsibility on mental health grounds), it also is being used to show how calculating and calm he was after killing the woman in researching different ways to dispose of/decompose the body, to either speed up or slow down decomposition to a degree that the foresic teams cannot accurately pinpoint a time/date of death.
Also, these searches were made after the killing, but it had only been released to the press as missing person.
The fact that he's admitted to killing her has thrown more weight behind this evidence, it's circumstantial, sure, and not enough to convict alone, but it's another nail in the defenses case.
Incidently, he has said he killed her by placing his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming at his 'misinterpretation' of inviting her neighbour for a cup of coffee, he tried to kiss her and she screamed, he shut her up. Plausable but sadly for him, the cause of death was strangulation, not just suffocation. Another nail.
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
because they are not excluding or restricting members of a certain group, they're restricting everyone, regardless of colour, creed or sexual orientation, this is not discrimination.
You are not blocking anyone from communicating, only from accessing the sites that this filter has blocked. You can communicate through a vast array of mediums online (skype, facebook, msn to name a few) they are not blocking those.
Oh, and I appreciate the lack of insults in your last two posts.
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yes, they are offering this service for free (which they don't have to) and no, they are not blocking your right to speak out about it, they're blocking sites which have been filtered out by this badly constructed filter.
On the post: UK Court Upholds Its First Web Censorship Order: BT Has 14 Days To Block Access To Newzbin2 & Gets To Pay For The Privelege
Re: Does this apply to ISPS who use BT lines
I think this story broke and mentioned four different 'major' ISP's that are to be targeted:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/technology-gadgets/hollywoods-legal-victory-over-uk-is p-bt-threatens-illegal-filesharing-16029494.html
Also, this story tells of the 'porn blocking' ruling that the government was trying to bring in against the big four, so although this ruling may be used as a catalyst to go for other ISP's it won't stop them yet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15252128
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read my post's above @ 1:00am & 1:06am
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I make my point without insulting (intentionally at least). If it makes you feel you have a more valid point by throwing insults at another, then by all means carry on, however misguided your actions may be.
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, their not filtering 'speech' their filtering viewing, the old fella (Voltaire wasn't it?) didn't say "I don't agree with what you're looking at but I will defend to the death your right for you to do so" did he?
From Wiki:
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be used as an expression of derogatory racial prejudice in the 1830s from Thomas D. Rice's performances as "Jim Crow".
They are not treating gay people differently in this case, they're treating anyone who wants to view a site containing certain words which relate to gay relationships. Or are you too obtuse to realise that 'straight' people can and do look at sites containing these words (oh the horror).
So no, it's not discriminatory.
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So something that is government owned filtering the options to its customers has no bearing on Amtrak (government owned?) filtering the internet options to it's customers?
I can see now, those two are miles apart.
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like cutting your nose off to spite your face if you ask me.
But thanks for the initial insult, I shall add it to my collection, filed under U for 'unwarranted'.
I don't think it's discrimination, just a poorly constructed filter.
On the post: Jeffrey Nonken's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Yup, that makes about as much sense...
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this also unconstitutional, should those bars be stopped from offering any beer because they cannot offer all beers?
I completely agree with the whole free speech/land of the free arguments in general, but isn't this going a little OTT?
I understand that you have the right to look up what you want on tinterweb, but as far as I know, this company isn't bound by any constitunal requirement to give you any internet access, can't you just accept the incredibly limited internet it does give you as a bit of a freebie?
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re:
And with that statement I think I've added as much to this topic as you just did.
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re:-P
On the post: DailyDirt: Human-Powered Transportation
This could be WAY out there, but what if we could move by simply placing one of our feet in front of the other, then move the other foot in front of the first (forward) foot and repeat until destination reached?
It'll never catch on, too complicated I expect - I'll work on refining it...
On the post: Nintendo Fans Hijack Twitter Hash Tag Meant For Nintendo Of America CEO And Are Promptly Ignored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nintendo Fans Hijack Twitter Hash Tag Meant For Nintendo Of America CEO And Are Promptly Ignored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The power plug shouldn't matter either, as long as the connection that goes into the wii is the same size, an american adaptor should be fine on a euro machine.
I'm not sure why we're arguing this though, it's still incredibly sad that a company of this size isn't taking criticism (constructive or not) seriously when designing/upgrading their products.
On the post: Nintendo Fans Hijack Twitter Hash Tag Meant For Nintendo Of America CEO And Are Promptly Ignored
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nintendo Fans Hijack Twitter Hash Tag Meant For Nintendo Of America CEO And Are Promptly Ignored
Re:
I'm presuming that nintendo have a similar 'kill box' attitude that microsoft use against chipped xbox's, so if you go online your console is disabled.
However, can't you buy a european console (I assume the power adaptors push out the same power), and then use european games on your european machine and american games on your american machine.
Also, why won't the game(s) in question get released stateside?
On the post: Hint: If You Commit A Crime, Do Not Google Every Aspect Of It Afterwards
Re:
The DNA evidence probably helps, it's what forced his hand in admitting to manslaughter.
On the post: Hint: If You Commit A Crime, Do Not Google Every Aspect Of It Afterwards
Re:
He's admitted to killing her, just not murdering her, this evidence is being used as firstly a sign of mental awareness (so he cannot try the diminished responsibility on mental health grounds), it also is being used to show how calculating and calm he was after killing the woman in researching different ways to dispose of/decompose the body, to either speed up or slow down decomposition to a degree that the foresic teams cannot accurately pinpoint a time/date of death.
Also, these searches were made after the killing, but it had only been released to the press as missing person.
The fact that he's admitted to killing her has thrown more weight behind this evidence, it's circumstantial, sure, and not enough to convict alone, but it's another nail in the defenses case.
Incidently, he has said he killed her by placing his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming at his 'misinterpretation' of inviting her neighbour for a cup of coffee, he tried to kiss her and she screamed, he shut her up. Plausable but sadly for him, the cause of death was strangulation, not just suffocation. Another nail.
On the post: Actress Sues Amazon Because Her Age Appeared On Her IMDB Profile
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>