> Since there are infinite things about which we are wrong
That's... ahem... wrong.
How could there possibly be an infinite number of things "we" (humanity, I presume?) are wrong about, given that there have only been a finite number of human beings with (as far as I know) finite life spans?
If the universe cannot contain infinite amount of information then it follows that there are infinite knowledge we cannot know - simply because we cannot store it anywhere (in brains or computers or anywhere).
For example: exact prime factorization of all natural numbers, etc...
Of course this is true only if you accept induction. So you can still back off by declaring yourself finitist* ;)
Assuming a big bang is the source of all matter. Our observable universe may only be a spec in something much larger with out violating any of our "laws" of physics.
One of my disappointments with the original Raspberry Pi was that I felt that its genesis story was from people whose early experience with programming came from Apple II's and QBASIC. It was pitched as a way to expose kids today to that same kind of low-overhead, get-in-and-start-making-things-happen experience some of us had 25 years ago.
Imagine my disappointment when the Pi's getting started experience was "Boot into a graphical window manager, open up the Python IDE, start writing Python..."
What about the term "American Indian"? I feel like that would be useful in headlines to set the context, so that then everyone knows which "Indian" is being referred to.
American Indian also includes native populations from both Canada, Mexico, and arguably South America.
The only term that avoids all confusion is the term "Native American". It technically has the same connotations as "American Indian", but in common use it's understood to mean the Natives in the areas of the United States.
This is why actasasabuffoon stated he wasn't offended by the term 'Indian', there are some who insist on using the term 'Native American' and get offended when referred to as 'Indian'.
He was pointing out he's not among those who get offended by the term and generally the only times he feels the differentiation matters is when you're clarifying 'Indian' or 'Native American'.
Of course the term 'American Indian' is also good enough to clarify, but if we're talking about using terms in titles then 'Native American' is really the best term to use if you're unable to provide context in the title itself.
I'm not sure I understood your comment correctly, but I hardly think either group thinks a large black market would be good for their cause.
The difference I see is that the anti-saloon league obviously underestimated how large the black market would be for alcohol.
I would not be surprised (in fact, it seems to be a talking point) if the NRA is purposefully overestimating the size of a potential black market for firearms. But I'm totally speculating here.
You might not be wrong, but your concern seems reminiscent of the fears raised when seatbelts became mandatory: That someone would get into an accident where the car went into a lake or pond, and the seatbelt trapped the occupants inside the sinking car.
That is, it's a legitimate fear, but such a rare occurrence that the benefit of seatbelts far, far outweigh the risk of this sort of uncommon scenario.
I'm kind of uncomfortable with this line of reasoning, and definitely uncomfortable with this statement:
> '"True freedom of speech" is an awful thing.'
That is, a good use of freedom of speech is to "speak truth to power". Yes, it's awful when freedom of speech is used to kick someone when they're down, but we need to preserve that freedom so that we can kick someone when they're (wrongly) up.
The entire point of "freedom of speech" is to protect the rights of the person you hate when they say things you find the most dangerous or offensive. You don't need to create a "right" to allow nice people to say nice things to other nice people.
Sure, there are type of speech that I find very damaging to society, but they still have to have the right to speak their mind, or we open a Pandora's Box of troubles when we try to decide which types of speech are "bad".
This really is the real test of any society that describes itself as "free". Do they allow their enemies and troublemakers their equal right to speak? Or is Freedom Of Speech de facto only enjoyed by the classes that already have the power to speak, while others are prevented form having a voice? In the later case, "freedom" little more than marketing.
Also, remember that allowing someone the freedom to speak does not require us to give them a stage or an audience.
It's rather difficult to come back to life after you've been murdered.
The old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a lie. Words can severely hurt people, and even if they don't break their bones directly, they probably will incite people to actually break their bones.
> It's rather difficult to come back to life after you've been murdered.
I can't recall the last time I heard about words murdering someone. Incited murder/suicide? Perhaps, but at that point you're just shifting blame around to try and make a point.
In the case of suicide, the "victim" would have had any number of chances to disconnect from the source of the speech that was hurting them.
> they probably will incite people to actually break their bones
In the case of murder/assault, well, last time I checked that's already a punishable crime.
Your argument does not further a case for the repression of free speech.
Those limits are - by definition - set by the powerful and at their most effective on the powerless, because the ability to control what kinds of speech are allowed in a way that affects large numbers of people is in itself a huge form of power. If anyone claims otherwise, you should take a good look at their motivations.
All true. But FoS is also a normal behavior used by people everwhere, to make themselves clear. The guy standing on a stump in the park, complaining about his sister-in-law has the same right, for the same reason. Its not just a political-action-tool. Its supposed to be a human right, like life and liberty.
Let's be a little more honest here. You say this, but like everybody else that makes this statement, it only applies to things that align with your narrow view of the world.
It's a common tactic to root out and silence opposing view points used in dictatorships and non-free nations. As long as someone isn't making death threats or something similar, speech should be free.
But I think people like you need to have their livelihood and speech taken away for good for something they said on the Internet to fully understand why speech needs to be free and protected for all, not just the chosen few.
If I donated some money to a pro-gay marriage proposal, I shouldn't get fired from my job (or bullied online)..so why did the ex-mozilla CEO get bullied and then fired for donating to what he believed in? Because it's against the narrative? This isn't how freedom is supposed to work...
How about gangsta rap groups of the late 80s? Local law-enforcement and many other people used the exact same words that you use today: The freedom of speech has limits. Should they have been prevented from going on stage?
How about occupy Wall street? Why should specific types of speech be allowed in the name of freedom and others deemed conflicting with 'human rights'????
I suspect you and many other people posting here will
attempt to come up with reasons why the examples I listed should be accepted but other forms of free speech (which happen to be against your personal views) are wrong and need to be silenced.
This bullshit only creates a divide between us and if our society weren't so lazy, it would lead to another war.
Only tyrannical totalitarians despise Freedom of speech. So that they can rule with impunity. The concept of hate speech cannot co-exist with freedom of speech. Either it's all acceptable or it means nothing. That's it.
Acting like people cannot control themselves or react reasonably to unsavory opinion is infantilization. The incitement argument doesn't apply to free speech because it isn't just speech. It's speech plus action & it's the action that hurts. The only human rights that exist are the ones you give yourself.
I'm pretty sure the point of the article was about women and Amazon, not "about a (painful and harsh) health insurance screw-up".
The health insurance "screw up" only occurred because she was on maternity leave. As a man, this isn't necessarily my area of expertise, but I'm pretty sure only women can go on maternity leave.
That's not to say this couldn't also happen to a new father on paternity leave... but paternity leave barely exists in the US to begin with.
TL;DR:
Most software bugs that make it past testing are transient "heisenbugs". That is, they're the kind of bug that goes away when if you restart the program.
Related: This is actually a core tenet of the Erlang ecosystem -- spend any length of time around Erlangers and you're bound to hear the phrase "let it crash". Erlang actually has support for this built into the system: Supervisor processes exist to automatically "power cycle" your code if an unhandled error occurs.
It is not necessary that there is a bug firsthand.
Think at a system with memory pressure due to memory fragmentation. This could lead to failed memory requests for applications that would succeed on a less long running system.
(For this reason some systems even disallow dynamic memory allocations during runtime)
