"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if there is a way of achieving this without every case running up hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal fees and then bankrupting the parties involved, often the wronged party? Because the current system doesn't really seem like justice at all, it is completely distorted by wealth and power.
That is a concern, and I think the way you discourage it is imposing significant financial penalties on those who bring frivolous cases.
But if you deliberately lie, and that causes people to suffer injury, then there need to be consequences.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
Calling you out for siding with the AfD and opposing Ukraine, as you have done again in this thread, is not defamation.
As much as you object to your siding with the AfD being called out.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
Calling you out for siding with the AfD and opposing Ukraine, as you have done again in this thread, is not defamation.
As much as you object to your siding with the AfD being called out.
Only a moron with zero reading comprehension could ever imagine that I side the the AfD.
But as you don't seem to be able to even understand "fuck off" I guess that's you.
what I was saying the other day about how incredibly stupid it was for Ukraine to attack Nord Stream.
You side with the AfD and against Ukraine on this.
Ukraine destroying Russia's infrastructure was a good thing for Ukraine and a bad one for Russia, not vice-versa. As much as you and the AfD are pissed off with Ukraine's success.
Though there is a flaw in our tax system currently in that if you have 4 people
Person A - earning £17k per annum and on UC Person B - earning £50k per annum Person C - earning £100k per annum Person D - earning £170k per annum
Then of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person A. Of those 4 the one whom our tax system currently gives the highest marginal real tax rate to is Person D.
My preferred solution to that is to cut the tax rate on A, B and C - but it is obscene that we tax the poor or middle incomes more in real terms, marginally, than we do the richest and it needs fixing.
That's only if you think a benefit is a tax. Person A pays a derisory amount of income tax and national insurance, is likely to be on the lowest council tax band, and has a greater majority of income spent on things that have no Vat or very little vat.
Bart has read Idiot's Guide and thinks he understands the topic rather than the reality of him talking out of his arse on tax at every opportunity.
If the government takes money away from people, what should we call this?
As someone who has employed people in these bands, the benefit withdrawal is treated by them, in their decision making, like tax.
Laffer curve in action - if earning more only ends up with 30% of the money on their pocket… or less…. Then people will say “we don’t want more hours”
get rid of the benefits, the issue is that so many people are better off on benefits hence htey cannot fill jobs. Should get nothing if there are local vacancies and you can do that job. Country has gone to the dog many getting spoonfed benefits and mobility cars etc. Get their arses out grafting instead of sponging. Only really ill people should be excused and that does not mean those with a sore pinky or someone scared a ssomeone asked them to get on with the job etc and made them need therapy. Country is full of soft snowflake chancers with few principles.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
Calling you out for siding with the AfD and opposing Ukraine, as you have done again in this thread, is not defamation.
As much as you object to your siding with the AfD being called out.
"Censors enforce orthodoxy — the problem is we need heretics too One danger of trying to outlow 'fake news' is that mistaken views have a habit of turning out to be true"
I wouldn't say a "habit". Just every now and again.
Every now and then is enough.
That's why we need free speech.
But not with zero restrictions. Almost nobody wants absolute free speech. It's not a Free Speech vs Totalitarianism debate it's about what should be legal vs illegal and for the former (the legal) what should be the consequences (if any) for stuff that's nasty, harmful, mendacious etc.
It's always the line, where is the line. It feels like the line has moved a little in the last fortnight, in the same way it felt the line had moved in another direction for the preceding ten months.
Yes exactly. And it's an important issue. But it can be a difficult one to discuss properly because of all the hypocrisy and simplistic virtue signalling you have to wade through.
Not really that difficult to discuss.
Inciting people to violence, causing actual harm, that is concerning and can be against the law. Saying something untrue about individuals could lead to libel/slander (depending if verbal or written) could lead to civil rather than criminal liability.
But saying something "fake"? That's free speech.
Saying that what someone else said was fake, is fake? Also free speech.
Nobody gets to be arbiter of what "the truth" is, outside of dictatorships like Russia that can say the truth is that Ukraine are Nazis and Russia is good and that anyone who says otherwise goes to prison.
Mostly yes but there are exceptions. Holocaust denial? Spreading medical lies that cause great harm? False stories that whip up race riots? Etc etc.
All free speech (except incitement to violence on the latter).
All wrong and immoral, and all can and should be called out for what they are, but they are still free speech.
If you deliberately spread lies which cause harm, then the legal system should offer redress to the victims.
So, if I claim that you, Barty, we're a paedophile, and that led to you losing your job, well you should be able to sue me for the damages I caused by lying about you.
And I would have thought that right should be extended beyond defamation of a person. If you deliberately lie, and that lie causes harm, then the people harmed should have redress.
Barty defames people all the time, but I don't have any redress - he's still allowed to post his bile here, for example.
Calling you out for siding with the AfD and opposing Ukraine, as you have done again in this thread, is not defamation.
As much as you object to your siding with the AfD being called out.
Only a moron with zero reading comprehension could ever imagine that I side the the AfD.
But as you don't seem to be able to even understand "fuck off" I guess that's you.
what I was saying the other day about how incredibly stupid it was for Ukraine to attack Nord Stream.
You side with the AfD and against Ukraine on this.
Ukraine destroying Russia's infrastructure was a good thing for Ukraine and a bad one for Russia, not vice-versa. As much as you and the AfD are pissed off with Ukraine's success.
You are a moron. I support Ukraine, that is why I want German public opinion to stay onside.
You only pretend to support Ukraine. You would actually be happier if Germany was on Russia's side so you could enjoy thinking of Germany as the enemy. You don't really support Ukraine at all.
It's going to be a massive headache, with even the current very awkward situation (a minority Left-led coalition with 'constructive' opposition support from the CDU) not working. Very likely to be a parliamentary majority for 2 parties that are opposed to any weapons going to Ukraine at all. Luckily the state government doesn't have any immediate say in foreign policy, but it underlines what I was saying the other day about how incredibly stupid it was for Ukraine to attack Nord Stream.
The BSW have said they won't do a deal with the AfD in Thüringen so difficult to see any way to form any government
I'm still far from convinced it was Ukraine. And I don't trust the WSJ - or Germany - over this story.
They’re using wireless shifters on bikes - why the hell would you ever want to do that? The race teams have mechanics who can change the cables every day if they want to, and could make use of polymer or composite cables if worried about them stretching…
Unless there is a manufacturing defect, steel Bowden cables on bikes don't stretch. It's the compression and movement of the housings that give the effect and impression of a stretched cable.
Shifting systems went partially wireless to reduce cost and complexity. The simplest possible installation on the previous 100% wired incarnation of Di2 required seven physical wiring connections using Shimano's proprietary e-tube wires and connectors. They could also be very difficult to install as it was necessary to match the wire lengths to the frame dimensions and then route them. On small frames this was a nightmare and I have previously resorted to compressed air, dental tools (I gave them a quick wipe before returning them) and cutting holes in the shell of the bottom bracket to get the cables in position.
So for the OEMs and end users the benefits of wireless far outweigh any notional and vanishingly remote "security" risk.
Comments
NEW THREAD
But if you deliberately lie, and that causes people to suffer injury, then there need to be consequences.
Ukraine destroying Russia's infrastructure was a good thing for Ukraine and a bad one for Russia, not vice-versa. As much as you and the AfD are pissed off with Ukraine's success.
You only pretend to support Ukraine. You would actually be happier if Germany was on Russia's side so you could enjoy thinking of Germany as the enemy. You don't really support Ukraine at all.
So fuck off
Shifting systems went partially wireless to reduce cost and complexity. The simplest possible installation on the previous 100% wired incarnation of Di2 required seven physical wiring connections using Shimano's proprietary e-tube wires and connectors. They could also be very difficult to install as it was necessary to match the wire lengths to the frame dimensions and then route them. On small frames this was a nightmare and I have previously resorted to compressed air, dental tools (I gave them a quick wipe before returning them) and cutting holes in the shell of the bottom bracket to get the cables in position.
So for the OEMs and end users the benefits of wireless far outweigh any notional and vanishingly remote "security" risk.