Sayonara

Are you behind the guy with the little willy?

The fact that a sign appears in Spanish does not imply that people reading it should be incapable of understanding any other language.

Tha's because MrL is the tallest man in the WOOORRRRRLD* * not actually true.

Did you just not read the bit where I said that Refsmmat was incorrectly ascribing features of the first amendment to the Russian culture? I think the flow of this discussion may have been broken slightly. You seem to be having difficulty separating the concepts of content and emphasis. While this is true, it's not really useful to us without example interpretations that have set precedent. As has already been pointed out, perhaps you are simply not familiar with the concepts of libel, slander, incitement to riot, obscenity or hate speech. If there have been rulings that are actually relevant and would make an anti-profanity order illegal, on the grounds of protecting free speech, show them. I'm not suggesting in any way that vocabulary and emphasis have no importance. No, I did not misinterpret anything. You were originally talking in the present tense. The above explanation is future tense and deals with a hypothetical situation which does not (yet?) exist. I can't be expected to respond to your points in a meaningful way if you don't know what you are trying to say, and seeing as I am talking about the current state of play re: civil rights, I don't really have any interest in second-guessing the future. Seeing as you don't live in Russia, don't you think you are jumping the gun by assuming that your society will agree with you that anti-profanity laws would "erode rights without great reason"? No, they don't. The definition of content in the context of a discussion on language and speech has precise meaning - it is the concept or core idea that is being communicated, along with peripheral information that can directly modify that concept or idea. Vocabulary, structure and emphasis are simply a means of delivery. They may be capable of delivering additional information such as emotional states, but these are in addition to the conceptual content and do not modify it (well actually vocabulary can modify the content but this is through misuses as opposed to use, which we aren't really interested in). Both phrases have precisely the same meaning, only the emphasis has changed. Moreover, there are numerous ways to communicate exactly the same degree of emphasis without profanity, therefore this approach is the false dilemma fallacy and your rights to express yourself have not been impinged. QED.

I think that as usual you are drawing conclusions that weren't implied.

No, we don't have the choice, and no we can't wait. We must spread to other worlds, and we need to do it as soon as possible. All the evidence points to us being long overdue for an impact in the order of the global killers, and many biologists believe the sixth great extinction has already started. Compare a handful of space ship launches every year to more than 2 billion computers or cars in use at any one time. That is a drop in the ocean.

The GF paradox is just a logic trap. In all likelihood it wouldn't actually happen.

Hilarious that you would choose to share such obvious propaganda.

Well, the USA is a signatory of the Outer Space Treaty 1966, so tough luck.

Another room, or maybe a passageway. Possibly a small garden with a rockery and water features.

The nutshell version is that a paradox is as difficult to form as it is to resolve.

Well quite. One would hope however that society is not so cynical that the average person can't distinguish between a non-existent shadowy crack-team of Swear Catchers, and a ruling that is intended to make people think about being nicer to each other.

In the post you quoted I was talking about the first amendment, not some mythical law against profanity. No it isn't. As I already pointed out in the post you originally replied to, the free speech that is protected is what you say (i.e. the content), not how you say it (i.e. the vocabulary). 'Free Speech' refers to the rights of an individual or group to share their ideas or opinions - it is not a license to be vulgar or indecent. Isn't this effectively the opposite of what you said in the part of your post I was replying to? Also, the "exactly" suggests that you agree, whereas I directly challenged your assertion that the 'list of swear words gets bigger'. I don't see how that's related to deciding whether or not something is covered by a particular law that already exists. That's not content.

Christ. On. A. Stick.

I can't exactly justify that on behalf of somebody else, can I? Likewise I can hardly condemn it. Like it or not, space tourism has an important role to play in the next chapter of human existence. I can't quite believe I am writing something that sounds this overly-grandiose, but the fact is that humanity must spread to other worlds and in order for us to do this a part of the population is going to have to migrate. No matter how ridiculously small and wasteful these trips may be, they are the beginning of a neccesary process of acclimatisation. By giving some people the ability to make small steps into space we are making the possibility of off-world travel and work much more 'real' in everyday life, and paving the way for exploration and colonisation to take their place in the social consciousness as fact and not fiction. Now, you might think that the resources we are expending on this sort of enterprise (if you'll pardon the appalling pun) is a waste, but if it ensures that humanity has a better chance of thriving and spreading throughout the galaxy then it is worth it by anybody's standards. You know perfectly well that if it doesn't happen, the equivalent resources will not magically go to "good causes". The service will be operated by a corporation and utilised with people so staggeringly rich that they either donate generously already, or never would - either way it makes no odds. Your issue is with the way funds are circulated in the Western economy, not with this venture in particular. You might as well rant about designer labels or sports cars.

The point is that you are unilaterally calling it "a waste" when in fact it will be anything but that to a great number of people.

You can't expect to be able to convince people to not do something they are passionate about by forcing your views upon them.

No, it would not be the same at all. Going into orbit and seeing the planet curving away from you, and the blackness beyond it, will be a singular and breathtaking experience that no visual simulation can possibly approach. Actually having been there, further removed from your natural habitat than you will ever again be once in your short life, is incomparable to what is essentially watching TV. Leaving the planet behind - even if only for a short time - is a truly pioneering step in humanity's development, and a tremendous accomplishment for the individual (even if it does come down to money). You say "they could take a holiday here on earth", but one could easily spend the £115k Virgin will be charging for space excursions, and not even approach the scale of experience that is being offered.

Colonisation and succession in habitats devastated by a volcano is very interesting and useful if you happen to be an ecologist, so at least someone can get something out of it.

Yes. There is a link in the "Things You Need to Know" announcement, which is at the top of every single forum.

Don't you think that's a little subjective?

Because the PHP config on the server was set to give diagnostic responses to problems, in order to help the person who was fixing it? That would be my guess, what with the server being borked and all.

Because it was the server reporting a problem, which is completely normal behaviour for a server that has a problem. Mystery solved.

So you never go on holiday then, or seek vicarious pleasures?