...they should have little reason to fear it, or denigrate those that practice religion. To do so really isn't rational, but rather sometimes seems like a person trying to make themselves feel superior...
I keep seeing this come up and I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be. If I were to explain to you about my practice of communing with my crystals for wisdom and how the fairies help me out every day, you may reasonably doubt the legitimacy of my views when discussing other topics. Bill Nye did a much better job than I could do in this video where he explains that we need rational, clear thinking children and for that reason we should not inflict religious superstitions on the next generation. It's not necessarily about being superior (though the argument has been made that some beliefs are silly and don't deserve special treatment), it's more about weather someone's belief in talking burning shrubbery and invisible sky wizards should make me take them as seriously as a person with a more rational viewpoint.
The question of guilt or innocence has already been decided at "accused of a crime that you knew they committed". We know they're guilty. At the kid level where mommy and daddy have to stand up for them, the crime in question is probably on the level of "took Jimmy's truck" or "broke Sarah's doll". In the same way a child probably needs to get burned before truly believing a stove is hot and you should listen when you're told not to touch it, an appropriate penalty applied when guilty of a "crime" is important to that child's development. Teaching a child that it's not about right and wrong but rather who had the best lawyer / loudest parent really causes them to miss the point.
Next thing you'll tell me is that you'd wouldn't defend your children if they were accused of a crime that you knew they committed.
Assuming the punishment was just, HELL NO I wouldn't defend them. Children need to learn right from wrong and that bad decisions can have consequences. This is how they learn and grow into good people. Defending a child who did something wrong from the resultant penalties should get you a bad parent award of some sort.
That an encounter with a cop while doing nothing illegal is potentially dangerous has already been established. The degree of danger may be in question but it is without a doubt nonzero. I'd say fear of a bad encounter with an armed thug possessing virtual immunity from the law is entirely reasonable. Did you just pull those numbers out of your ass or do you have sources? They look a little too "even" for reality...
.... keeping in mind that what liberty requires in regard to restrictions may be different than what the mob believes.
I would argue that infringing on the privacy of the people to keep them (questionably) safe(r) is just exchanging one loss of liberty for another.
How about we disregard what EVERYONE thinks and go by what the law says. How's that 4th amendment go again?
Too lenient. 25 years minimum with no parole. Attempt to destroy evidence should carry a minimum 50 years sentence, no parole. It's time the civilized world gets its act together and puts computer nerds into place once and for all. Here you are, swapping tall tales and telling each other how to escape investigation, arming the pedophile, equipping the terrorists. General purpose computers should be banned for ordinary citizens: tablets and locked-down devices will do. Put an end to this digital madness. Now.
I have never seen a stronger argument for the creation of a sarcasm tag. I honestly can't tell!
Sexism based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive sexism intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone.
Hmmm... Assault based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive assault intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone. Nope, wait... Racism based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive racism intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone.
I just can't think of an example where the right answer to (really bad thing) is to pile on more (really bad thing). I simplycan't get my head around this. Are you really advocating sexual discrimination?
It's frustrating reading because this is a chance for users of Windows to get the best possible outcome by making their voices heard - unfortunately the vast majority of people making noise should probably have stayed silent, which only increases the chances that genuine bugs and useful feedback will be lost in all that mess
Let's just hope they can task an intern level employee with sifting out the stupid and passing only the potentially useful stuff up to where it might be useful!
In this case the OP said "then I download a Blu-ray rip of the movie from a torrent site" so, yeah, It's pretty safe to assume that's where he's getting his rips...
NO. Sony v. Universal (and subsequent rulings) have made it clear, it does not matter where a backup comes from...
Well, one Bing search and the first hit I get is from Legalzoom which has a pretty straightforward writeup. You may be interested in the section labeled "DMCA Basics", but more relevant to the subject at hand they say "What the DMCA does, through DRM, is make the circumvention illegal, not the actual copying. So, now, even if you own your DVD and are trying to make a personal copy... it is illegal to bypass DRM protection measures to make your backup". Note I didn't say anything about copyright or fair use, but like it or not you are not legally allowed to bypass even broken DRM to make a personal backup of your own purchased media.
If I remember right, you're still considered to be in violation of copyright because you're using an unapproved rip. Your possession of the disk does not change the status of your torrented file. Now while ripping your own disks for personal use is still a violation of the DMCA (I'm pretty sure 'cause you're breaking the encryption to make the rip), it stays away from the whole torrent thing and may give you a better quality file, if only in terms of quality / file size and what language subtltles you get.
How dare those cops ignore our sacrosanct lawz??!!11
This may come as a surprise to you, but if a law the people don't want in the first place is unenforced, the people don't mind. OTOH, illegal / unconstitutional acts committed against the people by law enforcement are very much frowned upon by the populace at large.
To put it differently, if you're toking up in your back yard and I find a cop didn't bust you, I could care less. OTOH, if I find you're being illegally monitored I'm liable to take offense, as it could just as easily happen / be happening to me. While you have a point, it looks much better on paper than in the real world.
So we have a decision: Do we want a presentation of reality, raw and un-truncated, or do we trust that the media companies are making good decisions that fairly (whatever that means) present a subset of the information that is unbiased and accurate? What news agency do you consider sufficiently comprehensive while at the same time completely without bias?
Any time someone asks me what "the cloud" is I tell them to substitute the words "someone else's computer on the internet". Almost without exception they look thoughtful for a moment, then suddenly my previously expressed misgivings about putting personal / sensitive data "in the cloud" make more sense to them.
Well, you probably don't need it all with you all the time. For instance, your work machine probably doesn't need all your music and your tablet can hopefully do without your software install files and client information. A little moderation and a home server or NAS to hold everything should do fine. Set up some remote access (VPN or SSH tunnel) for the times you don't have something with you and breathe easier knowing your data is entirely (mostly) under your own control.
Unless you're going to enjoy maintaining that offline system locked in a vault powered off 99% of the time.
Funny you should say that. I have an old Mac Mini with a bunch of external drives hooked up to it. Every other week it turns itself on, plays the Imperial March from Star Wars and runs a Carbon Copy Cloner incremental duplication of the files from my server. It emails me when it's done so I can turn it off, as there are multiple jobs and I can't tell which one will finish last. When it's done I turn off the mini and it sits there another two weeks. Every so often (when I think of it) I sync up to an old Drobo as well then unplug it. This means that yes, I do in fact have an offline system powered off 99% of the time. Sadly I do not have a vault but otherwise I have three copies of (almost) all my data at any given time.
You know, you're right. I meant the subset of Muslims who make up ISIS, and I misspoke. Next time I'll be sure to say some Muslims. Care to retract your sweeping generalizations about "The American Christians"? The act of burning someone to death is a barbaric act. Doesn't matter who does it. I feel pretty confident this is a rational and defensible position.
What is ISIS doing that isn't as barbaric as the things we do every day?
The American Christians burned thousands of people alive.
So here's your source article, no citations for the "thousands" figure anywhere. There are two examples given, Sam Hose in 1899 and Jesse Washington in 1916. Note that these are examples of past barbarities Americans committed and they're documented so we can learn from them and not repeat history. This is not happening today in America, and there is probably nobody alive now who was not an infant when it happened. Can you say the same about the Muslims that murdered Muadh al Kasasbeh?
Clearly for ISIS to burn a prisoner to death was [insert the same condemnation you use when Christians and Americans do the same thing].
History? Speaking as an Atheist in America, I don't think Christians (or any significant number of Americans) have tortured anyone to death by burning them in a cage in a very long time.
But be consistent. Whatever you say about the Muslims, you should say about the Christians who caused just as much or more painful suffering and death.
While Christians may well have caused as much painful suffering and death as Muslims, I'm not seeing them doing that now. Once again, I can't say the same thing about ISIS. Also note that your ideas of what I should say are largely irrelevant to me at this time.
Please feel free to continue grinding that axe though!
Look what the US Army did to Dilawar in Afghanistan.
So... this makes burning the pilot OK somehow? Just as FOX showing it is irrelevant to the fact it happened, that the US Army (apparently) did horrible things to someone does not make the murder of this pilot any less of a barbarity.
This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.
While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.
Slashdot Mirror
How then to explain religious scientists?
People are often irrational.
...they should have little reason to fear it, or denigrate those that practice religion. To do so really isn't rational, but rather sometimes seems like a person trying to make themselves feel superior...
I keep seeing this come up and I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be. If I were to explain to you about my practice of communing with my crystals for wisdom and how the fairies help me out every day, you may reasonably doubt the legitimacy of my views when discussing other topics. Bill Nye did a much better job than I could do in this video where he explains that we need rational, clear thinking children and for that reason we should not inflict religious superstitions on the next generation. It's not necessarily about being superior (though the argument has been made that some beliefs are silly and don't deserve special treatment), it's more about weather someone's belief in talking burning shrubbery and invisible sky wizards should make me take them as seriously as a person with a more rational viewpoint.
The question of guilt or innocence has already been decided at "accused of a crime that you knew they committed". We know they're guilty. At the kid level where mommy and daddy have to stand up for them, the crime in question is probably on the level of "took Jimmy's truck" or "broke Sarah's doll". In the same way a child probably needs to get burned before truly believing a stove is hot and you should listen when you're told not to touch it, an appropriate penalty applied when guilty of a "crime" is important to that child's development. Teaching a child that it's not about right and wrong but rather who had the best lawyer / loudest parent really causes them to miss the point.
Next thing you'll tell me is that you'd wouldn't defend your children if they were accused of a crime that you knew they committed.
Assuming the punishment was just, HELL NO I wouldn't defend them. Children need to learn right from wrong and that bad decisions can have consequences. This is how they learn and grow into good people. Defending a child who did something wrong from the resultant penalties should get you a bad parent award of some sort.
I'm fairly certain humanity would find plenty of reasons to wage war if religions were not around to blame it on.
If there's a fire in your house, you still wouldn't want to throw gasoline on it.
Feeling a bit defensive today, are we? Maybe you should take a moment and consider why.
That an encounter with a cop while doing nothing illegal is potentially dangerous has already been established. The degree of danger may be in question but it is without a doubt nonzero. I'd say fear of a bad encounter with an armed thug possessing virtual immunity from the law is entirely reasonable.
Did you just pull those numbers out of your ass or do you have sources? They look a little too "even" for reality...
.... keeping in mind that what liberty requires in regard to restrictions may be different than what the mob believes.
I would argue that infringing on the privacy of the people to keep them (questionably) safe(r) is just exchanging one loss of liberty for another.
How about we disregard what EVERYONE thinks and go by what the law says. How's that 4th amendment go again?
Too lenient. 25 years minimum with no parole. Attempt to destroy evidence should carry a minimum 50 years sentence, no parole. It's time the civilized world gets its act together and puts computer nerds into place once and for all. Here you are, swapping tall tales and telling each other how to escape investigation, arming the pedophile, equipping the terrorists. General purpose computers should be banned for ordinary citizens: tablets and locked-down devices will do. Put an end to this digital madness. Now.
I have never seen a stronger argument for the creation of a sarcasm tag. I honestly can't tell!
Oregon Trail man, those were digital not analog oxen!
Sexism based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive sexism intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone.
Hmmm...
Assault based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive assault intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone.
Nope, wait...
Racism based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive racism intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone.
I just can't think of an example where the right answer to (really bad thing) is to pile on more (really bad thing). I simplycan't get my head around this. Are you really advocating sexual discrimination?
You'd have to know the number anyway.
Plugs phone into jack, dials own cell phone.
...
Well that was a toughie!
I thought we were just supposed to use
CorrectHorseBatteryStaple
Nah, hunter 2 works much better.
It's frustrating reading because this is a chance for users of Windows to get the best possible outcome by making their voices heard - unfortunately the vast majority of people making noise should probably have stayed silent, which only increases the chances that genuine bugs and useful feedback will be lost in all that mess
Let's just hope they can task an intern level employee with sifting out the stupid and passing only the potentially useful stuff up to where it might be useful!
In this case the OP said "then I download a Blu-ray rip of the movie from a torrent site" so, yeah, It's pretty safe to assume that's where he's getting his rips...
NO. Sony v. Universal (and subsequent rulings) have made it clear, it does not matter where a backup comes from...
Well, one Bing search and the first hit I get is from Legalzoom which has a pretty straightforward writeup. You may be interested in the section labeled "DMCA Basics", but more relevant to the subject at hand they say "What the DMCA does, through DRM, is make the circumvention illegal, not the actual copying. So, now, even if you own your DVD and are trying to make a personal copy ... it is illegal to bypass DRM protection measures to make your backup". Note I didn't say anything about copyright or fair use, but like it or not you are not legally allowed to bypass even broken DRM to make a personal backup of your own purchased media.
If I remember right, you're still considered to be in violation of copyright because you're using an unapproved rip. Your possession of the disk does not change the status of your torrented file. Now while ripping your own disks for personal use is still a violation of the DMCA (I'm pretty sure 'cause you're breaking the encryption to make the rip), it stays away from the whole torrent thing and may give you a better quality file, if only in terms of quality / file size and what language subtltles you get.
How dare those cops ignore our sacrosanct lawz??!!11
This may come as a surprise to you, but if a law the people don't want in the first place is unenforced, the people don't mind. OTOH, illegal / unconstitutional acts committed against the people by law enforcement are very much frowned upon by the populace at large.
To put it differently, if you're toking up in your back yard and I find a cop didn't bust you, I could care less. OTOH, if I find you're being illegally monitored I'm liable to take offense, as it could just as easily happen / be happening to me.
While you have a point, it looks much better on paper than in the real world.
So we have a decision: Do we want a presentation of reality, raw and un-truncated, or do we trust that the media companies are making good decisions that fairly (whatever that means) present a subset of the information that is unbiased and accurate? What news agency do you consider sufficiently comprehensive while at the same time completely without bias?
Any time someone asks me what "the cloud" is I tell them to substitute the words "someone else's computer on the internet". Almost without exception they look thoughtful for a moment, then suddenly my previously expressed misgivings about putting personal / sensitive data "in the cloud" make more sense to them.
Well, you probably don't need it all with you all the time. For instance, your work machine probably doesn't need all your music and your tablet can hopefully do without your software install files and client information. A little moderation and a home server or NAS to hold everything should do fine. Set up some remote access (VPN or SSH tunnel) for the times you don't have something with you and breathe easier knowing your data is entirely (mostly) under your own control.
Unless you're going to enjoy maintaining that offline system locked in a vault powered off 99% of the time.
Funny you should say that. I have an old Mac Mini with a bunch of external drives hooked up to it. Every other week it turns itself on, plays the Imperial March from Star Wars and runs a Carbon Copy Cloner incremental duplication of the files from my server. It emails me when it's done so I can turn it off, as there are multiple jobs and I can't tell which one will finish last. When it's done I turn off the mini and it sits there another two weeks. Every so often (when I think of it) I sync up to an old Drobo as well then unplug it. This means that yes, I do in fact have an offline system powered off 99% of the time. Sadly I do not have a vault but otherwise I have three copies of (almost) all my data at any given time.
of denouncing Muslims for their "barbarity."
You know, you're right. I meant the subset of Muslims who make up ISIS, and I misspoke. Next time I'll be sure to say some Muslims. Care to retract your sweeping generalizations about "The American Christians"? The act of burning someone to death is a barbaric act. Doesn't matter who does it. I feel pretty confident this is a rational and defensible position.
What is ISIS doing that isn't as barbaric as the things we do every day?
Well, kidnapping, torturing and enslaving / selling children for one. Putting people in cages and setting them alight for another. Let's not get started on their treatment of women.
Burning somebody alive. Big fucking deal.
I'm... speechless...
The American Christians burned thousands of people alive.
So here's your source article, no citations for the "thousands" figure anywhere. There are two examples given, Sam Hose in 1899 and Jesse Washington in 1916. Note that these are examples of past barbarities Americans committed and they're documented so we can learn from them and not repeat history. This is not happening today in America, and there is probably nobody alive now who was not an infant when it happened. Can you say the same about the Muslims that murdered Muadh al Kasasbeh?
Clearly for ISIS to burn a prisoner to death was [insert the same condemnation you use when Christians and Americans do the same thing].
History? Speaking as an Atheist in America, I don't think Christians (or any significant number of Americans) have tortured anyone to death by burning them in a cage in a very long time.
But be consistent. Whatever you say about the Muslims, you should say about the Christians who caused just as much or more painful suffering and death.
While Christians may well have caused as much painful suffering and death as Muslims, I'm not seeing them doing that now. Once again, I can't say the same thing about ISIS.
Also note that your ideas of what I should say are largely irrelevant to me at this time.
Please feel free to continue grinding that axe though!
Look what the US Army did to Dilawar in Afghanistan.
So... this makes burning the pilot OK somehow? Just as FOX showing it is irrelevant to the fact it happened, that the US Army (apparently) did horrible things to someone does not make the murder of this pilot any less of a barbarity.
This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.
While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.