There's no need to criminalize the speech. If you call for someone to kill someone, and they do, then you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder if it can be shown that they did so by your request.
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre likewise does not deserve to be criminalized. Charge the person with reckless endangerment, and if someone died manslaughter.
Badgering someone and repeatedly using racial slurs against them can likewise be dealt with under harassment laws.
This is easy people, restrictions on free speech do nothing that can;t already be covered by existing laws.
You seem to contradict yourself. If I can charge someone with reckless endangerment because they shouted, "fire!" and there was no fire and nobody was killed, then isn't the restriction on free speech intact, whether it's explicitly codified or not? Isn't the speech in fact criminalized? I believe that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want - words have power, and power carries responsibility.
The U.S. is free because of the government, not despite it; the people didn't spontaneously decide to let women vote or end slavery. I will just ignore the rest of your post except to say that the government was made this way by the people themselves; it's a strange position that when free people freely do what you don't approve of, they're somehow no longer free.
Party politics trumps concern for country. I don't know whether this is really new or these Republicans are just not bothering to hide it, but this Congress is the most childish bunch I can remember. I think their behavior on this issue borders on treason.
I think they're encouraging them to adopt a new business model; the industry just refuses to adapt because they know it's all a big show.
There have always been people who stole movies (sneaking into theaters, etc.) but if you really believe your customer base is widely engaged in such behavior then you really should realize that you are doing something right in the making of the movies and something terribly wrong in the distribution. I believe the industry has realized this; these are smart people. However, they've also realized that lawsuits are lucrative, the public's perception of them is irrelevant, and that they can use the situation to get favorable legislation passed. The incentive to actually address the situation isn't enough to move them; therefore, they believe that fixing their model would not result in sufficient revenue to exceed their current perks, i.e., piracy isn't really as big a problem as they're making it out to be, and they know it.
This Congress would never permit anything like the actions the American government took in the 30s, even if Obama were championing such a thing. Just one example: in 1936, we raised the tax rate on the rich from 63% to 79% while holding everyone else's taxes steady.
That is an arbitrary definition of spying. There is no requirement for breaking and entering or hacking; merely secretly gathering information for potentially hostile use is spying, regardless of how the information is gathered.
What is his "fundamental misunderstanding"? It seems to me that you failed to articulate any error at all. If he has a right to know, NSA is obligated to tell him when asked; simply because the NSA has the option of acting illegally by ignoring a legitimate FOIA request does not change the underlying concept of rights. By declaring that NSA has no obligation to disclose, the right to know is formally denied, correct? I don't see where you made any point to the contrary.
The National Security Agency does not have to disclose its relationship with Google amid press reports that the two partnered up after hackers in China launched a cyber attack on the U.S. government, a federal judge in Washington ruled.
It's not that you don't have a right to know. Its that the NSA is under no obligation to tell you. There's a big difference.
I'll admit that I just woke up, but the distinction seems academic... I don't see any practical difference at all.
If you live in a large city for any length of time, you will notice that people leave you alone if you look a little angry. Friendly-looking people get approached for directions, donations, and crazy diatribes. Once the novelty of those things wears off, most people adopt a more neutral or angry expression to discourage unwanted interaction.
In the next decade, it will rapidly become impossible to 'buy' music or movies. You will only be able to buy access licenses (keyed to individual hashed hardware ala WGA) to watch a DRM stream. And the licenses will not be for lifetime access, but merely a yearly, monthly, or most likely per-view rental fee.
Every facet of the future is gonna suck.
If you stream it to me, then I can store it.
Even if this is attempted, it will be defeated in short order.
I don't understand your skepticism in this case. If you're right, and the music trade's health must now be measured in the sales of independent artists using the Internet, why would it be hard to believe that the RIAA has seen a significant decline? It seems perfectly consistent with your scenario. It may even be a necessary correlation.
And we wonder why we are losing tech jobs t the third world. That and the whole "I am entitled to free crap without working" mentality that pervades our dumbed down youth.
I think this statement is both simplistic and illogical. Being entitled to free crap without working is hardly limited to the young; Wall Street CEOs appear to feel the exact same way, since they demanded and received welfare when their business models failed. Employment statistics show that they did not use that money to hire people, even as their profits reach record highs, so it was truly entitlement and not merely a loan to be repaid. Is it more acceptable to be entitled and on welfare because one has a nice office and some gray hair?
But let's assume for a moment that you're right and that the kids are indeed lazy good-for-nothings; your view still don't make sense. How is it that these useless children could possibly bring down America when all the older people in power presumably have the powers of deductive reasoning and the excellent work ethic that the kids lack? Without bothering to work, the young would naturally be currently powerless. Surely their negative effect wouldn't be felt until they were the ones in power, right? It amazes me how willing people are to blame the powerless for problems that are solvable only by the powerful. The poor people who couldn't pay mortgages did not cause the economic crash, and the kids aren't the ones outsourcing jobs, reducing staffing, and cutting funding to schools.
The de-culturation in the article is nothing new. My great-grandfather Jarsoslav changed his name to "Jerry" when he moved to the US from Bohemia in 1912.
Yes but he did it because he was permanently switching cultures. This is merely for a job. Similar perhaps, but not the same thing.
Nothing out there except TFA. Read it. I've got nothing against people driving dangerous cars, really, but not wearing a seatbelt is the height of stupidity.
What a strange attitude you have. If a man is eaten by a shark, will you post that he was an idiot and had it coming because he wasn't wearing a life preserver? If he is hit by a bus, will it be his just desserts because his left shoe was dangerously untied? Simply because he was not wearing a seat belt does not mean that it had anything to do with his death. The article doesn't say, and you do not know. Your automatic disrespect says a lot more about you than his seat belt says about him.
Let me throw on my tinfoil hat here, but is it possible that....
The government is behind all these attacks?
dun dun dun
No. The government has no need for such subtlety; this isn't scary enough to be worth the risk. It's also taking too long. If run by the government, LulzSec would be leaking a lot more personal information to engender greater fear in the populace. They would have hit a couple of banks by now and stolen some money or leaked customer information from there. They would have brought down Netflix for a couple of days. Hitting some video game sites and defacing PBS's website would be a waste of time toward the push for fearful authorization to pass laws. The longer the operation lasted, the greater the risk of discovery or leaks. If the government was behind this, LulzSec would have been more obviously dangerous and the prepared legislation would have already been introduced, if not passed by now.
Bush got congressional authorization. Obama thinks he doesn't have to. That's the key difference.
Bush got his authorization through intentional fraud and suffered no consequences. I'd say the different is semantic; the two acts are equally in violation.
I kinda wish that scientist wouldn't just ignore crazy theories (Leaving people to think, that they are just making it up) that are popular but come up with tests that can prove or disprove them. And show them the results.
For global warming don't just show us a graph that shows a line shooting up. When we come up with different things show it off, prove to us that is wrong. Science had been lucky in the past, the average Joe took everything face value. But with rapid media, and some big mistakes in "Science" people are more distrusting. It is time for the Science Institution to change and regain peoples trust again.
What? No. I don't think you have a good grasp of how science works.
Scientists should be doing science. If your theory isn't falsifiable then it isn't science and therefore not their field at all. If your theory is falsifiable but does not match the current data, then it may have already been disproved and there is no need to waste time on it unless you can show that the data is wrong somehow. In the instance of global warming, scientists have disproved a few crazy theories and they have shown the data, but crackpots do not listen to evidence; that's why they are crackpots in the first place. The fact that you either haven't sought out or accepted the available proof shows that you're not really much interested in the truth yourself. This is not the fault of scientists; they've upheld their half of the bargain. You have to be open to the evidence.
As for science making mistakes: that's an important part of the process. Science is all about trying things, making mistakes and correcting them. It's a slow progress toward the real truth, not a pre-determined truth to which facts are shaped to fit. Admitted mistakes aren't a sign that science isn't working; quite the opposite! That's how you know that science is trustworthy. Anyone who claims to have all the answers and never be wrong is the one you should be distrusting. Whether people recognize this is not the fault of, nor a problem for, scientists; willfully ignorant people will remain so, by definition, and it is entirely their own fault.
The idea that you can't secure a computer to make it impervious to non-physical attacks is the biggest fraud of the 21st century.
I've never heard anyone claim that.
Not fraud: if a system is accessible, then it is hackable. Fraud: all systems can be practically made impervious to all but physical attacks. Fraud: if the computer can only be hacked by a physical attack then it is completely secure. Fraud: any system can be made completely secure.
You can make a system very difficult to hack. That's expensive and requires both expertise and vigilance, which makes it impractical for a lot of real-world scenarios. Even for the ones who invest the effort and money, they've only made the chances low; there are no guarantees.
Even if he did it on purpose, I don't see how copyright violation is a crime worthy of extradition. If he can't be prosecuted locally then perhaps what he is doing isn't all that bad.
'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir
Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...
If 2/3 of the population is using one platform, couldn't that automatically mean that most of the discussion would take place there, regardless of anyone's wishes? I think you may be seeing an agenda where there is only acceptance of reality.
They are saying this as if game designers regularly sit on servers telling users where to go, they are also implying the game will suggest where the players will 'go'. I dont see how this is related in anyway to developing new mmo content.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but modern MMOs commonly do indeed tell the player where to go next. Between quest trackers and breadcrumb quests, it is unusual in any MMO these days to be standing in a field with no overt guidance.
Reason's advantage is that it holds up over time. A lie is only effective as long as the truth is hidden or ignored. Biased opinions are not facts and therefore cannot be lies, though the claim of the opinion could itself be a lie. Faulty reasoning, if done in good faith, isn't a lie either - as long as the mind is open enough to recognize the flaws in its argument once pointed out, faulty reasoning is a legitimate step on the search for truth.
Actually I would think that if you don't use Facebook then this article is even more applicable; his idea would allow you to use Google to find out what other people have revealed about you on Facebook, without ever needing a FB account yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no need to criminalize the speech. If you call for someone to kill someone, and they do, then you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder if it can be shown that they did so by your request.
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre likewise does not deserve to be criminalized. Charge the person with reckless endangerment, and if someone died manslaughter.
Badgering someone and repeatedly using racial slurs against them can likewise be dealt with under harassment laws.
This is easy people, restrictions on free speech do nothing that can;t already be covered by existing laws.
You seem to contradict yourself. If I can charge someone with reckless endangerment because they shouted, "fire!" and there was no fire and nobody was killed, then isn't the restriction on free speech intact, whether it's explicitly codified or not? Isn't the speech in fact criminalized? I believe that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want - words have power, and power carries responsibility.
The U.S. is free because of the government, not despite it; the people didn't spontaneously decide to let women vote or end slavery. I will just ignore the rest of your post except to say that the government was made this way by the people themselves; it's a strange position that when free people freely do what you don't approve of, they're somehow no longer free.
It's not like those guys aren't already online. Keep your enemies closer, and all that.
Party politics trumps concern for country. I don't know whether this is really new or these Republicans are just not bothering to hide it, but this Congress is the most childish bunch I can remember. I think their behavior on this issue borders on treason.
I think they're encouraging them to adopt a new business model; the industry just refuses to adapt because they know it's all a big show.
There have always been people who stole movies (sneaking into theaters, etc.) but if you really believe your customer base is widely engaged in such behavior then you really should realize that you are doing something right in the making of the movies and something terribly wrong in the distribution. I believe the industry has realized this; these are smart people. However, they've also realized that lawsuits are lucrative, the public's perception of them is irrelevant, and that they can use the situation to get favorable legislation passed. The incentive to actually address the situation isn't enough to move them; therefore, they believe that fixing their model would not result in sufficient revenue to exceed their current perks, i.e., piracy isn't really as big a problem as they're making it out to be, and they know it.
This Congress would never permit anything like the actions the American government took in the 30s, even if Obama were championing such a thing. Just one example: in 1936, we raised the tax rate on the rich from 63% to 79% while holding everyone else's taxes steady.
That is an arbitrary definition of spying. There is no requirement for breaking and entering or hacking; merely secretly gathering information for potentially hostile use is spying, regardless of how the information is gathered.
What is his "fundamental misunderstanding"? It seems to me that you failed to articulate any error at all. If he has a right to know, NSA is obligated to tell him when asked; simply because the NSA has the option of acting illegally by ignoring a legitimate FOIA request does not change the underlying concept of rights. By declaring that NSA has no obligation to disclose, the right to know is formally denied, correct? I don't see where you made any point to the contrary.
The National Security Agency does not have to disclose its relationship with Google amid press reports that the two partnered up after hackers in China launched a cyber attack on the U.S. government, a federal judge in Washington ruled.
It's not that you don't have a right to know. Its that the NSA is under no obligation to tell you. There's a big difference.
I'll admit that I just woke up, but the distinction seems academic... I don't see any practical difference at all.
If you live in a large city for any length of time, you will notice that people leave you alone if you look a little angry. Friendly-looking people get approached for directions, donations, and crazy diatribes. Once the novelty of those things wears off, most people adopt a more neutral or angry expression to discourage unwanted interaction.
In the next decade, it will rapidly become impossible to 'buy' music or movies. You will only be able to buy access licenses (keyed to individual hashed hardware ala WGA) to watch a DRM stream. And the licenses will not be for lifetime access, but merely a yearly, monthly, or most likely per-view rental fee.
Every facet of the future is gonna suck.
If you stream it to me, then I can store it.
Even if this is attempted, it will be defeated in short order.
I don't understand your skepticism in this case. If you're right, and the music trade's health must now be measured in the sales of independent artists using the Internet, why would it be hard to believe that the RIAA has seen a significant decline? It seems perfectly consistent with your scenario. It may even be a necessary correlation.
And we wonder why we are losing tech jobs t the third world. That and the whole "I am entitled to free crap without working" mentality that pervades our dumbed down youth.
I think this statement is both simplistic and illogical. Being entitled to free crap without working is hardly limited to the young; Wall Street CEOs appear to feel the exact same way, since they demanded and received welfare when their business models failed. Employment statistics show that they did not use that money to hire people, even as their profits reach record highs, so it was truly entitlement and not merely a loan to be repaid. Is it more acceptable to be entitled and on welfare because one has a nice office and some gray hair?
But let's assume for a moment that you're right and that the kids are indeed lazy good-for-nothings; your view still don't make sense. How is it that these useless children could possibly bring down America when all the older people in power presumably have the powers of deductive reasoning and the excellent work ethic that the kids lack? Without bothering to work, the young would naturally be currently powerless. Surely their negative effect wouldn't be felt until they were the ones in power, right? It amazes me how willing people are to blame the powerless for problems that are solvable only by the powerful. The poor people who couldn't pay mortgages did not cause the economic crash, and the kids aren't the ones outsourcing jobs, reducing staffing, and cutting funding to schools.
Your hostility seems very misplaced to me.
The de-culturation in the article is nothing new. My great-grandfather Jarsoslav changed his name to "Jerry" when he moved to the US from Bohemia in 1912.
Yes but he did it because he was permanently switching cultures. This is merely for a job. Similar perhaps, but not the same thing.
Nothing out there except TFA. Read it. I've got nothing against people driving dangerous cars, really, but not wearing a seatbelt is the height of stupidity.
What a strange attitude you have. If a man is eaten by a shark, will you post that he was an idiot and had it coming because he wasn't wearing a life preserver? If he is hit by a bus, will it be his just desserts because his left shoe was dangerously untied? Simply because he was not wearing a seat belt does not mean that it had anything to do with his death. The article doesn't say, and you do not know. Your automatic disrespect says a lot more about you than his seat belt says about him.
Let me throw on my tinfoil hat here, but is it possible that....
The government is behind all these attacks?
dun dun dun
No. The government has no need for such subtlety; this isn't scary enough to be worth the risk. It's also taking too long. If run by the government, LulzSec would be leaking a lot more personal information to engender greater fear in the populace. They would have hit a couple of banks by now and stolen some money or leaked customer information from there. They would have brought down Netflix for a couple of days. Hitting some video game sites and defacing PBS's website would be a waste of time toward the push for fearful authorization to pass laws. The longer the operation lasted, the greater the risk of discovery or leaks. If the government was behind this, LulzSec would have been more obviously dangerous and the prepared legislation would have already been introduced, if not passed by now.
Bush got congressional authorization. Obama thinks he doesn't have to. That's the key difference.
Bush got his authorization through intentional fraud and suffered no consequences. I'd say the different is semantic; the two acts are equally in violation.
I kinda wish that scientist wouldn't just ignore crazy theories (Leaving people to think, that they are just making it up) that are popular but come up with tests that can prove or disprove them. And show them the results.
For global warming don't just show us a graph that shows a line shooting up. When we come up with different things show it off, prove to us that is wrong. Science had been lucky in the past, the average Joe took everything face value. But with rapid media, and some big mistakes in "Science" people are more distrusting. It is time for the Science Institution to change and regain peoples trust again.
What? No. I don't think you have a good grasp of how science works.
Scientists should be doing science. If your theory isn't falsifiable then it isn't science and therefore not their field at all. If your theory is falsifiable but does not match the current data, then it may have already been disproved and there is no need to waste time on it unless you can show that the data is wrong somehow. In the instance of global warming, scientists have disproved a few crazy theories and they have shown the data, but crackpots do not listen to evidence; that's why they are crackpots in the first place. The fact that you either haven't sought out or accepted the available proof shows that you're not really much interested in the truth yourself. This is not the fault of scientists; they've upheld their half of the bargain. You have to be open to the evidence.
As for science making mistakes: that's an important part of the process. Science is all about trying things, making mistakes and correcting them. It's a slow progress toward the real truth, not a pre-determined truth to which facts are shaped to fit. Admitted mistakes aren't a sign that science isn't working; quite the opposite! That's how you know that science is trustworthy. Anyone who claims to have all the answers and never be wrong is the one you should be distrusting. Whether people recognize this is not the fault of, nor a problem for, scientists; willfully ignorant people will remain so, by definition, and it is entirely their own fault.
The idea that you can't secure a computer to make it impervious to non-physical attacks is the biggest fraud of the 21st century.
I've never heard anyone claim that.
Not fraud: if a system is accessible, then it is hackable.
Fraud: all systems can be practically made impervious to all but physical attacks.
Fraud: if the computer can only be hacked by a physical attack then it is completely secure.
Fraud: any system can be made completely secure.
You can make a system very difficult to hack. That's expensive and requires both expertise and vigilance, which makes it impractical for a lot of real-world scenarios. Even for the ones who invest the effort and money, they've only made the chances low; there are no guarantees.
Even if he did it on purpose, I don't see how copyright violation is a crime worthy of extradition. If he can't be prosecuted locally then perhaps what he is doing isn't all that bad.
'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir
Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...
If 2/3 of the population is using one platform, couldn't that automatically mean that most of the discussion would take place there, regardless of anyone's wishes? I think you may be seeing an agenda where there is only acceptance of reality.
They are saying this as if game designers regularly sit on servers telling users where to go, they are also implying the game will suggest where the players will 'go'. I dont see how this is related in anyway to developing new mmo content.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but modern MMOs commonly do indeed tell the player where to go next. Between quest trackers and breadcrumb quests, it is unusual in any MMO these days to be standing in a field with no overt guidance.
Reason's advantage is that it holds up over time. A lie is only effective as long as the truth is hidden or ignored. Biased opinions are not facts and therefore cannot be lies, though the claim of the opinion could itself be a lie. Faulty reasoning, if done in good faith, isn't a lie either - as long as the mind is open enough to recognize the flaws in its argument once pointed out, faulty reasoning is a legitimate step on the search for truth.
Actually I would think that if you don't use Facebook then this article is even more applicable; his idea would allow you to use Google to find out what other people have revealed about you on Facebook, without ever needing a FB account yourself.
If you're willing to threaten someone with a gun or a knife, what do you need the ATM for?