Be a good boy and man up to your words. ACTUALLY do something instead of sitting on slashdot pretending like your complaints will make a difference.
My guess is that you are actually too satisfied by the other good things your government provides and that you would rather enjoy that stability than do what is necessary to achieve your proposed goals. I'll be watching the news, waiting for ninnies like you to man up and do something about all this hustling and bustling you maintain.
You're not alone. Millions of people are upset about various things but sit on their asses waiting for someone else to do the work for them; waiting for someone else to throw that first stone. It's hard to rationalize such extreme measures when you're in a 2000 sqft home with expendable money, health coverage, and clean water and food. I bet you're glad you're not a Somalian resorting to *actual* piracy to survive, right?
You pretend to care enough, but you don't. If you did you would do something about this supposed corrupt activity and revolt. Instead you'll sit back and be pacified by all the good things your government does for you and wait for someone else to throw the first stone.
Get real, get reality. Do crime, you get convicted and deal with the consequences. If you want the laws changed, quit crying to me about it and actually go do something about it. You're the guy upset about the way laws incriminate --- its on you to make that change. ACT! Otherwise your words are just piss in the river or a fart in the wind, man.
You make a really good point about the abuse of the system and draconian politic. I agree that such abuses should not be allowed. Are the Australians too sated to do whats right for themselves and revolt? Maybe as a whole they are still too free and happy to truly care. I have noticed that in our world absent of ideals, masses are quite satisfied with the best piece of shit they can find. In this case the Australians are probably more glad not to be a somalian resorting to piracy.
Enoguh with your tired propaganda. Sharing is not a crime. Destroying the internet for the benefit of coke snorting, whore fucking, disgusting music industry execs ought to be one.
Cry a river. It won't change shit about THE LAW. And until you man up and do something to actually change those laws, you'll get charged and convicted for what your opinion disagrees with. NAMBLA has an opinion too, but I hope they won't start making love to young boys until they get our country to accept their ideas.
I'm not talking propaganda, I'm talking about reality. I am totally happy with banning people who do crime on the internet from using the internet over a 3-strikes 'graduated response'. If you don't like how copyright laws incriminate people, do something about it. Pretending they aren't real will just end up with you convincing your girlfriend to sign up for DSL at your house.
What if NAMBLA had an opinion about making love to young boys but started molesting them before they made the act legal? They would be convicted and restricted.
I think copyrights are at the discretion of the owner. If an owner wants to capitalize on a product instead of share it freely in culture, it is theirs and they, as I believe, have that right to restrict. I am sure in you're capable of understanding where an artist may want to control the use of their work.
Your point is well placed, though. I produce what people now refer to as 'conscious hip hop' (I call it old school hip hop aka unperverted hip hop). I own the copyrights to my songs but I share them freely with the world because it is more important for the positive messages of my songs to be heard than for money to be made. I don't permit people to capitalize from my work, but only to freely copy and share it. Go to my myspace page at the bottom of this post "area sound is here" and in my most recent blog you can download a zip of our recent EP! Enjoy!
So, back on point -- despite what you feel to be the way of music and culture, we do have laws that may or may not need to be changed (opinion). As it stands those laws deem piracy illegal. What is apparent here is they will ban your access to the internet if you continue to do things illegally. That could be sharing child porn, spamming people, harassing people, etc. I appreciate your opinion on copyright laws, but as it stands the laws are in place and those that break the laws can be convicted. Regardless, it appears online freedoms may be limited based on the outcomes of criminal convictions just like freedoms in real life. This doesn't mean it is a threat to net neutrality, it means that if you are a criminal you may lose net neutrality (freedom) on the internet just as you might in the real world.
I'm sure you wouldn't want a convicted murderer to be able to buy and register guns anymore, right?
Don't do crime, don't get your freedoms limited. Life isn't as hard as you're pretending it is. Follow the law or change the law, but in the end it is important to know that a repercussion for a convicted criminal is not the same as limiting freedoms.
What do you suppose we do with criminals? Nothing?
Your argument has some weight, but has nothing to do with the fact that this article is a completely wrong and misrepresents what net neutrality actually is.
Do crime on the net, get banned. Its the same way in the real world. If you want the laws changed so you're not a criminal anymore, do it the right way by revolution or amendment --- talking shit on slashdot and conveniently pretending that laws don't exist won't get you anything but convicted and banned in the end.
I just posted about this. Great job at getting your post in early so it gets seen.
There is no relationship between eventually banning a criminal from the internet, and limiting access to information.
This whole damn slashdot posting needs to be modded OFFTOPIC since the subject matter and the headline have nothing in common.
I'll be damn pleased if criminals on the internet eventually get their access cut off. We do these same things in the rest of the civilized world. It doesn't mean your freedoms are being limited, it means you shouldn't be doing illegal things if you want to keep all your freedoms.
What you say is true, but there is an overall flaw in this slashdot topic.
There is a big difference between a 'threat to net neutrality' and an approach to dealing with 'graduated response' to ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
Net Neutrality doesn't mean its ok to pirate software and music - it means that you will have open access to information. This is akin to freedom, wherein you can own knives, guns, ropes, and poisons, but you are still responsible for legal acts you might do with them. It isn't a loss of freedom for them to discuss responses to damages people do with poisons to others just as it isn't any loss of net neutrality to eventually ban you from using the internet.
That does not mean the freedoms/neutrality is being limited, it means that if you are convicted of illegally using those freedoms, you may face limitations in the future. This is how civil people permit each other to act freely, but respond to wrongful acts. (Please don't give me a ration of b.s. opinion about copyright infringement --- we have these laws, and if you don't like them, change them).
And what we should be more interested in is this.... will we actually stop this, or put on a dog+pony show for the public and restart the same ops with new names, faces, and clearances.... Or just write new laws that you know the SCOTUS puppets won't deem unconstitutional because they are worthless and need to be publicly hung and eviscerated for corruption.
I agree. We established what is called "Intelligence Oversight" in the 70s for exactly these reasons: Intelligence agencies have tendencies to ignore civil liberties and self-rationalize.
Whatever happened to those oversight guidelines is beyond me, but I'm sure it has a lot to do with a number of unconstitutional acts and executive orders that the SCOTUS has become too politically-aligned to do their job and undo.
No joke. Read about Russell Tice from the NSA. He's breaching classification limits because he swore to uphold the Constitution of the US. He found his own agency in breach of civil rights and did the right thing.
Criminals need to be held accountable or the frequency of the crime will increase; in this case the heads that should have known better need to be held responsible for the operations and orders they produced.
hahah. I wrote one and thought I lost it to an internet bug then rewrote a new post with the same general message but decided to leave Ron Paul out of the GOP the second time around.
GOP = 100% Neocon. The OG Republicans hang around because they are theo-blinded and do not realize it. The Libertarians have all but abandoned the GOP because they know the Neocons are running the show now.
Until the republicans can induce the loss of net-neutrality and allow for corporate control of the last open media source --- they will not regain a foothold in this country.
Old Ideas are dying as new information becomes available. The more reality becomes apparent, the less religion will influence people. The more corporate actions are understood, the less people will side with them. The more people shy away from mainstream televised media, the less likely they will continue to follow the silly ideals they push.
Let's face it, in today's technologically advanced, generally educated, highly overpopulated world -- the idea that god controls everything, that the free market will solve everything, and that America and corporations can do no harm, is quickly fading.
The news tried to tell me that Canadians hate their social healthcare system. Unfortunately, I had the internet and about two dozen Canadians I could immediately contact about it. Not one of them was even displeased, let alone hateful of their system. Half of them laughed at my question and already knew it was driven by TV-media lies. With the internet I could probably find a ton of information regarding any topic that corporate conservative media has tried to lie to me about.
Hell, I have a break.com video here that will blow your mind. Its about a guy who passes out, which is not funny. But what is funny is the actual show! They talk about complex things in such simple ways and attach commonly understood words with heavy connotations (like 'cancer') to influence their sheeple! It is so hilarious, and while this media format was popular in the last decade, more and more people are waking up and logging onto the internet for information because crap like this is becoming WAY too obvious. http://www.break.com/index/economist-passes-out-on-news.html
Good luck GOP. Whatever the hell you think you used to be...
The GOP is 95% neocon now. OG republicans are theo-blinded and don't realize it and the Libertarians are too wise to hang around the GOP anymore.
Unless the republicans can induce the loss of net neutrality and bias the last open media platform -- they stand very little chance in the future. The only reason old ideas were resurgent in the last few elections was largely due to the lack of widespread free information that people now find on the internet. As internet use rises, people lose interest in the corporate media garbage they use to rely on for information.
I have a Break.com video here that should open your eyes. Its about a guy who passes out, but that's not funny. The funny thing is how ridiculous these puppets attempt to simplify and convey information in ways to influence their sheeple. http://www.break.com/index/economist-passes-out-on-news.html
Now imagine this garbage is your sole source of information... yes this is slashdot, we're beyond this, but in the last 10 years this is what people have been addicted to yet are gradually moving away from.
Kill the last free speech of the internet and the old ideas may once again be mashed into the wee sheeple brains. Until then, be prepared for diverse opinion, new ideas, Truth, and international understanding.
Dude. The law is quite obviously made to protect the animal loving residents of the state from financial responsibility over potential human-sheep crosses that may follow a fun night of whiskey and solitude. The representative is trying to account for a genetically advanced future where accidental fusion of redneck sperm and sheep egg might occur and be stable.
Mac: Hi, I'm a mac! PC: Im a.. *cough* PC... Mac: Oh, you must be sick? Well I can't get sick. PC: really? Mac: (whispers) "Nobody knows I got HIV" PC: Ahhhh... I just got a cold Mac: See! I don't even have a cold!
well, unless you actually think about the how much sense the "war on drugs" makes in the first place.
If most people actually tried to *think*, we wouldn't have these stupid laws in the first place.... back to Family Guy reruns and a good helping of Fox News.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not hiding from anything. Lol.
Be a good boy and man up to your words. ACTUALLY do something instead of sitting on slashdot pretending like your complaints will make a difference.
My guess is that you are actually too satisfied by the other good things your government provides and that you would rather enjoy that stability than do what is necessary to achieve your proposed goals. I'll be watching the news, waiting for ninnies like you to man up and do something about all this hustling and bustling you maintain.
You're not alone. Millions of people are upset about various things but sit on their asses waiting for someone else to do the work for them; waiting for someone else to throw that first stone. It's hard to rationalize such extreme measures when you're in a 2000 sqft home with expendable money, health coverage, and clean water and food. I bet you're glad you're not a Somalian resorting to *actual* piracy to survive, right?
You pretend to care enough, but you don't. If you did you would do something about this supposed corrupt activity and revolt. Instead you'll sit back and be pacified by all the good things your government does for you and wait for someone else to throw the first stone.
Get real, get reality. Do crime, you get convicted and deal with the consequences. If you want the laws changed, quit crying to me about it and actually go do something about it. You're the guy upset about the way laws incriminate --- its on you to make that change. ACT! Otherwise your words are just piss in the river or a fart in the wind, man.
You make a really good point about the abuse of the system and draconian politic. I agree that such abuses should not be allowed. Are the Australians too sated to do whats right for themselves and revolt? Maybe as a whole they are still too free and happy to truly care. I have noticed that in our world absent of ideals, masses are quite satisfied with the best piece of shit they can find. In this case the Australians are probably more glad not to be a somalian resorting to piracy.
It's like raaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiaaaaaaaan....
Enoguh with your tired propaganda. Sharing is not a crime. Destroying the internet for the benefit of coke snorting, whore fucking, disgusting music industry execs ought to be one.
Cry a river. It won't change shit about THE LAW. And until you man up and do something to actually change those laws, you'll get charged and convicted for what your opinion disagrees with. NAMBLA has an opinion too, but I hope they won't start making love to young boys until they get our country to accept their ideas.
I'm not talking propaganda, I'm talking about reality. I am totally happy with banning people who do crime on the internet from using the internet over a 3-strikes 'graduated response'. If you don't like how copyright laws incriminate people, do something about it. Pretending they aren't real will just end up with you convincing your girlfriend to sign up for DSL at your house.
What if NAMBLA had an opinion about making love to young boys but started molesting them before they made the act legal? They would be convicted and restricted.
I think copyrights are at the discretion of the owner. If an owner wants to capitalize on a product instead of share it freely in culture, it is theirs and they, as I believe, have that right to restrict. I am sure in you're capable of understanding where an artist may want to control the use of their work.
Your point is well placed, though. I produce what people now refer to as 'conscious hip hop' (I call it old school hip hop aka unperverted hip hop). I own the copyrights to my songs but I share them freely with the world because it is more important for the positive messages of my songs to be heard than for money to be made. I don't permit people to capitalize from my work, but only to freely copy and share it. Go to my myspace page at the bottom of this post "area sound is here" and in my most recent blog you can download a zip of our recent EP! Enjoy!
So, back on point -- despite what you feel to be the way of music and culture, we do have laws that may or may not need to be changed (opinion). As it stands those laws deem piracy illegal. What is apparent here is they will ban your access to the internet if you continue to do things illegally. That could be sharing child porn, spamming people, harassing people, etc. I appreciate your opinion on copyright laws, but as it stands the laws are in place and those that break the laws can be convicted. Regardless, it appears online freedoms may be limited based on the outcomes of criminal convictions just like freedoms in real life. This doesn't mean it is a threat to net neutrality, it means that if you are a criminal you may lose net neutrality (freedom) on the internet just as you might in the real world.
I'm sure you wouldn't want a convicted murderer to be able to buy and register guns anymore, right?
She most really love her ipod.
Don't do crime, don't get your freedoms limited. Life isn't as hard as you're pretending it is. Follow the law or change the law, but in the end it is important to know that a repercussion for a convicted criminal is not the same as limiting freedoms.
What do you suppose we do with criminals? Nothing?
Your argument has some weight, but has nothing to do with the fact that this article is a completely wrong and misrepresents what net neutrality actually is.
Do crime on the net, get banned. Its the same way in the real world. If you want the laws changed so you're not a criminal anymore, do it the right way by revolution or amendment --- talking shit on slashdot and conveniently pretending that laws don't exist won't get you anything but convicted and banned in the end.
I just posted about this. Great job at getting your post in early so it gets seen.
There is no relationship between eventually banning a criminal from the internet, and limiting access to information.
This whole damn slashdot posting needs to be modded OFFTOPIC since the subject matter and the headline have nothing in common.
I'll be damn pleased if criminals on the internet eventually get their access cut off. We do these same things in the rest of the civilized world. It doesn't mean your freedoms are being limited, it means you shouldn't be doing illegal things if you want to keep all your freedoms.
What you say is true, but there is an overall flaw in this slashdot topic.
There is a big difference between a 'threat to net neutrality' and an approach to dealing with 'graduated response' to ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
Net Neutrality doesn't mean its ok to pirate software and music - it means that you will have open access to information. This is akin to freedom, wherein you can own knives, guns, ropes, and poisons, but you are still responsible for legal acts you might do with them. It isn't a loss of freedom for them to discuss responses to damages people do with poisons to others just as it isn't any loss of net neutrality to eventually ban you from using the internet.
That does not mean the freedoms/neutrality is being limited, it means that if you are convicted of illegally using those freedoms, you may face limitations in the future. This is how civil people permit each other to act freely, but respond to wrongful acts. (Please don't give me a ration of b.s. opinion about copyright infringement --- we have these laws, and if you don't like them, change them).
Lol. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Intelligence operations are nothing like the movies.
Bring it on! As if there was anything else to do as a survivor!
What was asinine is the recent overuse of the word 'asinine'.
And what we should be more interested in is this.... will we actually stop this, or put on a dog+pony show for the public and restart the same ops with new names, faces, and clearances.... Or just write new laws that you know the SCOTUS puppets won't deem unconstitutional because they are worthless and need to be publicly hung and eviscerated for corruption.
I agree. We established what is called "Intelligence Oversight" in the 70s for exactly these reasons: Intelligence agencies have tendencies to ignore civil liberties and self-rationalize.
Whatever happened to those oversight guidelines is beyond me, but I'm sure it has a lot to do with a number of unconstitutional acts and executive orders that the SCOTUS has become too politically-aligned to do their job and undo.
No joke. Read about Russell Tice from the NSA. He's breaching classification limits because he swore to uphold the Constitution of the US. He found his own agency in breach of civil rights and did the right thing.
Criminals need to be held accountable or the frequency of the crime will increase; in this case the heads that should have known better need to be held responsible for the operations and orders they produced.
hahah. I wrote one and thought I lost it to an internet bug then rewrote a new post with the same general message but decided to leave Ron Paul out of the GOP the second time around.
GOP = 100% Neocon. The OG Republicans hang around because they are theo-blinded and do not realize it. The Libertarians have all but abandoned the GOP because they know the Neocons are running the show now.
Until the republicans can induce the loss of net-neutrality and allow for corporate control of the last open media source --- they will not regain a foothold in this country.
Old Ideas are dying as new information becomes available. The more reality becomes apparent, the less religion will influence people. The more corporate actions are understood, the less people will side with them. The more people shy away from mainstream televised media, the less likely they will continue to follow the silly ideals they push.
Let's face it, in today's technologically advanced, generally educated, highly overpopulated world -- the idea that god controls everything, that the free market will solve everything, and that America and corporations can do no harm, is quickly fading.
The news tried to tell me that Canadians hate their social healthcare system. Unfortunately, I had the internet and about two dozen Canadians I could immediately contact about it. Not one of them was even displeased, let alone hateful of their system. Half of them laughed at my question and already knew it was driven by TV-media lies. With the internet I could probably find a ton of information regarding any topic that corporate conservative media has tried to lie to me about.
Hell, I have a break.com video here that will blow your mind. Its about a guy who passes out, which is not funny. But what is funny is the actual show! They talk about complex things in such simple ways and attach commonly understood words with heavy connotations (like 'cancer') to influence their sheeple! It is so hilarious, and while this media format was popular in the last decade, more and more people are waking up and logging onto the internet for information because crap like this is becoming WAY too obvious.
http://www.break.com/index/economist-passes-out-on-news.html
Good luck GOP. Whatever the hell you think you used to be...
The GOP is 95% neocon now. OG republicans are theo-blinded and don't realize it and the Libertarians are too wise to hang around the GOP anymore.
Unless the republicans can induce the loss of net neutrality and bias the last open media platform -- they stand very little chance in the future. The only reason old ideas were resurgent in the last few elections was largely due to the lack of widespread free information that people now find on the internet. As internet use rises, people lose interest in the corporate media garbage they use to rely on for information.
I have a Break.com video here that should open your eyes. Its about a guy who passes out, but that's not funny. The funny thing is how ridiculous these puppets attempt to simplify and convey information in ways to influence their sheeple. http://www.break.com/index/economist-passes-out-on-news.html
Now imagine this garbage is your sole source of information... yes this is slashdot, we're beyond this, but in the last 10 years this is what people have been addicted to yet are gradually moving away from.
Kill the last free speech of the internet and the old ideas may once again be mashed into the wee sheeple brains. Until then, be prepared for diverse opinion, new ideas, Truth, and international understanding.
Dude. The law is quite obviously made to protect the animal loving residents of the state from financial responsibility over potential human-sheep crosses that may follow a fun night of whiskey and solitude. The representative is trying to account for a genetically advanced future where accidental fusion of redneck sperm and sheep egg might occur and be stable.
Mac: Hi, I'm a mac!
PC: Im a.. *cough* PC...
Mac: Oh, you must be sick? Well I can't get sick.
PC: really?
Mac: (whispers) "Nobody knows I got HIV"
PC: Ahhhh... I just got a cold
Mac: See! I don't even have a cold!
well, unless you actually think about the how much sense the "war on drugs" makes in the first place.
If most people actually tried to *think*, we wouldn't have these stupid laws in the first place. ... back to Family Guy reruns and a good helping of Fox News.
Hanlon's Razor sounds like it should be renamed to "The GWB Principle"