Not only that, but it is a high profile target. The holy grail of crypto cracking. We're not talking about some hacker in Generistan wanting this, we're talking about governments wanting this. Anyone who has access to such a key is a target. For governments. From Iran to North Korea.
How long until one of them hears "You want to give me the key, because you do love your kids!"
We're talking about actors who have no problem snuffing out thousands of their own population, you think they'd have a problem holding your newborn baby over a meat grinder with you having a minute to cough up the key or else?
I don't know, when I read fiction, I do it to relax and enjoy myself, reading endless sentences in foreign languages isn't exactly my idea of relaxing and unwinding.
Impossible. You can try, but I am certain you'll fail just like all others did. Try it yourself. Take the novel and turn it into a script. Then gauge just how long it really is and what run time you'd end up with. Not with the whole trilogy, just the first, just NM. You end up with a movie that runs 5 hours and you already left out half of what's important. Cut it more and what you end up with is a movie that makes no sense, explains no character, you will of course get a story out of it but in the end, nobody who knows the novel will recognize it anymore.
A lot of the novel is internal monologue and information about the characters' mood, ideas, ideals, hopes and expectations. How'd you want to do that, if at all? In a voiceover while they stare meaningful into the evening sky that looks like a TV tuned to a dead channel?
The Johnny Mnemonic movie wasn't bad, but they tried to make a full movie out of the script for a half hour episode of a series. JM was a short story, a good one, but none that would offer enough material to fill 100+ minutes of movie material, and it shows. Yes, they added some stuff but it was mostly filler, and while most of it did actually fit the world of Gibson's cyberpunk it felt tacked on and corny, like that cyber-priest.
Like it's different in ours? Ok, not concerning anything that touches the property of corporations, that's sacrosanct, but when it comes towards your "rights" vs. government's "I wanna", guess who's going to be right.
This is not speech but breaking confidentiality, which is not protected free speech but dissemination and/or disclosing of private or at least nonpublic information. This is not voicing an opinion or an idea, it's not the presentation of a point of view and also not an invitation to discussing diverging interests.
I love them too, they're a bit like the religious, every time they start preaching all it takes is to debunk them (which is usually trivial if you have at least a reasonable high school education) to make them play caber toss with the goalpost.
Yes, the 80s had a string of bad shows, too. Mid-80s especially. Bellisario, Cannell and Larson are responsible for a string of formulaic shows with little replay value.
On the other hand, there are a few shows from the late 80s and early 90s that tried a new spin. Picket Fences for example is one of the shows of that time that I remember (and that are curiously absent from the string of eternal reruns). Shows actually dared to confront their viewers with their established views and even force them to question them. It also was the time when The Simpsons came into existence. Family themed sitcoms turned from "perfect family" like the Cosby Show to dysfunctional families like Married with Children.
Perjury is not only speech, it's damaging property or goodwill. There is plenty of speech, though, that does not damage anything or anyone but we should not engage in it. A widdle feeling could be huwt.
Just because someone claims to be something doesn't mean he is. Or even understands the concept.
You'll notice that such "militant atheists" are usually not adamant about atheism but more interested in promoting their own superior idea. In the case of your example, communism. Their atheism stems from the zeal to promote an alternative ideal or belief system, not just the wish to stop the promotion of what they perceive as an incorrect one.
Personally, I don't know if god exists. What I can observe, though, is that whether he exists or not is meaningless, because he is irrelevant to the functioning of the universe. It's like the question whether there are stars further away than the 13.something lightyears that we can observe. Are there? Possible. Does it matter? Not really.
Then there's that problem with the advertising brochure of his. Not only are there a lot of glaring mistakes that don't really add up with reality, the entity described therein isn't really something that would command worship, even if it exists. It's more something that any rational person should try to oppose and fight, for the god of the bible is much but decent, just, honest or even holy, he certainly is not.
All of these examples are attacks against the material or immaterial property of another person. The first three damage the goodwill and reputation of a person, the latter the financial or otherwise material situation.
In the US (and other areas where information is free and available), I can see an incredible naivete, the willingness to believe any kind of bullshit offered, believed with zero evidence and even against unsurmountable evidence against it.
Yet I do know countries with a tight restriction and control of information where people respond warily to anything you present to them and will critically test it for validity, desperate to actually find out what IS true.
What I think we could agree on is this: If I make a claim about a product, the product has to fulfill that claim or I shall be liable for false advertising or even worse. E.g. if I claim that I have the cure for cancer here but only if you forgo conventional therapy, I sell it to you with this premise and you rely on my product exclusively, then die and it can be shown in court that not only my product is complete bunk but you would have had a sensible chance of survival or at least a longer life, I should be in for at the very least manslaughter.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but it is a high profile target. The holy grail of crypto cracking. We're not talking about some hacker in Generistan wanting this, we're talking about governments wanting this. Anyone who has access to such a key is a target. For governments. From Iran to North Korea.
How long until one of them hears "You want to give me the key, because you do love your kids!"
We're talking about actors who have no problem snuffing out thousands of their own population, you think they'd have a problem holding your newborn baby over a meat grinder with you having a minute to cough up the key or else?
Are you a politician or just a layman in complete ignorance when it comes to encryption?
I cannot remember my encryption key. Here's a few bytes of my old one, please memorize it:
CVLO3yiPSAeTjx4UKuquK06APlvtVrT4BF0YUOzCjE5RvIK2AXqGzz6...
there's about 150 more characters, but I guess you get the idea.
And I have a different one for every device I own. It might dawn on you just why it's kinda unfeasible to remember something like this.
Then stop abusing your power. As it is now, the likelihood of someone being damaged by you HAVING access to data is higher than if you don't.
Again already? But it just ended on Sept 23.
I don't know, when I read fiction, I do it to relax and enjoy myself, reading endless sentences in foreign languages isn't exactly my idea of relaxing and unwinding.
"Unique writing style", that's a good one. How about "endless stream-of-consciousness tack-on sentences that span pages"?
Impossible. You can try, but I am certain you'll fail just like all others did. Try it yourself. Take the novel and turn it into a script. Then gauge just how long it really is and what run time you'd end up with. Not with the whole trilogy, just the first, just NM. You end up with a movie that runs 5 hours and you already left out half of what's important. Cut it more and what you end up with is a movie that makes no sense, explains no character, you will of course get a story out of it but in the end, nobody who knows the novel will recognize it anymore.
A lot of the novel is internal monologue and information about the characters' mood, ideas, ideals, hopes and expectations. How'd you want to do that, if at all? In a voiceover while they stare meaningful into the evening sky that looks like a TV tuned to a dead channel?
The Johnny Mnemonic movie wasn't bad, but they tried to make a full movie out of the script for a half hour episode of a series. JM was a short story, a good one, but none that would offer enough material to fill 100+ minutes of movie material, and it shows. Yes, they added some stuff but it was mostly filler, and while most of it did actually fit the world of Gibson's cyberpunk it felt tacked on and corny, like that cyber-priest.
Plus Reeves can't act worth shit.
Like it's different in ours? Ok, not concerning anything that touches the property of corporations, that's sacrosanct, but when it comes towards your "rights" vs. government's "I wanna", guess who's going to be right.
This is not speech but breaking confidentiality, which is not protected free speech but dissemination and/or disclosing of private or at least nonpublic information. This is not voicing an opinion or an idea, it's not the presentation of a point of view and also not an invitation to discussing diverging interests.
Is it really that hard to tell the difference?
Are we already at reductio ad absurdum? C'mon, find a better argument, this is boring.
I love them too, they're a bit like the religious, every time they start preaching all it takes is to debunk them (which is usually trivial if you have at least a reasonable high school education) to make them play caber toss with the goalpost.
Sorry, over here in Europe we tend to use common sense and not require everything to be spelled out that is fucking OBVIOUS.
The hit for the Russian economy could be devastating when the recipients of the crypto trojan money have to go abroad to collect.
Just imagine what tools they'll come up with, slamming their iPhones against each other.
Yes, the 80s had a string of bad shows, too. Mid-80s especially. Bellisario, Cannell and Larson are responsible for a string of formulaic shows with little replay value.
On the other hand, there are a few shows from the late 80s and early 90s that tried a new spin. Picket Fences for example is one of the shows of that time that I remember (and that are curiously absent from the string of eternal reruns). Shows actually dared to confront their viewers with their established views and even force them to question them. It also was the time when The Simpsons came into existence. Family themed sitcoms turned from "perfect family" like the Cosby Show to dysfunctional families like Married with Children.
And yes, that was actually funny again.
Not to mention that certain things simply hit harder in black and white. Can you imagine Schindler's List in color?
Well, there IS a reason they still do reruns of "I love Lucy", campy as fuck it may be.
Now that I think of it, your gramps is right. Damn, I get old...
Perjury is not only speech, it's damaging property or goodwill. There is plenty of speech, though, that does not damage anything or anyone but we should not engage in it. A widdle feeling could be huwt.
Just because someone claims to be something doesn't mean he is. Or even understands the concept.
You'll notice that such "militant atheists" are usually not adamant about atheism but more interested in promoting their own superior idea. In the case of your example, communism. Their atheism stems from the zeal to promote an alternative ideal or belief system, not just the wish to stop the promotion of what they perceive as an incorrect one.
Personally, I don't know if god exists. What I can observe, though, is that whether he exists or not is meaningless, because he is irrelevant to the functioning of the universe. It's like the question whether there are stars further away than the 13.something lightyears that we can observe. Are there? Possible. Does it matter? Not really.
Then there's that problem with the advertising brochure of his. Not only are there a lot of glaring mistakes that don't really add up with reality, the entity described therein isn't really something that would command worship, even if it exists. It's more something that any rational person should try to oppose and fight, for the god of the bible is much but decent, just, honest or even holy, he certainly is not.
It's just someone who wants to check whether his DDoS protection is working.
Wait, I thought that's a requirement to be eligible?
All of these examples are attacks against the material or immaterial property of another person. The first three damage the goodwill and reputation of a person, the latter the financial or otherwise material situation.
None of them are "only" speech.
Actually, I can observe the exact opposite.
In the US (and other areas where information is free and available), I can see an incredible naivete, the willingness to believe any kind of bullshit offered, believed with zero evidence and even against unsurmountable evidence against it.
Yet I do know countries with a tight restriction and control of information where people respond warily to anything you present to them and will critically test it for validity, desperate to actually find out what IS true.
I would be very careful with this.
What I think we could agree on is this: If I make a claim about a product, the product has to fulfill that claim or I shall be liable for false advertising or even worse. E.g. if I claim that I have the cure for cancer here but only if you forgo conventional therapy, I sell it to you with this premise and you rely on my product exclusively, then die and it can be shown in court that not only my product is complete bunk but you would have had a sensible chance of survival or at least a longer life, I should be in for at the very least manslaughter.
Personally, I'd call it murder.