This can quickly and easily change once people notice that there is nothing worth reading or listening to available online anymore...
Be honest: If all the "objectionable" and "potentially offensive" videos have been taken down from YouTube, what's left? Cute kitten vids are only funny so many hours a day.
With good reason. You have more and more people who would not shy away from trying their best to ruin your life just because you say something they don't agree with.
The threshold is what the laws of the country a server is in require. In Germany, you have a problem with "glorifying the Third Reich", in Thailand you better be wary what you say about their king. The nice thing about the internet is that if you don't agree with such laws, you can move your server abroad. And countries in turn can block access to content they deem illegal.
But that's the extent this can and should take. And I can only hope that governments are aware of the problem they create if they insist in putting a lid on certain speech. Hot air creates pressure. If that pressure cannot be vented, the pot will explode.
Because we learned that corporations are much like political parties: Killing the guy at the top doesn't accomplish jack shit. There's always someone willing to take the spot and usually he's worse. Look at the development at MS. You thought Bill is the antichrist. Mostly because you didn't know Ballmer back then.
And if we had known what that Indian bozo turns it into, we would have chanted "developers, developers, developers" with monkey boy.
You racist bastard! Black people can be anything white people can be, they are not unable to be anything just because they're black! Get over your white privilege!
Nope. He was not a terrorist back then. He was just a bank robber, murderer and generally a criminal. He turned into a terrorist when he got to power.
Terrorism isn't limited in its use to the time when you're not in power. Terrorism is simply instilling fear, anxiety or dread in people to make them comply with your wishes.
That's what is missing here. Software that uploads your video simultaneously to all video platforms. If people have to do it manually, they will shy away from the trouble of getting it out onto all of them, but provide a service that allows them to push their videos to all the video content hosters at the same time and people will do it.
Pipe it through your own server to save them bandwidth and people will flock to that service immediately.
There is no "us" and "them". Because terrorists don't give a fuck about whether they are "allowed" to use a certain encryption. They will simply use it.
What is that you say, politician, you will notice when you can't decrypt it? No. You will not. You will get a data stream. Can't decrypt it, burst in my door? Well, unfortunately I was just sending/dev/urandom output to my buddy, trying to find out whether we're under surveillance. Thanks for confirming it.
That will work exactly once. If that. Afterwards, they'll simply use another way to communicate where eavesdropping is impossible due to it not being controlled by a single entity. If everything fails, use email encrypted by GPG means.
The same problem applies: You have a product that people want. Whether it sells depends on whether your competitor has a superior product. If he doesn't, you needn't either.
To write this here. Because I write it every single time some politician comes up with this bullshit.
There is no such thing as a "backdoor", a "secret key" or any other way to break encryption that only a nation or a group of nations will have. And you don't even have to be a computer geek to understand this. Simply politics explains it fully, no higher brain power necessary, so even politicians should be able to understand this.
1. This is the key to ALL secrets. Because if someone or something is exempt, the terrorists will use that kind of encryption, too. Because someone who plans to kill people and potentially himself doesn't give a fuck about petty laws like this. 2. This also means that all trade secrets of all corporations worldwide have to be vulnerable to this key.
Can you imagine how valuable this key is? Can you see corporations or even nations being interested in acquiring this key, no matter the money or force required?
Or, so even a prime minister can understand it: Everything, every access, you get that way, Iran and North Korea do, too.
I consider the claim that there exists an unobservable being or beings to be no more extraordinary than the claim that all belief systems are delusions, absent any knowledge on what the entire set of belief systems contains.
The claim of existence is actually the only claim here. Because the rejection of the claim (or as you'd label it, "the claim that it isn't") couldn't exist without someone first making the positive claim. I cannot claim that there is no Zrbtnik. Well, I can, but everyone would probably look at me and go "so?". For good reason. Not believing in something is basically where people start. Because you by definition cannot believe in something you never heard of. Only after you hear about it, you can decide that you either want to believe it or reject the claim and say "nope. Not buying it".
And a belief system is BY DEFINITION the absence of knowledge. Because you can either know or believe. Not both. Either you know. Then there is no room for believing. Or you believe. Then you cannot know, for if you knew you couldn't believe. That's by the way also the threat of any kind of religion that demands faith. Faith requires belief. If you KNOW (for whatever reason) there is heaven you cannot get there anymore because you can't believe it.
Ontologically - "no belief" is the same as "no knowledge", unless there is something specifically observable that ties your assertion to reality. That is why agnostics are called agnostics ("absent knowledge"). You have no observation that proves your claim that all belief systems are delusions. That is a positive assertion, and you can't justify it by empirical observation.
No belief is not the same as no knowledge. No knowledge still allows believing something, just as not believing something allows you to know. I also don't say that all belief systems are delusions. I only reject those that I know about, there might be a belief system out there that I might consider valid. I don't know. I just don't believe there is one.;)
Then why would we take your claims seriously? Why would we think your claims had scientific merit?
I'll assume that with "my claims" you mean the scientific theories put forward by various researchers around the globe, because that's what this part of our conversation is about. Why these should be taken serious is that they can be shown to be valid, they offer tests to the veracity of their claims, they can be tested and actually are. And what makes them really convincing is that they could very easily be refuted. A single counter example is enough to send legions of scientists back to the drawing board. The whole theory of evolution is turned upside down if you find a human skeleton mixed between dino fossils.
When nobody has it, neither do you. If everyone has it, so do you.
Old school MMOs had few, if any, quests, lots of grinding, horribly long travel times, insanely slow progression, really, really painful death penalties and no instanced pre-packaged content. But I dare you to make one like this today.
Ok, maybe I didn't write it clearly enough: Your contract is tied to this part. Replace the part, tell your carrier that your new part has this or that serial number, MAC address or whatever way it is identified and the old part ceases to work with your contract while the new part is what your contract is tied to now.
And yes, we will very likely not be able to replace capacitors and resistors but instead get to replace modules. Because even I, who happens to have the equipment to do it, don't really like replacing 0402 SMD parts.
Realize that if this flies and the US can force any US corporation to surrender their data, no matter where that data is stored on the planet, nobody in their sane mind would use a US company to store their data. Or process it.
MS has every good reason to fight this tooth and nail. And Amazon would have every reason to put money behind them. If the verdict goes in favor of the US government, pretty much any US cloud provider is dead in the water. Because then even US companies would rather store their data in, say, Iran than with an US company.
Because if they work, they would make your cellphone notice that it has rather weak reception. Question for 100: What does your cellphone do if it notices it has bad reception?
Why do you think those lower costs will result in lower prices? Cost and price has little to do with each other, the only thing cost determines is whether something gets produced and sold at all.
The price is determined by where the seller thinks the maximum profit is possible. Why should he lower that price just because his production costs drops?
Slashdot Mirror
This can quickly and easily change once people notice that there is nothing worth reading or listening to available online anymore...
Be honest: If all the "objectionable" and "potentially offensive" videos have been taken down from YouTube, what's left? Cute kitten vids are only funny so many hours a day.
With good reason. You have more and more people who would not shy away from trying their best to ruin your life just because you say something they don't agree with.
The threshold is what the laws of the country a server is in require. In Germany, you have a problem with "glorifying the Third Reich", in Thailand you better be wary what you say about their king. The nice thing about the internet is that if you don't agree with such laws, you can move your server abroad. And countries in turn can block access to content they deem illegal.
But that's the extent this can and should take. And I can only hope that governments are aware of the problem they create if they insist in putting a lid on certain speech. Hot air creates pressure. If that pressure cannot be vented, the pot will explode.
Because we learned that corporations are much like political parties: Killing the guy at the top doesn't accomplish jack shit. There's always someone willing to take the spot and usually he's worse. Look at the development at MS. You thought Bill is the antichrist. Mostly because you didn't know Ballmer back then.
And if we had known what that Indian bozo turns it into, we would have chanted "developers, developers, developers" with monkey boy.
So only white people can be racist?
You racist bastard! Black people can be anything white people can be, they are not unable to be anything just because they're black! Get over your white privilege!
Ok, now what's so special about German politics, did I miss something?
Nope. He was not a terrorist back then. He was just a bank robber, murderer and generally a criminal. He turned into a terrorist when he got to power.
Terrorism isn't limited in its use to the time when you're not in power. Terrorism is simply instilling fear, anxiety or dread in people to make them comply with your wishes.
That's what is missing here. Software that uploads your video simultaneously to all video platforms. If people have to do it manually, they will shy away from the trouble of getting it out onto all of them, but provide a service that allows them to push their videos to all the video content hosters at the same time and people will do it.
Pipe it through your own server to save them bandwidth and people will flock to that service immediately.
Great, so we're learning from the losers now?
If you let stupid people decide who gets to rule, they will elect their peers.
There is no "us" and "them". Because terrorists don't give a fuck about whether they are "allowed" to use a certain encryption. They will simply use it.
What is that you say, politician, you will notice when you can't decrypt it? No. You will not. You will get a data stream. Can't decrypt it, burst in my door? Well, unfortunately I was just sending /dev/urandom output to my buddy, trying to find out whether we're under surveillance. Thanks for confirming it.
But to maintain it, you can't hire chimps. In the long run, Windows gets cheaper that way.
Oh, for that purpose.
You think they are more pussies and assholes than dicks?
That will work exactly once. If that. Afterwards, they'll simply use another way to communicate where eavesdropping is impossible due to it not being controlled by a single entity. If everything fails, use email encrypted by GPG means.
I would sooner side with pedos than such a government.
Simply for logical reasons. I'm way over 18. No pedo in the world would be interested in doing me any harm. Such a government, on the other hand, ...
Really? Gimme a sec, I wanted to wash my hair anyway. Towels count, right?
The same problem applies: You have a product that people want. Whether it sells depends on whether your competitor has a superior product. If he doesn't, you needn't either.
Why? For leverage when you beat them with it?
To write this here. Because I write it every single time some politician comes up with this bullshit.
There is no such thing as a "backdoor", a "secret key" or any other way to break encryption that only a nation or a group of nations will have. And you don't even have to be a computer geek to understand this. Simply politics explains it fully, no higher brain power necessary, so even politicians should be able to understand this.
1. This is the key to ALL secrets. Because if someone or something is exempt, the terrorists will use that kind of encryption, too. Because someone who plans to kill people and potentially himself doesn't give a fuck about petty laws like this.
2. This also means that all trade secrets of all corporations worldwide have to be vulnerable to this key.
Can you imagine how valuable this key is? Can you see corporations or even nations being interested in acquiring this key, no matter the money or force required?
Or, so even a prime minister can understand it: Everything, every access, you get that way, Iran and North Korea do, too.
I consider the claim that there exists an unobservable being or beings to be no more extraordinary than the claim that all belief systems are delusions, absent any knowledge on what the entire set of belief systems contains.
The claim of existence is actually the only claim here. Because the rejection of the claim (or as you'd label it, "the claim that it isn't") couldn't exist without someone first making the positive claim. I cannot claim that there is no Zrbtnik. Well, I can, but everyone would probably look at me and go "so?". For good reason. Not believing in something is basically where people start. Because you by definition cannot believe in something you never heard of. Only after you hear about it, you can decide that you either want to believe it or reject the claim and say "nope. Not buying it".
And a belief system is BY DEFINITION the absence of knowledge. Because you can either know or believe. Not both. Either you know. Then there is no room for believing. Or you believe. Then you cannot know, for if you knew you couldn't believe. That's by the way also the threat of any kind of religion that demands faith. Faith requires belief. If you KNOW (for whatever reason) there is heaven you cannot get there anymore because you can't believe it.
Ontologically - "no belief" is the same as "no knowledge", unless there is something specifically observable that ties your assertion to reality. That is why agnostics are called agnostics ("absent knowledge"). You have no observation that proves your claim that all belief systems are delusions. That is a positive assertion, and you can't justify it by empirical observation.
No belief is not the same as no knowledge. No knowledge still allows believing something, just as not believing something allows you to know. I also don't say that all belief systems are delusions. I only reject those that I know about, there might be a belief system out there that I might consider valid. I don't know. I just don't believe there is one. ;)
Then why would we take your claims seriously? Why would we think your claims had scientific merit?
I'll assume that with "my claims" you mean the scientific theories put forward by various researchers around the globe, because that's what this part of our conversation is about. Why these should be taken serious is that they can be shown to be valid, they offer tests to the veracity of their claims, they can be tested and actually are. And what makes them really convincing is that they could very easily be refuted. A single counter example is enough to send legions of scientists back to the drawing board. The whole theory of evolution is turned upside down if you find a human skeleton mixed between dino fossils.
When nobody has it, neither do you. If everyone has it, so do you.
Old school MMOs had few, if any, quests, lots of grinding, horribly long travel times, insanely slow progression, really, really painful death penalties and no instanced pre-packaged content. But I dare you to make one like this today.
Ok, maybe I didn't write it clearly enough: Your contract is tied to this part. Replace the part, tell your carrier that your new part has this or that serial number, MAC address or whatever way it is identified and the old part ceases to work with your contract while the new part is what your contract is tied to now.
And yes, we will very likely not be able to replace capacitors and resistors but instead get to replace modules. Because even I, who happens to have the equipment to do it, don't really like replacing 0402 SMD parts.
Realize that if this flies and the US can force any US corporation to surrender their data, no matter where that data is stored on the planet, nobody in their sane mind would use a US company to store their data. Or process it.
MS has every good reason to fight this tooth and nail. And Amazon would have every reason to put money behind them. If the verdict goes in favor of the US government, pretty much any US cloud provider is dead in the water. Because then even US companies would rather store their data in, say, Iran than with an US company.
Why does the US government hate the US industry?
Hope they don't work.
Because if they work, they would make your cellphone notice that it has rather weak reception. Question for 100: What does your cellphone do if it notices it has bad reception?
Why do you think those lower costs will result in lower prices? Cost and price has little to do with each other, the only thing cost determines is whether something gets produced and sold at all.
The price is determined by where the seller thinks the maximum profit is possible. Why should he lower that price just because his production costs drops?