Can we drop the nonsense that TPP is a 'free trade agreement?' A free trade agreement would be very simple. Don't bomb us or torture our citizens, and you can trade freely with us. TPP undermines free trade by forcing countries into even further support of anti-capitalism legal monopolies as a condition for not restricting trade.
I was under the impression that this hypothetical scenario was one where the Soviet Union secretly still exists, Lenin comes back to life, and they attack out of nowhere.
Given the implications of a nuclear strike, the target would probably be something less able to be hardened than some insignificant asshole in a bunker. Also, I know this is crazy, but couldn't they just use a US-based GPS to bomb us?
Even if it did, it's almost always going to be horribly irresponsible to do that while helium is a limited resource. They should instead rely on doing real background checks and not relying on silver bullets to do their job for them.
Yes, labor is a limited resource. Labor is also something that is pretty easily controlled by the producer. So long as we are not in literal slavery, you or I can choose to labor or not labor on the creation of intangibles, and we can do this for our own purposes or commissioned by someone else to do so.
There are issues with just using 'intellectual property' as a catch-all term, because the dynamics ofcopyright, patents, trademark, and trade secrets are quite different. However, I would debate that copyright and patents are useful as a social construct, especially when couched in the 'property' metaphor. Property is a solution to the problem of limited resources, which doesn't exist with the intangible.
I'm a copyright abolitionist, so I agree that the ideal way to encourage authorship would be to abolish copyright. However, even working within the logic of those that support a pragmatic copyright system, there's very little incentive lost by shutting down these sites.
That's not sensible reasoning. The point of copyright is to encourage authorship. Someone else making money doesn't matter if it doesn't prevent the copyright holder from making money in any way, and there is no indication that these sites will reduce authorship of new works.
Can't be bothered to follow through, but for Hitler, the fact that he was an artist and a pirate (he drew Disney characters) mean that it's a pretty easy one with a bit of work. Smallpox is a pretty tough one, unless we roll with the fact that smallpox spreads p2p like a torrent.
And the goal of that goal was to improve national security. And the goal of the goal of the goal was to make America strong. And the goal of the... (vomits)Yeah, okay -- moving the goal posts through abstraction. Be a little creative in your dodge. You said it, it was taken at face value, and it was patently absurd and obvious to everyone except you. The end.
It's not a dodge. They have to keep up the appearance of being legitimate, and their only legitimate operation is all that national security boogeyman jazz. If there is no reasonable threat to national security nor any reason to believe there will be one in the near future, there is no legitimate need for a national security agency.
Nope. You totally did. Copied it word for word. You should add extra reverse gears... back pedaling this hard can't be easy.
No, word for word was "Saying that the purpose of the GCHQ or NSA is to spy outside the country is like saying that the purpose of the military is to shoot and bomb people. That's what a large portion of what they do entails, but if it is justified in existence, it's going to need a lot more discretionary than that." I said that they do bomb and shoot people and that it makes up a lot of what they do, but their purpose isn't as broad as just simply shooting and bombing people, and it involves a lot of other things. Likewise, the NSA does spy on foreigners, but their nominal goal is not be to spy on all foreigners all the time and spy on all domestic communications that have some portion available outside of the US, and they also engage in other operations, such as security research. I'm sorry if you lack basic reading comprehension.
Okay, so... two moving goal posts and for the two point conversion... a No True Scotsman. Sigh. The quality on this site lately...
I'm not moving the goalposts. The claim was about what their purpose was, not what they actually do.and why. It's not a No True Scotsman because there is without a doubt a difference between what the public justification for their existence is (SCARY BAD MEN ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL) and the actual reason for their existence (Boeing's CEO needs a bigger yacht). The point of my argument was to point out that they are clearly falling outside of the zone of their operations being plausibly legitimate. While we all know the game, cold fjord seems to be forgetting that we all have to dance around the truth when it comes to what spooks do because it isn't something we can justify while still feeling like decent people.
And yet the goal from that executive order boils down to gathering information to protect us against national security threats. That's the reason that these organizations exist, at least that's what they have to claim to the public and international community.
Re:military. I didn't say their purpose was not to shoot and bomb people, but rather, that they have to exercise discretion in doing so. If the US military shot and bombed the same people the NSA spied on, the military would get shut down very quickly.
Re:naivety, I know what the spooks ACTUALLY do and why they do it, but that is different from how they have to sell themselves. It's hard to argue for the military industrial complex, paranoid megalomania, industrial espionage, and the undermining of the sovereignty of countries whose policies are contrary to the economic interests of the plutocracy. But protecting us from the communists, err, I mean terrorists, is fairly easy to sell.
Saying that the purpose of the GCHQ or NSA is to spy outside the country is like saying that the purpose of the military is to shoot and bomb people. That's what a large portion of what they do entails, but if it is justified in existence, it's going to need a lot more discretionary than that.
Symbian wasn't a really competitive smartphone OS, but it had a lot of market share and a good transition path towards Maemo/Meego with Qt, which would have been a strong alternative.
There is generally nothing malicious in computer programming. TSA does nothing useful, inhibits travel, and routinely engages in molestation. The solution would be to drop or at least reduce the security theater, not to dial it up to 11. I'm sure that not all TSA agents are bad, but if they don't want to be lumped in with them, they need to actively search for abuse and actually punish it.
That's a pretty hard sell. They're white, they don't have natural resources, and they are known for neutrality. In fact, that's one of the reasons that nobody tries to fuck with Switzerland. The value of having a neutral territory far outweighs the value of pursuing a particular agenda.
How are you seeing not being able to develop 'cyberweapons' as crippling their telecommunications infrastructure? You can't put a 'CyberSCUD' next to your router to 'preemptively strike' intruders. You secure your telecom infrastructure by securing your telecom infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we drop the nonsense that TPP is a 'free trade agreement?' A free trade agreement would be very simple. Don't bomb us or torture our citizens, and you can trade freely with us. TPP undermines free trade by forcing countries into even further support of anti-capitalism legal monopolies as a condition for not restricting trade.
I was under the impression that this hypothetical scenario was one where the Soviet Union secretly still exists, Lenin comes back to life, and they attack out of nowhere.
Given the implications of a nuclear strike, the target would probably be something less able to be hardened than some insignificant asshole in a bunker. Also, I know this is crazy, but couldn't they just use a US-based GPS to bomb us?
Or it might just say something about Facebook and Snapchat's executives have no idea what anything is actually worth.
Unfortunately, that's not how patents work. You can be operating a business and someone with patents can sue the crap out of you.
Even if it did, it's almost always going to be horribly irresponsible to do that while helium is a limited resource. They should instead rely on doing real background checks and not relying on silver bullets to do their job for them.
Yes, labor is a limited resource. Labor is also something that is pretty easily controlled by the producer. So long as we are not in literal slavery, you or I can choose to labor or not labor on the creation of intangibles, and we can do this for our own purposes or commissioned by someone else to do so.
There are issues with just using 'intellectual property' as a catch-all term, because the dynamics ofcopyright, patents, trademark, and trade secrets are quite different. However, I would debate that copyright and patents are useful as a social construct, especially when couched in the 'property' metaphor. Property is a solution to the problem of limited resources, which doesn't exist with the intangible.
I'm a copyright abolitionist, so I agree that the ideal way to encourage authorship would be to abolish copyright. However, even working within the logic of those that support a pragmatic copyright system, there's very little incentive lost by shutting down these sites.
There's no market in selling lyrics to end users. The price end users are willing to pay to get lyrics is the mild inconvenience of ads.
That's not sensible reasoning. The point of copyright is to encourage authorship. Someone else making money doesn't matter if it doesn't prevent the copyright holder from making money in any way, and there is no indication that these sites will reduce authorship of new works.
Can't be bothered to follow through, but for Hitler, the fact that he was an artist and a pirate (he drew Disney characters) mean that it's a pretty easy one with a bit of work. Smallpox is a pretty tough one, unless we roll with the fact that smallpox spreads p2p like a torrent.
It's not a dodge. They have to keep up the appearance of being legitimate, and their only legitimate operation is all that national security boogeyman jazz. If there is no reasonable threat to national security nor any reason to believe there will be one in the near future, there is no legitimate need for a national security agency.
No, word for word was "Saying that the purpose of the GCHQ or NSA is to spy outside the country is like saying that the purpose of the military is to shoot and bomb people. That's what a large portion of what they do entails, but if it is justified in existence, it's going to need a lot more discretionary than that." I said that they do bomb and shoot people and that it makes up a lot of what they do, but their purpose isn't as broad as just simply shooting and bombing people, and it involves a lot of other things. Likewise, the NSA does spy on foreigners, but their nominal goal is not be to spy on all foreigners all the time and spy on all domestic communications that have some portion available outside of the US, and they also engage in other operations, such as security research. I'm sorry if you lack basic reading comprehension.
I'm not moving the goalposts. The claim was about what their purpose was, not what they actually do.and why. It's not a No True Scotsman because there is without a doubt a difference between what the public justification for their existence is (SCARY BAD MEN ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL) and the actual reason for their existence (Boeing's CEO needs a bigger yacht). The point of my argument was to point out that they are clearly falling outside of the zone of their operations being plausibly legitimate. While we all know the game, cold fjord seems to be forgetting that we all have to dance around the truth when it comes to what spooks do because it isn't something we can justify while still feeling like decent people.
And yet the goal from that executive order boils down to gathering information to protect us against national security threats. That's the reason that these organizations exist, at least that's what they have to claim to the public and international community.
Re:military. I didn't say their purpose was not to shoot and bomb people, but rather, that they have to exercise discretion in doing so. If the US military shot and bombed the same people the NSA spied on, the military would get shut down very quickly.
Re:naivety, I know what the spooks ACTUALLY do and why they do it, but that is different from how they have to sell themselves. It's hard to argue for the military industrial complex, paranoid megalomania, industrial espionage, and the undermining of the sovereignty of countries whose policies are contrary to the economic interests of the plutocracy. But protecting us from the communists, err, I mean terrorists, is fairly easy to sell.
Saying that the purpose of the GCHQ or NSA is to spy outside the country is like saying that the purpose of the military is to shoot and bomb people. That's what a large portion of what they do entails, but if it is justified in existence, it's going to need a lot more discretionary than that.
Symbian wasn't a really competitive smartphone OS, but it had a lot of market share and a good transition path towards Maemo/Meego with Qt, which would have been a strong alternative.
Sorry, but if you want a robot maid from Japan, it's going to be a sex bot.
There is generally nothing malicious in computer programming. TSA does nothing useful, inhibits travel, and routinely engages in molestation. The solution would be to drop or at least reduce the security theater, not to dial it up to 11. I'm sure that not all TSA agents are bad, but if they don't want to be lumped in with them, they need to actively search for abuse and actually punish it.
Science published the article on his clearly unsound research, which provides some data on for-profit journals as well.
That's a pretty hard sell. They're white, they don't have natural resources, and they are known for neutrality. In fact, that's one of the reasons that nobody tries to fuck with Switzerland. The value of having a neutral territory far outweighs the value of pursuing a particular agenda.
You are delusional. The majority of any group of people is going to be idiots.
Yes, but you get government benefits and a license to grope. The latter part being the real incentive for them.
Beause they are a superstitutious and cowardly lot.
No, agents of the state are often incompetent. They also have the means to use force without reprimand, which enables the incompetent to get further.
How are you seeing not being able to develop 'cyberweapons' as crippling their telecommunications infrastructure? You can't put a 'CyberSCUD' next to your router to 'preemptively strike' intruders. You secure your telecom infrastructure by securing your telecom infrastructure.