I don't think the technology itself is bad, but I also believe anyone with a brain knows it's going to be misused, and that's probably what people are afraid of.
In other words, I'm right and you just don't want to say so.:)
Not quite.
Be very careful what you wish you, you might just get it.
Not being the world police? I can live with that.
The problem is, no argument will convince you, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.
Probably not, because it's a subjective issue to begin with, since it deals with what 'should' be done, and I'm ideologically opposed to this world police business.
Most Americans, prior to Dec 7th, 1941, believed and spoke as you do
And until they were given actual proof that an attack happened (which it did, obviously) or that they will be attacked (likely, given the actions of the enemy), I'd say they were right in thinking that.
I believe you're suffering from it
Being the world police has its own problems and can lead to demise.
It's not that I'm shortsighted. I don't know how many times I've said this, but I oppose this knowing all of the 'risks' you put forward. I simply care more about freedom and ideals than safety.
If you look at the history of the world, going back 2 thousand years... Someone has policed the world...
That's nice.
Then they'll start telling us what to do.
And then it'll be our problem. Remember when I said that security rarely factors into the equation for me? Well, the fact that someone, at some point, might decide to try to police the world, doesn't mean I think we should police the world. Such arguments won't convince me.
I say the history of the world is proof enough.
"history" isn't good enough for me when you're trying to decide whether or not to attack a specific country.
It is unlikely anyone could ever meet your standard of proof
You already know of one instance where my standard of proof was met.
It would lead to an increased likelihood that someone would use them against us some day, for the same reason's that Israel would give.
"Someone may attack us at some unspecified point in the future if we don't police the world" isn't exactly convincing to me, especially if it cannot be proven that it will happen with a notoriously high likelihood.
If you think Israel's use of nuclear weapons is "their problem", then you perhaps you don't understand the situation.
No, I do. It's just that my desire to get rid of the US government's tendency to police the world is more powerful than my desire for safety. It's like how I would oppose the TSA even if it worked; safety (economical or otherwise) rarely comes into the picture for me.
We didn't get to where we are by having fools run our country.
They qualify as power-hungry, immoral fools to me. And it may be that our leaders were slightly less incompetent than the competition, not necessarily that they weren't incompetent at all.
The only option they really have is to use nuclear weapons.
Their problem, as far as I'm concerned.
We are not evil, we simply don't want people who are against our interests to have nuclear weapons.
And I've determined that it's not in my interests for my government to try to police the world. Unfortunately, the US government either doesn't care what the people think, many imbeciles support this garbage, or both. There is no "we" here.
They were an evil that would have kept spreading until they became unstoppable.
I think it was very likely that they would have attacked just about everyone at some point, if they were given the opportunity. I'd call that a war of defense. Actual defense.
Regarding Iran, I don't really care what they do, so long as they don't keep threatening Israel every 5 minutes.
I only care if they attack the US, or try to. Israel can try to defend themselves if they want.
It really is that simple.
Not for me; morals enter into it, and I don't think the government should try to police the world.
People don't know how to compromise and meet in the middle for the good of humanity.
I do not compromise away rights I believe to be fundamental. I do not compromise on the TSA. I do not compromise on many things if I believe them to violate people's rights. It's called having principles.
Copyright is a good thing
There is no proof of that that I know of. Can you do anything beyond speculate when considering what our society would look like without copyright? I seriously doubt it.
Oh look, someone who has never created anything wants everything for free...
You seem to be assuming that everyone who has "created" something must agree with you, and that anyone who doesn't is not a 'creator' and is simply entitled. What about the entitlement of expecting government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon private property rights and freedom of speech/expression, as well as create artificial scarcity? Find your own business model.
I would disagree that the terms are even remotely useful; they're usually just used as flamebait, as propaganda, or to confuse the ignorant about what is actually happening (which probably falls under propaganda in most cases).
Time, money, and labour are all spent on the development of more knowledge.
Yes. Money that they voluntarily chose to spend. They don't get government-enforced monopolies over ideas just because they can't figure out a working business model, or at least, I don't believe they should get such a thing.
So by preventing anyone from reasonably exploiting the knowledge they have created/found, where is the incentive to continue advancing knowledge?
That's no one's problem but the people who are trying to figure out how to make money from the ideas.
Intellectual property is a useful social construct.
There's also zero proof that it's beneficial to begin with, and yet we get stuck with laws that infringe upon people's freedoms. Actually, the mere fact that it infringes upon people's freedoms (freedom of speech/expression and private property rights) would make me oppose it even if it could be proven to be beneficial, but it hasn't been.
I don't think many judges would be surprised to see someone spewing forth (what is presumably perceived by you as) nonsense with a straight face; they do it all the time.
How many times do people have to make this clear? I don't see the point of doing that. Is the 'for the children' crowd that terrifying to people who are posting over the Internet?
The Earth may have been considered flat at one point by certain people, and that may have been "common sense" to them; common sense is often not as common as you may think, and it's also often nonsensical. The fact that you claim that something is "common sense" means absolutely nothing and is 100% irrelevant.
60+ years of pr0n research.
That research sounds extremely high quality. You can find studies to validate just about any opinion you have; it means little unless the studies are, you know, scientifically accurate.
I don't either, unless the results are pretty consistent across different polls by different organizations.
Well, it all really comes down to whether or not these organizations poll in such a way that it's representative of most of the population and ask questions in a neutral manner; if they don't, then it matters far less to me that they come up with similar results. The degree in which people support or oppose these policies and laws also matters to me. How many people would support/stop caring about this sort of nonsense if it was changed only slightly, even perhaps in ineffective ways?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the US Constitution makes it a right in the US.
Perhaps it does call it that, but it doesn't even come close to resembling any other right; they lose the privilege after a certain amount of time, and it's more of a restriction on the majority than it is anything else.
People seem to think that what we have now is capitalism.
When people don't like something, they seem to assume that it's whatever they don't like (capitalistic/socialistic/communistic), even if their assertions make absolutely zero sense. I think many people just don't know what communism, capitalism, or socialism actually are.
Polls say that indeed, pretty consistently, most Americans are: against most foreign military intervention, against surveillance by government, against increasing militarization of law enforcement, against drone strikes, against the TSA, against the "War on Drugs" and at least most of the "War on Terror"... in fact, against pretty much EVERYTHING the government has tried to sell us via scare tactics.
Depends on the poll. And frankly, I don't really trust any polls of this type (no matter what the results are) to begin with.
Your assertion that "most seem rather apathetic" is actually more proof that the government is behind it, not "The People":
In cases of war, maybe. Apathy is certainly not helping.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a bad thing?
I don't think the technology itself is bad, but I also believe anyone with a brain knows it's going to be misused, and that's probably what people are afraid of.
In other words, I'm right and you just don't want to say so. :)
Not quite.
Be very careful what you wish you, you might just get it.
Not being the world police? I can live with that.
The problem is, no argument will convince you, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.
Probably not, because it's a subjective issue to begin with, since it deals with what 'should' be done, and I'm ideologically opposed to this world police business.
Most Americans, prior to Dec 7th, 1941, believed and spoke as you do
And until they were given actual proof that an attack happened (which it did, obviously) or that they will be attacked (likely, given the actions of the enemy), I'd say they were right in thinking that.
I believe you're suffering from it
Being the world police has its own problems and can lead to demise.
It's not that I'm shortsighted. I don't know how many times I've said this, but I oppose this knowing all of the 'risks' you put forward. I simply care more about freedom and ideals than safety.
If you look at the history of the world, going back 2 thousand years...
Someone has policed the world...
That's nice.
Then they'll start telling us what to do.
And then it'll be our problem. Remember when I said that security rarely factors into the equation for me? Well, the fact that someone, at some point, might decide to try to police the world, doesn't mean I think we should police the world. Such arguments won't convince me.
I say the history of the world is proof enough.
"history" isn't good enough for me when you're trying to decide whether or not to attack a specific country.
It is unlikely anyone could ever meet your standard of proof
You already know of one instance where my standard of proof was met.
It would lead to an increased likelihood that someone would use them against us some day, for the same reason's that Israel would give.
"Someone may attack us at some unspecified point in the future if we don't police the world" isn't exactly convincing to me, especially if it cannot be proven that it will happen with a notoriously high likelihood.
If you think Israel's use of nuclear weapons is "their problem", then you perhaps you don't understand the situation.
No, I do. It's just that my desire to get rid of the US government's tendency to police the world is more powerful than my desire for safety. It's like how I would oppose the TSA even if it worked; safety (economical or otherwise) rarely comes into the picture for me.
We didn't get to where we are by having fools run our country.
They qualify as power-hungry, immoral fools to me. And it may be that our leaders were slightly less incompetent than the competition, not necessarily that they weren't incompetent at all.
2. They only sue if you violate any kind of license or infringe on their intellectual property.
They may sue if they believe you are doing such things; that doesn't necessarily mean you are actually doing so.
Until then, no one has to listen.
I didn't say they did.
The only option they really have is to use nuclear weapons.
Their problem, as far as I'm concerned.
We are not evil, we simply don't want people who are against our interests to have nuclear weapons.
And I've determined that it's not in my interests for my government to try to police the world. Unfortunately, the US government either doesn't care what the people think, many imbeciles support this garbage, or both. There is no "we" here.
They were an evil that would have kept spreading until they became unstoppable.
I think it was very likely that they would have attacked just about everyone at some point, if they were given the opportunity. I'd call that a war of defense. Actual defense.
Regarding Iran, I don't really care what they do, so long as they don't keep threatening Israel every 5 minutes.
I only care if they attack the US, or try to. Israel can try to defend themselves if they want.
It really is that simple.
Not for me; morals enter into it, and I don't think the government should try to police the world.
Just keep in mind that to completely refuse to compromise puts you at risk of war
Well, sometimes. It really depends on the subject.
Look at the USA and Iran, if we can't both find a way to meet in the middle over their nuclear program, it will end in war.
None of which would be a problem if my government just stopped trying to police the world.
People don't know how to compromise and meet in the middle for the good of humanity.
I do not compromise away rights I believe to be fundamental. I do not compromise on the TSA. I do not compromise on many things if I believe them to violate people's rights. It's called having principles.
Copyright is a good thing
There is no proof of that that I know of. Can you do anything beyond speculate when considering what our society would look like without copyright? I seriously doubt it.
Oh look, someone who has never created anything wants everything for free...
You seem to be assuming that everyone who has "created" something must agree with you, and that anyone who doesn't is not a 'creator' and is simply entitled. What about the entitlement of expecting government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon private property rights and freedom of speech/expression, as well as create artificial scarcity? Find your own business model.
I would disagree that the terms are even remotely useful; they're usually just used as flamebait, as propaganda, or to confuse the ignorant about what is actually happening (which probably falls under propaganda in most cases).
Time, money, and labour are all spent on the development of more knowledge.
Yes. Money that they voluntarily chose to spend. They don't get government-enforced monopolies over ideas just because they can't figure out a working business model, or at least, I don't believe they should get such a thing.
So by preventing anyone from reasonably exploiting the knowledge they have created/found, where is the incentive to continue advancing knowledge?
That's no one's problem but the people who are trying to figure out how to make money from the ideas.
Intellectual property is a useful social construct.
There's also zero proof that it's beneficial to begin with, and yet we get stuck with laws that infringe upon people's freedoms. Actually, the mere fact that it infringes upon people's freedoms (freedom of speech/expression and private property rights) would make me oppose it even if it could be proven to be beneficial, but it hasn't been.
I don't think many judges would be surprised to see someone spewing forth (what is presumably perceived by you as) nonsense with a straight face; they do it all the time.
I'm not supporting the pedos here
How many times do people have to make this clear? I don't see the point of doing that. Is the 'for the children' crowd that terrifying to people who are posting over the Internet?
I have trouble believing this garbage one way or the other. It's usually either based on subjective criteria or hasn't even been reproduced.
Use of the porn leads will lead to an actual victim at some point if the porn user lives long enough and gets the opportunity.
I can spew forth unprovable, nonsensical statements, too. Must I?
It goes against common sense
The Earth may have been considered flat at one point by certain people, and that may have been "common sense" to them; common sense is often not as common as you may think, and it's also often nonsensical. The fact that you claim that something is "common sense" means absolutely nothing and is 100% irrelevant.
60+ years of pr0n research.
That research sounds extremely high quality. You can find studies to validate just about any opinion you have; it means little unless the studies are, you know, scientifically accurate.
Probably obvious, but I posted that.
I don't either, unless the results are pretty consistent across different polls by different organizations.
Well, it all really comes down to whether or not these organizations poll in such a way that it's representative of most of the population and ask questions in a neutral manner; if they don't, then it matters far less to me that they come up with similar results. The degree in which people support or oppose these policies and laws also matters to me. How many people would support/stop caring about this sort of nonsense if it was changed only slightly, even perhaps in ineffective ways?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the US Constitution makes it a right in the US.
Perhaps it does call it that, but it doesn't even come close to resembling any other right; they lose the privilege after a certain amount of time, and it's more of a restriction on the majority than it is anything else.
Ah, but open source software relies on the very same copyright laws to exist.
No, it doesn't. All it relies on is the source being open. Copyright or no copyright, people could choose to distribute the source code.
People seem to think that what we have now is capitalism.
When people don't like something, they seem to assume that it's whatever they don't like (capitalistic/socialistic/communistic), even if their assertions make absolutely zero sense. I think many people just don't know what communism, capitalism, or socialism actually are.
Polls say that indeed, pretty consistently, most Americans are: against most foreign military intervention, against surveillance by government, against increasing militarization of law enforcement, against drone strikes, against the TSA, against the "War on Drugs" and at least most of the "War on Terror"... in fact, against pretty much EVERYTHING the government has tried to sell us via scare tactics.
Depends on the poll. And frankly, I don't really trust any polls of this type (no matter what the results are) to begin with.
Your assertion that "most seem rather apathetic" is actually more proof that the government is behind it, not "The People":
In cases of war, maybe. Apathy is certainly not helping.