I could turn that around and say that I believe you to be unprincipled for desiring privacy that strongly.
You could, but I would say that anyone who would say such a thing should probably isolate themselves from the rest of the world; can't have them ruining countries with their nonsense.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, I would not expect safety to be even close to a prime concern, and especially so when fundamental liberties and privacy are at stake.
The real world is a giant balancing game: if you lean all the way to one side you'll fall over.
I'd say that's utterly false. Extremes are not always wrong, and something being 'extreme' (which is subjective) does not even mean it is likely to be wrong, as most issues are subjective. I don't know if that's what you were trying to get at, but if not, then I have no idea what message you were trying to convey.
At this point your argument has become circular - assuming the proposition without proof.
What, you mean like what you've been doing the entire time? I simply stated my opinion; that is not circular.
It doesn't help that you keep resorting to the strawman of black and white reasoning either ("completely without brains" and "magical brainwashing rays").
Not so much a straw man as it is me not understanding your vague nonsense. When people mention nonsense about "role models" and how porn is somehow harmful, I can do little else but mock them.
I don't think it's an over-simplification at all. As I said, I do not find porn to be harmful in the least.
I would say that violent content does not necessarily make kids violent (note the difference between violent and aggressive) because there are tons of other role models for kids to learn from who do not interact violently
I don't think that's why.
But for sex, porn dominates the landscape of role models.
And? Look, I think most people are unintelligent, but I don't think they're completely without brains. Yes, even children.
That's like saying that if you say that people can get good ideas from television shows, you must also believe that violent content makes people more aggressive. Nonsense. If you believe that people can 'intelligently' decide what to take away from these shows, that bit of nonsense falls right apart.
But they're not mindless. I think people often make the mistake of thinking that children are mindless little objects.
I think you are exceptionally naive to believe that a "5 second talk" could undo the kind of subconscious effect that watching porn over an extended period of time would have absent realistic sexual role models.
I don't believe that to be naive at all. I just don't believe in magical brainwashing waves, or anything such as that. I don't think porn is harmful at all.
You're just rambling now. This is not coherent. And your inability to talk about the government without saying "government thugs" just makes you look like a paranoid nutcase, in addition to looking like an autistic teenager.
And you're just a naive government cheerleader. Every government throughout history abused its powers in horrendous ways, and furthermore, the fact that we even limit what powers our governments have indicates that we believe they can't be trusted with certain powers. Why? They're corruptible humans. I have every reason to refer to them as "government thugs"; I believe distrust of government is a good thing.
No-one wants religious sites blocked. There is no demand for it.
So if people wanted religion censored, that would be okay? I can't say I agree with that. It is highly probable that many of the people who want this censorship would be angry if religious websites were to be censored, and that is because they only want things they don't like to be censored; when someone suggests censoring something they don't like, suddenly censorship is a problem.
You are in a tiny lunatic fringe, possibly its only member, for considering religion comparable to pornography.
Personally, I'd say pornography is harmless and religion can ruin lives, but that's not the point. The problem is that you missed my point completely.
It's amusing that you imagine there is anyone in the entire world apart from yourself who gives a damn about your opinion of who is intelligent.
It's amusing that you think I care about popularity, and that you even have to mention it.
The completely voluntary filter that lets people choose whether to turn on or not, that government consumer protection authorities insisted ISP's provide, and is provided at no additional cost.
If it's on by default, then it's restricting access to certain sites on the open Internet, which is open by default. I can't get behind such blatant censorship, no matter what you say. I don't think government thugs should even have a say in this to begin with.
And you never even answered my question. What would the problem be with censoring religious websites like they're doing to porn sites? The filter would be 100% "voluntary"; maybe it would be on by default, but you could opt out of it. What's the issue? And don't just say that people don't want those censored; that's not an answer.
The real question is: Why should the government be able to mandate that certain content be censored by default just because some people don't like it? Why not other content too? This is completely subjective.
You've got a bloody cheek calling other people irrational.
These anti-porn crusaders are, in fact, completely unintelligent.
The filter. The very thing that government thugs told ISPs to enable so that certain websites that irrational pieces of trash don't like would be censored.
Censorship being on by default to block certain content that irrational people don't like is not something I'd expect in any free country, that's what.
Because normal people don't mind religion and do mind hardcore pornography.
By "normal", you must mean "irrational". The only reason you've given is, "Some people don't like porn, but they don't mind religion, so this censorship is okay." I simply don't find that convincing.
If you want to filter out religious sites on your home network that is entirely within your power and no-one will stop you.
Here's the thing people don't get about Snowden: He's not a revolutionary, or a hero. He's a coward.
Just like how if I don't jump off a building, I'm a coward. Not everyone wants or needs to be a martyr, and it just isn't necessary in this situation. We have a lot of information, and we will either choose to act on it or we won't; Snowden does not need to become a martyr.
Don't be so stupid. The filters are completely voluntary
And on by default. But if they're completely voluntary, why not ban religious sites? If people want to be indoctrinated, they can simply opt out of the filter! No big deal, really!
Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex.
Regardless of whether or not they watch porn. Furthermore, I highly, highly doubt that most people (even kids) aren't capable of distinguishing between reality and porn. But even if someone isn't capable of doing that, a five second talk would likely suffice; censorship will never be an acceptable solution to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, because that's exactly the kind of thing I'd say about your unprincipled desire of freedom.
Then move to North Korea or something.
I started trying to critique the rest of your comment, but you're too far away from sanity for me to even get close.
I could turn that around and say that I believe you to be unprincipled for desiring privacy that strongly.
You could, but I would say that anyone who would say such a thing should probably isolate themselves from the rest of the world; can't have them ruining countries with their nonsense.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, I would not expect safety to be even close to a prime concern, and especially so when fundamental liberties and privacy are at stake.
The real world is a giant balancing game: if you lean all the way to one side you'll fall over.
I'd say that's utterly false. Extremes are not always wrong, and something being 'extreme' (which is subjective) does not even mean it is likely to be wrong, as most issues are subjective. I don't know if that's what you were trying to get at, but if not, then I have no idea what message you were trying to convey.
They aren't recording YOUR movements
You can try to pretend they aren't, but I don't buy it.
licensed piece of equipment on roadways built and maintained using public funds.
All irrelevancies.
Well, SirGarlon's post above already summed up how I feel about all this.
There is no expectation of privacy when driving a vehicle on public roads.
I fully expect that governments not record my movements with cameras in public places.
Operating a vehicle (at least in the US) is heavily regulated, requiring registration of the vehicle, insurance, and licensed operators.
Irrelevant.
At this point your argument has become circular - assuming the proposition without proof.
What, you mean like what you've been doing the entire time? I simply stated my opinion; that is not circular.
It doesn't help that you keep resorting to the strawman of black and white reasoning either ("completely without brains" and "magical brainwashing rays").
Not so much a straw man as it is me not understanding your vague nonsense. When people mention nonsense about "role models" and how porn is somehow harmful, I can do little else but mock them.
I think your over-simplification is harmful.
I don't think it's an over-simplification at all. As I said, I do not find porn to be harmful in the least.
I would say that violent content does not necessarily make kids violent (note the difference between violent and aggressive) because there are tons of other role models for kids to learn from who do not interact violently
I don't think that's why.
But for sex, porn dominates the landscape of role models.
And? Look, I think most people are unintelligent, but I don't think they're completely without brains. Yes, even children.
That's like saying that if you say that people can get good ideas from television shows, you must also believe that violent content makes people more aggressive. Nonsense. If you believe that people can 'intelligently' decide what to take away from these shows, that bit of nonsense falls right apart.
Kids learn by watching and doing.
But they're not mindless. I think people often make the mistake of thinking that children are mindless little objects.
I think you are exceptionally naive to believe that a "5 second talk" could undo the kind of subconscious effect that watching porn over an extended period of time would have absent realistic sexual role models.
I don't believe that to be naive at all. I just don't believe in magical brainwashing waves, or anything such as that. I don't think porn is harmful at all.
You're just rambling now. This is not coherent. And your inability to talk about the government without saying "government thugs" just makes you look like a paranoid nutcase, in addition to looking like an autistic teenager.
And you're just a naive government cheerleader. Every government throughout history abused its powers in horrendous ways, and furthermore, the fact that we even limit what powers our governments have indicates that we believe they can't be trusted with certain powers. Why? They're corruptible humans. I have every reason to refer to them as "government thugs"; I believe distrust of government is a good thing.
No-one wants religious sites blocked. There is no demand for it.
So if people wanted religion censored, that would be okay? I can't say I agree with that. It is highly probable that many of the people who want this censorship would be angry if religious websites were to be censored, and that is because they only want things they don't like to be censored; when someone suggests censoring something they don't like, suddenly censorship is a problem.
You are in a tiny lunatic fringe, possibly its only member, for considering religion comparable to pornography.
Personally, I'd say pornography is harmless and religion can ruin lives, but that's not the point. The problem is that you missed my point completely.
It's amusing that you imagine there is anyone in the entire world apart from yourself who gives a damn about your opinion of who is intelligent.
It's amusing that you think I care about popularity, and that you even have to mention it.
The completely voluntary filter that lets people choose whether to turn on or not, that government consumer protection authorities insisted ISP's provide, and is provided at no additional cost.
If it's on by default, then it's restricting access to certain sites on the open Internet, which is open by default. I can't get behind such blatant censorship, no matter what you say. I don't think government thugs should even have a say in this to begin with.
And you never even answered my question. What would the problem be with censoring religious websites like they're doing to porn sites? The filter would be 100% "voluntary"; maybe it would be on by default, but you could opt out of it. What's the issue? And don't just say that people don't want those censored; that's not an answer.
The real question is: Why should the government be able to mandate that certain content be censored by default just because some people don't like it? Why not other content too? This is completely subjective.
You've got a bloody cheek calling other people irrational.
These anti-porn crusaders are, in fact, completely unintelligent.
The filter. The very thing that government thugs told ISPs to enable so that certain websites that irrational pieces of trash don't like would be censored.
Well, since you didn't respond to anything else I said...
Being opposed to censorship is different from being a teenager, a porn addict, or having Asperger's syndrome.
So what?
Censorship being on by default to block certain content that irrational people don't like is not something I'd expect in any free country, that's what.
Because normal people don't mind religion and do mind hardcore pornography.
By "normal", you must mean "irrational". The only reason you've given is, "Some people don't like porn, but they don't mind religion, so this censorship is okay." I simply don't find that convincing.
If you want to filter out religious sites on your home network that is entirely within your power and no-one will stop you.
If you want to filter out porn, do it yourself.
How will that privately held system be described?
Does it matter? I see the mere collection of this metadata as an abuse.
Here's the thing people don't get about Snowden: He's not a revolutionary, or a hero. He's a coward.
Just like how if I don't jump off a building, I'm a coward. Not everyone wants or needs to be a martyr, and it just isn't necessary in this situation. We have a lot of information, and we will either choose to act on it or we won't; Snowden does not need to become a martyr.
Don't be so stupid. The filters are completely voluntary
And on by default. But if they're completely voluntary, why not ban religious sites? If people want to be indoctrinated, they can simply opt out of the filter! No big deal, really!
And when you have a government that's using censorship as a solution, I believe your government is insane and unjust.
The violence in our culture is the real problem.
I don't think that's a problem, either.
Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex.
Regardless of whether or not they watch porn. Furthermore, I highly, highly doubt that most people (even kids) aren't capable of distinguishing between reality and porn. But even if someone isn't capable of doing that, a five second talk would likely suffice; censorship will never be an acceptable solution to me.
It takes a mighty tough person to realize when their orders are evil.
Not in this case, I think.
No purpose? Just like the NSA has no purpose? The government's sense of purpose and our sense of purpose are quite different, I think.
at a huge cost timewise and financially to them.
At a huge cost to the taxpayers.
That's pretty convenient for them. They can get off on all sorts of technicalities!
54 in three years in USA is "rare"?
I would say so, yes.
and police presence could help cut down other crimes too.
You may have not noticed this, but safety is far from my prime concern. I would see this as a complete waste of money.
Without copyright, companies couldn't sue you for such things, either. But all of this is irrelevant to me, as I don't care about the GPL.