The fact is that speech that would create a clear and present danger to other people is not protected by law.
Oh, I see. My point was that it doesn't matter because the constitution explicitly guarantees absolute free speech.
Also, speech doesn't present any danger. Actions do. If people are idiotic enough to believe everything someone tells them, then that's their own fault.
But even though free speech is in the Constitution, without giving any exceptions, there are exceptions
Because the government now treats the constitution as if it is nothing. "This is inconvenient. Let's just 'interpret' this part away and create exceptions that were never there."
Tell that to the Supreme Court that made this decision. Oh... that's right... you obviously don't know about that decision. Maybe it's time you learned. You have internet, don't you? Or a library. Look it up.
I don't understand. Where did I ever say that we have absolute free speech? My comments up until now have stated that the constitution states that we do, not that the government that ignores the constitution states that we do. I'm well aware of our government's corruption, so of course I know they ignore the constitution and create nonexistent exceptions to it.
you are arguing from ignorance
No, you just failed to realize what I was trying to say. I suppose I did the same thing, but there it is.
Running from car to car for an eight or ten hour shift is hardly "zero effort".
I was speaking of a multitude of useless jobs, not just that one. No, this requires effort, but it's useless and unimaginative. People could do this in a few seconds by themselves.
Let's face it, there are a large number of people who have essentially zero knowledge
So, we should get rid of all cashier positions, since people can simply check themselves out.
Sure. If people could be trusted, that is.
Let's get rid of restaurants and cook positions because anyone can cook for themselves.
Many people don't have time for such things, and doing this does take time and effort (which I mentioned was an exception). Basically I meant that we don't need useless jobs that could easily be taken over by a machine or be done in two seconds by yourself. This entire "we need more jobs at the cost of actual innovation" fad is incredibly wasteful. If you need more jobs, make them useful to society as a whole (and not just money-wise).
You missed my point entirely. I said that if what you say is true (there is free speech, but it has consequences due to the fact that the constitution didn't mention otherwise) then the government could limit any speech it pleases and just claim that the constitution doesn't mention free speech without consequences. But I would think that most people would know that "free speech" implies no consequences. Do you see what I mean now?
And no, the Constitution does not mention your right to own property. That was my point.
You missed my point here as well. I never said that something not in the constitution is a right, just that the government can't go against the constitution. Free speech is in the constitution without exception, but property rights are not. Therefore there's nothing to go against when it comes to property (except perhaps the fourth amendment).
You can easily prove this to yourself. Just go into a crowded theater and yell "Fire! Fire!".
Solution: don't be an idiot by believing what someone else states so easily.
Yeah! Instead of having people do useful jobs that require immense amounts of time, effort, or both, have people do jobs that absolutely anyone (or a machine) could do! Let's forget about innovation and the like. Let's just make people do useless things that require almost zero effort, knowledge, or both.
Maybe it would be, but I still believe that to be a better solution than getting rid of features (even if only a minority use the features they remove).
Millions of pissed of gamers vs handful of homebrewers. Pick your poison.
I choose the third option: ban cheaters on an individual basis. No need to remove features from legitimate buyers and claim the minority doesn't count.
See I can do that too.
The difference being that they never needed to remove any features: they could just ban cheaters when they are caught. All they managed to do was anger even more people by doing this.
Obviously, I was referring to the people who do copy games, not him.
Some people like the grandparent poster still think Sony removed it for no reason.
There was a reason, but not a good one. They basically told all of their legitimate customers that they are garbage and fighting and piracy boogeyman takes priority over them.
Sony removed "Other OS" to protect their income, as well as their reputation among both game developers/publishers (for obvious reasons) and gamers (broken security system = online mulitplayer hacking).
Oh, no! Multiplayer hacks! My life is ruined! Sony should remove all of the features on the console and hurt legitimate buyers instead of going after hackers on an individual basis!
Pissing off a handful of homebrewers was the less of 2 evils for them.
As long as you only hurt the minority, anything is okay. Even if they are your legitimate customers.
How can you blame these poor little companies for implementing DRM? If one person copies a game, all must suffer! If you were a legitimate buyer, you'd know that...
Oh, and, this is all Geohot's fault, not the people implementing the DRM or removing the features to feed their paranoia! That's right. All buyers must receive defective products because some people copy games. This makes sense to those of us who don't steal profit that doesn't yet exist.
Yeah! Everything is his fault, not the fault of the paranoid people actually implementing defective DRM that only hurts actual customers and removing features! Down with Geohot! If one person copies a game, absolutely everyone should suffer!
Really? Does the constitution mention that at all? It certainly mentions free speech. In fact, it just says free speech. It mentions nothing of exceptions. If we were to go by your recommendations, since the constitution doesn't specifically state "freedom of speech without consequences," that would mean that the government could make it illegal to speak out against them and claim that the constitution doesn't mention there being no consequences as a defense. But, no. Most people know what "free speech" actually means. It means unabridged speech. All speech. It doesn't mean "speech with consequences." If it did, they would have written that.
If the constitution ever once mentions property, then it is in the same boat as free speech. If not, then it's a different matter altogether.
Blaming mere words for the stupidity of the general populace does sound like something an imbecile would do. I don't recall any exceptions being present in the first amendment...
I just hope that this doesn't become so popular that some games are offered exclusively through it. I like owning the data, being able to modify the data, being able to play without an internet connection, being able to play my games even if the company goes out of business, and being able to play even if some random server I don't want to connect to is down. It might help people with poor hardware, and I respect that, but I just hope that this doesn't become the new form of DRM for paranoid companies.
Yeah. That would mean that you actually have to work on more ways to earn money rather than just sit around and collect money from customers who pay you monthly.
Is there any valid reason for forbidding a fictional piece of entertainment rather than just informing the very, very few children who don't realize that it's fiction that it is fiction? You're not a bad parent if you let your children play/view harmless entertainment. You're a bad parent if you construct a bubble around your children, though, in my opinion.
Does the fact that the victim is a crack dealer somehow make it "okay" to threaten (or inflict) harm on them in order to steal their wallet?
Of course! Anyone who breaks the law is inherently a bad person. Therefore, we should be able to do as we please to them. What could possibly go wrong?
Then what do you propose people do? Let the internet be ruined by corporations? Net neutrality, unlike the Patriot Act or other such things, is actually intended to do something good. No matter how you look at it, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and unjust in the first place. All we can do is reject net neutrality until the government comes up with a plan that is nothing but.
I'd honestly rather risk 'dangerous' information being released than let the government have so much control. I trust them less than anyone else, as it should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Eventually they grow up
No they don't. You'll understand that when you're older.
The fact is that speech that would create a clear and present danger to other people is not protected by law.
Oh, I see. My point was that it doesn't matter because the constitution explicitly guarantees absolute free speech.
Also, speech doesn't present any danger. Actions do. If people are idiotic enough to believe everything someone tells them, then that's their own fault.
But even though free speech is in the Constitution, without giving any exceptions, there are exceptions
Because the government now treats the constitution as if it is nothing. "This is inconvenient. Let's just 'interpret' this part away and create exceptions that were never there."
Tell that to the Supreme Court that made this decision. Oh... that's right... you obviously don't know about that decision. Maybe it's time you learned. You have internet, don't you? Or a library. Look it up.
I don't understand. Where did I ever say that we have absolute free speech? My comments up until now have stated that the constitution states that we do, not that the government that ignores the constitution states that we do. I'm well aware of our government's corruption, so of course I know they ignore the constitution and create nonexistent exceptions to it.
you are arguing from ignorance
No, you just failed to realize what I was trying to say. I suppose I did the same thing, but there it is.
Running from car to car for an eight or ten hour shift is hardly "zero effort".
I was speaking of a multitude of useless jobs, not just that one. No, this requires effort, but it's useless and unimaginative. People could do this in a few seconds by themselves.
Let's face it, there are a large number of people who have essentially zero knowledge
They can acquire knowledge, then.
So, we should get rid of all cashier positions, since people can simply check themselves out.
Sure. If people could be trusted, that is.
Let's get rid of restaurants and cook positions because anyone can cook for themselves.
Many people don't have time for such things, and doing this does take time and effort (which I mentioned was an exception). Basically I meant that we don't need useless jobs that could easily be taken over by a machine or be done in two seconds by yourself. This entire "we need more jobs at the cost of actual innovation" fad is incredibly wasteful. If you need more jobs, make them useful to society as a whole (and not just money-wise).
You missed my point entirely. I said that if what you say is true (there is free speech, but it has consequences due to the fact that the constitution didn't mention otherwise) then the government could limit any speech it pleases and just claim that the constitution doesn't mention free speech without consequences. But I would think that most people would know that "free speech" implies no consequences. Do you see what I mean now?
And no, the Constitution does not mention your right to own property. That was my point.
You missed my point here as well. I never said that something not in the constitution is a right, just that the government can't go against the constitution. Free speech is in the constitution without exception, but property rights are not. Therefore there's nothing to go against when it comes to property (except perhaps the fourth amendment).
You can easily prove this to yourself. Just go into a crowded theater and yell "Fire! Fire!".
Solution: don't be an idiot by believing what someone else states so easily.
Yeah! Instead of having people do useful jobs that require immense amounts of time, effort, or both, have people do jobs that absolutely anyone (or a machine) could do! Let's forget about innovation and the like. Let's just make people do useless things that require almost zero effort, knowledge, or both.
Maybe it would be, but I still believe that to be a better solution than getting rid of features (even if only a minority use the features they remove).
Millions of pissed of gamers vs handful of homebrewers. Pick your poison.
I choose the third option: ban cheaters on an individual basis. No need to remove features from legitimate buyers and claim the minority doesn't count.
See I can do that too.
The difference being that they never needed to remove any features: they could just ban cheaters when they are caught. All they managed to do was anger even more people by doing this.
He didn't copy a game though
Obviously, I was referring to the people who do copy games, not him.
Some people like the grandparent poster still think Sony removed it for no reason.
There was a reason, but not a good one. They basically told all of their legitimate customers that they are garbage and fighting and piracy boogeyman takes priority over them.
Sony removed "Other OS" to protect their income, as well as their reputation among both game developers/publishers (for obvious reasons) and gamers (broken security system = online mulitplayer hacking).
Oh, no! Multiplayer hacks! My life is ruined! Sony should remove all of the features on the console and hurt legitimate buyers instead of going after hackers on an individual basis!
Pissing off a handful of homebrewers was the less of 2 evils for them.
As long as you only hurt the minority, anything is okay. Even if they are your legitimate customers.
How can you blame these poor little companies for implementing DRM? If one person copies a game, all must suffer! If you were a legitimate buyer, you'd know that...
Oh, and, this is all Geohot's fault, not the people implementing the DRM or removing the features to feed their paranoia! That's right. All buyers must receive defective products because some people copy games. This makes sense to those of us who don't steal profit that doesn't yet exist.
Yeah! Everything is his fault, not the fault of the paranoid people actually implementing defective DRM that only hurts actual customers and removing features! Down with Geohot! If one person copies a game, absolutely everyone should suffer!
I agree. This is very, very frustrating. Sometimes I have to click around more than ten times just to find my post and the post that replied to me.
Neither does your right to own property.
Really? Does the constitution mention that at all? It certainly mentions free speech. In fact, it just says free speech. It mentions nothing of exceptions. If we were to go by your recommendations, since the constitution doesn't specifically state "freedom of speech without consequences," that would mean that the government could make it illegal to speak out against them and claim that the constitution doesn't mention there being no consequences as a defense. But, no. Most people know what "free speech" actually means. It means unabridged speech. All speech. It doesn't mean "speech with consequences." If it did, they would have written that.
If the constitution ever once mentions property, then it is in the same boat as free speech. If not, then it's a different matter altogether.
Blaming mere words for the stupidity of the general populace does sound like something an imbecile would do. I don't recall any exceptions being present in the first amendment...
I just hope that this doesn't become so popular that some games are offered exclusively through it. I like owning the data, being able to modify the data, being able to play without an internet connection, being able to play my games even if the company goes out of business, and being able to play even if some random server I don't want to connect to is down. It might help people with poor hardware, and I respect that, but I just hope that this doesn't become the new form of DRM for paranoid companies.
Yeah. That would mean that you actually have to work on more ways to earn money rather than just sit around and collect money from customers who pay you monthly.
Is there any valid reason for forbidding a fictional piece of entertainment rather than just informing the very, very few children who don't realize that it's fiction that it is fiction? You're not a bad parent if you let your children play/view harmless entertainment. You're a bad parent if you construct a bubble around your children, though, in my opinion.
Does the fact that the victim is a crack dealer somehow make it "okay" to threaten (or inflict) harm on them in order to steal their wallet?
Of course! Anyone who breaks the law is inherently a bad person. Therefore, we should be able to do as we please to them. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, like with anything 'web' related, I'm a huge proponent of the C.A.S.E. method. (Copy And Steal Everything).
Take what others do..learn from it..use it, and hopefully improve on it.
Spoken like someone who stole millions of dollars in potential profit...
Perhaps it would be easier to just pay attention more and not vote the asshats into office in the first place?
Oh, I do. The millions of other people residing in this country do not, however, despite my attempts to convince ones within my reach otherwise.
Then what do you propose people do? Let the internet be ruined by corporations? Net neutrality, unlike the Patriot Act or other such things, is actually intended to do something good. No matter how you look at it, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and unjust in the first place. All we can do is reject net neutrality until the government comes up with a plan that is nothing but.
I'd honestly rather risk 'dangerous' information being released than let the government have so much control. I trust them less than anyone else, as it should be.
Yes, it was sarcasm. It's often hard to tell when it comes to these sorts of things.
They should not have used a tool that made their identities so obvious. So nothing of value was lost.
Well, you robbed them of profit that they never even had, so yes. You are a very, very evil individual.