Sorry, but what you're talking about is the benefit to society as a whole, and not the individual and his genes.
Well, there is no such thing as something being objectively "subpar" no matter what you're talking about; that's utterly subjective. I just don't think it makes sense to call it "subpar."
Why do people rely on definitions from random dictionaries when discussing a legal matter? Not only does calling it "stealing" confuse people who aren't familiar with copyright infringement, but that is not what the legal system recognizes it as.
I don't think it is boring nitpicking. I've met a number of normal people who don't even know what copyright infringement actually is, but thanks to people calling it "theft" all the time, they think it involves physical losses. As far as I know, copyright infringement is not legally considered theft, and since copyright is a legal matter, I think people need to use the 'proper' terms when discussing it. Using words such as "theft" just confuses the matter.
Infringing upon people's rights for security or to encourage innovation is, to me, just disgusting. I would oppose the TSA even if it worked, and likewise, I oppose the notion that copyright was okay in the past.
What happens if you run a website that disobeys copyright law? Well, if they're targeting you already, possibly censorship, which means you've just lost some free speech rights.
What happens if you use your own equipment, resources, and money to produce something that's under the protection of copyright? Well, you could possibly be sued into oblivion if any copyright holders find out, which means copyright also infringes upon physical property rights in order to provide certain people with government-enforced monopolies.
When you see something you consider a rip-off you simply just don't buy it, even if it is a good thing.
You know that's not what's going to happen. If people consider official channels a rip-off and they're capable of downloading the content for free, some of them will; no amount of insults or ordering them around will change that.
Porsches are awfully overpriced, and that does not give me the right to go and steal one from the nearest dealer.
Fortunately, you don't have to physically remove anything from someone else's possession when you make a copy of something; that's the magic of copying!
It's called being an adult. It means you don't get your way 100 percent of the time, and sometimes when you don't, it seems arbitrary and unfair.
Does that not apply to you and the content providers as well? They're not getting their way; people are simply getting the content from elsewhere and disobeying their arbitrary and 'unfair' rules. Content providers must be at the level of middle school students, huh?
Remember the whole, "spreading democracy to the Middle East" justification for the Iraq war. Whether or not that was the goal is irrelevant: the point is that most people here thought it was an worthwhile thing to do.
Because they are imbeciles. It is funny how so many people will not trust the government with health care, but then turn around and trust the government when it comes to wars and powers that could easily be used to violate fundamental rights.
Nobody has intrinsic rights.
I don't believe in intrinsic rights, either.
So defending them is a good idea.
But if we have to defend them in such a way that it involves violating the privacy of citizens in other countries for little or no reason (which is what we're doing now), then I don't want any such defense because such a country is not worth defending. I do not care for TSA-like security where we hand over people's rights just to feel safe. I believe we should have principles that we don't discard whenever it's convenient for us.
You go above that and don't think we should violate anyone's privacy for any reason.
For any reason? That's not what I actually believe. I don't think we should be spying on other countries unless we have a damn 'good' reason (and suspicion isn't enough) to do so (such as if they're a hostile country), but even then I don't think we should harass normal citizens.
Why?
Self-defense.
How about security cameras at stores?
Presumably, stores are private property. What does this have to do with the government spying on people in other countries?
Because they can harass anyone they want at any point in the future. If any corrupt person (and there are many and will be many) manages to get into the government, suddenly you have a problem on your hands. Surely you're not so naive as to trust the government? History gives you no reason to do such a silly thing.
I've heard numerous people in the government say that same line. I think the point was to apply that same logic to them and the government organizations they love so much.
THERE HAS NEVER been an expectation of privacy on the Internet.... it wasn't designed that way.
I'm sure it is simple for the government to spy on people's communications, but since when does something being simple make it okay? It would be fairly simple for the government to break into your house and install surveillance equipment everywhere, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that.
Non-american's always know better than American's about America....
As an American, I think we need to throw out all these worthless warmongers.
Transparency? I care more about the fact that they seem to be violating the constitution; whether or not that's done transparently is utterly irrelevant to me.
The TSA's flagrant disregard of the constitution and people's rights is plainly visible to everyone, and yet I still feel that their actions are wrong. Transparency is simply not the main problem.
I disagree with calling it a psychological need because I doubt that's true in a majority of cases (or perhaps people are just weaker than I thought), but what I said still holds true. If fewer people wanted children, it is likely that fewer people would have children given the options we have today.
There are plenty of other ways to report this material to congress without stealing.
If he silently reported it to congress, the American people would not have as much evidence that it is happening like they do now. If the people who vote these imbeciles in do not know, then where is the accountability? How can you be sure the congressmen aren't themselves corrupt and wouldn't simply ignore the issue?
You can't. Remember how many of our representatives voted for the PATRIOT ACT? None of these people can be trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be cool with mass surveillance if
Why would you ever be "cool" with mass surveillance?
Sorry, but what you're talking about is the benefit to society as a whole, and not the individual and his genes.
Well, there is no such thing as something being objectively "subpar" no matter what you're talking about; that's utterly subjective. I just don't think it makes sense to call it "subpar."
That's not the definition of stealing.
Why do people rely on definitions from random dictionaries when discussing a legal matter? Not only does calling it "stealing" confuse people who aren't familiar with copyright infringement, but that is not what the legal system recognizes it as.
Boring nitpicking.
I don't think it is boring nitpicking. I've met a number of normal people who don't even know what copyright infringement actually is, but thanks to people calling it "theft" all the time, they think it involves physical losses. As far as I know, copyright infringement is not legally considered theft, and since copyright is a legal matter, I think people need to use the 'proper' terms when discussing it. Using words such as "theft" just confuses the matter.
Infringing upon people's rights for security or to encourage innovation is, to me, just disgusting. I would oppose the TSA even if it worked, and likewise, I oppose the notion that copyright was okay in the past.
When you purchase music, you actually purchase a license.
My equipment, my rules; I consider it mine regardless of what the law says.
What happens if you run a website that disobeys copyright law? Well, if they're targeting you already, possibly censorship, which means you've just lost some free speech rights.
What happens if you use your own equipment, resources, and money to produce something that's under the protection of copyright? Well, you could possibly be sued into oblivion if any copyright holders find out, which means copyright also infringes upon physical property rights in order to provide certain people with government-enforced monopolies.
20 year maximum is more than reasonable.
If copyright itself didn't infringe upon people's rights, then I might agree with that, but that is sadly not the case.
When you see something you consider a rip-off you simply just don't buy it, even if it is a good thing.
You know that's not what's going to happen. If people consider official channels a rip-off and they're capable of downloading the content for free, some of them will; no amount of insults or ordering them around will change that.
Porsches are awfully overpriced, and that does not give me the right to go and steal one from the nearest dealer.
Fortunately, you don't have to physically remove anything from someone else's possession when you make a copy of something; that's the magic of copying!
It's called being an adult. It means you don't get your way 100 percent of the time, and sometimes when you don't, it seems arbitrary and unfair.
Does that not apply to you and the content providers as well? They're not getting their way; people are simply getting the content from elsewhere and disobeying their arbitrary and 'unfair' rules. Content providers must be at the level of middle school students, huh?
Remember the whole, "spreading democracy to the Middle East" justification for the Iraq war. Whether or not that was the goal is irrelevant: the point is that most people here thought it was an worthwhile thing to do.
Because they are imbeciles. It is funny how so many people will not trust the government with health care, but then turn around and trust the government when it comes to wars and powers that could easily be used to violate fundamental rights.
Nobody has intrinsic rights.
I don't believe in intrinsic rights, either.
So defending them is a good idea.
But if we have to defend them in such a way that it involves violating the privacy of citizens in other countries for little or no reason (which is what we're doing now), then I don't want any such defense because such a country is not worth defending. I do not care for TSA-like security where we hand over people's rights just to feel safe. I believe we should have principles that we don't discard whenever it's convenient for us.
You go above that and don't think we should violate anyone's privacy for any reason.
For any reason? That's not what I actually believe. I don't think we should be spying on other countries unless we have a damn 'good' reason (and suspicion isn't enough) to do so (such as if they're a hostile country), but even then I don't think we should harass normal citizens.
Why?
Self-defense.
How about security cameras at stores?
Presumably, stores are private property. What does this have to do with the government spying on people in other countries?
Not every game is cooperative, some are competitive, and we all want to win those.
I'd rather not play such a game if it means infringing upon the rights of non-citizens (and yes, I do believe they have rights).
but I would say it's naive to assume everybody else is going to share your view.
I don't assume that. I just feel that freedom is more important than security and care about more than just citizens of my own country.
They don't, and as a result I lock my car when I leave it.
Which doesn't violate anyone's privacy or do any other such thing.
I don't think other nations spying on us is an act of war or something that requires a retaliatory response.
That's not what I meant. I meant that I believe we shouldn't see every other country to be an enemy worth spying on. Warmongering comes in many forms.
Further, it can be argued that there were more compelling reasons for Bush to sign it in the aftermath of 9/11 vs. relatively tranquil 2011.
I disagree. I feel that sacrificing fundamental freedoms for security is wrong no matter the environment.
I expect them to try, and I see nothing wrong with it
This attitude is why we have so many useless warmongers in our government.
I voted twice for Obama.
...
I'd feel disgusting. At least vote for a third party to send a message, if nothing else.
Because they can harass anyone they want at any point in the future. If any corrupt person (and there are many and will be many) manages to get into the government, suddenly you have a problem on your hands. Surely you're not so naive as to trust the government? History gives you no reason to do such a silly thing.
I've heard numerous people in the government say that same line. I think the point was to apply that same logic to them and the government organizations they love so much.
THERE HAS NEVER been an expectation of privacy on the Internet.... it wasn't designed that way.
I'm sure it is simple for the government to spy on people's communications, but since when does something being simple make it okay? It would be fairly simple for the government to break into your house and install surveillance equipment everywhere, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that.
Non-american's always know better than American's about America....
As an American, I think we need to throw out all these worthless warmongers.
Transparency? I care more about the fact that they seem to be violating the constitution; whether or not that's done transparently is utterly irrelevant to me.
The TSA's flagrant disregard of the constitution and people's rights is plainly visible to everyone, and yet I still feel that their actions are wrong. Transparency is simply not the main problem.
I disagree with calling it a psychological need because I doubt that's true in a majority of cases (or perhaps people are just weaker than I thought), but what I said still holds true. If fewer people wanted children, it is likely that fewer people would have children given the options we have today.
There are plenty of other ways to report this material to congress without stealing.
If he silently reported it to congress, the American people would not have as much evidence that it is happening like they do now. If the people who vote these imbeciles in do not know, then where is the accountability? How can you be sure the congressmen aren't themselves corrupt and wouldn't simply ignore the issue?
You can't. Remember how many of our representatives voted for the PATRIOT ACT? None of these people can be trusted.
Those don't sound "subpar" to me; if we had more people with those types of genes, we probably wouldn't be suffering from overpopulation.
How is it that you know whether or not his genes are "subpar" (whatever it is that that means)?
At least you will play your given role in evolution by dying
He'll die like everyone else whether or not he engages in meaningless reproduction. Biology isn't everything.
Well, I'm glad this company decided not to help government thugs violate people's rights.