You can't graduate high school without learning algebra
Wrong. You can graduate if you spew information back on poorly-designed tests; you don't need to understand any of it. Guess what that leads to? Plenty of people not truly understanding any of the material.
Well, if they're not gaining any money, I'm not sure it matters how much value they think their products have. Furthermore, they'll always be able to claim that some people are downloading their products illegally; it is simply so unlikely that everyone will stop infringing upon people's copyright that the possibility isn't even worth considering.
So does your ideology that it's OK to take things or copy that you do not have permission to take or copy.
I'm not talking about taking things, but copying them. I think government-enforced monopolies that encourage censorship and loss of control over real property is a disgusting violation of people's freedoms, but whatever.
Good luck not getting busted
It doesn't take much luck to not get busted; the situation is literally beyond anyone's control.
So, my points that downloading illegally does nothing but help enact even more draconian legislation regarding copyright, and that the only effective means of changing this practice is to universally boycott their products, stand firm.
Doesn't sound like it. The way you made it sound, they'll spin anything to support their draconian agenda, so no matter what happens, copyright infringement will be blamed.
Copying those things isn't the problem; what you would then do with that information is the problem. In the case of copying a movie, no such things happen.
and thus the outrageous prices and restrictions are considered justified.
Uh, no; the entire reason someone might download to begin with may include escaping the restrictions and ridiculous prices. If they're going to assume that someone downloading for free means they're doing everything right, then clearly they'd make out every situation to mean that their restrictions and prices are okay.
What makes the fictional dystopias featuring surveillance states interesting isn't simply the fact that they conduct surveillance, but rather what they do with the information.
And since they're humans, you can't trust them.
How many of them involve actions by the state to genuinely protect the citizenry except in an Orwellian fashion?
Again, you couldn't trust them even if they claimed that was their goal; they're humans.
Maybe by a strict dictionary definition, but just because the dictionary says a word can be used in a certain way, that doesn't mean that people have to think it's a good idea for it to be used in such a manner.
I don't know, why don't we just block religious websites by default? How about the fact that it's censorship by default, and the content being censored is, of course, content that is deemed 'vulgar' by various imbeciles.
And a lot of good they're doing (unless you consider rote memorization educations to be a good thing)! Well, they're not completely useless, but they just don't seem very effective at what it is you're talking about.
At that point you ether know how to learn things independently
It would be rather sad if people didn't. At any rate, you don't need a school to teach you how to learn.
Should we be shocked that they actively are, without a warrant? Sort of, yeah.
I don't think people should be shocked; the government has been doing this sort of thing for a while, and then there's that whole TSA thing. I do, however, think that people should voice their opposition to such practices.
There's a strong argument for society to ban sibling unions
I disagree. For one thing, it is by no means certain that the children that result from inbreeding will have genetic defects. There's also the fact that the number of people who would do such things is probably rather small. Society won't collapse because some people breed with close family members.
Then there's the fact that freedom is, I believe, simply more important than security. So there is only a strong argument if you're anti-freedom.
Do you think, twenty years later, people look back and say "DAMN! I wish I hadn't been a coward and was dead like those guys!".
So lots of people are cowards; what else is new? That's why we have the TSA, the Patriot Act, and a host of other nonsense that infringes upon our civil liberties. Guess what mindset we have to thank for that?
I get the feeling that you just don't like our (making an assumption here) government.
Just ours? I distrust governments (not just ours) by default, and believe it is absolutely foolish to do otherwise.
The government is filled with all kinds of people, good and bad.
Which is why I don't believe they should be trusted. Even 'good' intentions can (and have, both now and in the past) result in abuse.
But as Americans we are also responsible for raising our voices so that the people that we elected know which direction to go.
As long as the direction most people want the government to go doesn't result in the sacrifices of individual liberties, fine.
There are checks and balances to keep shit from going too crazy.
Checks and balances are meaningless when you allow the government to suspend people's rights. Lincoln ignored the courts on a number of occasions and the government of his time abused its power again and again for reasons similar to the reasons the government claims it's violating our rights now.
But i think you can agree that Emergency denotes a temporary situation.
Even if it is temporary (and when you let the government decide, which you would have to, that isn't even certain), it is, to me, still just as awful.
Slashdot Mirror
I have an expectation that my government isn't tracking me just because I happen to be out in public.
You can't graduate high school without learning algebra
Wrong. You can graduate if you spew information back on poorly-designed tests; you don't need to understand any of it. Guess what that leads to? Plenty of people not truly understanding any of the material.
Well, if they're not gaining any money, I'm not sure it matters how much value they think their products have. Furthermore, they'll always be able to claim that some people are downloading their products illegally; it is simply so unlikely that everyone will stop infringing upon people's copyright that the possibility isn't even worth considering.
So does your ideology that it's OK to take things or copy that you do not have permission to take or copy.
I'm not talking about taking things, but copying them. I think government-enforced monopolies that encourage censorship and loss of control over real property is a disgusting violation of people's freedoms, but whatever.
Good luck not getting busted
It doesn't take much luck to not get busted; the situation is literally beyond anyone's control.
So, my points that downloading illegally does nothing but help enact even more draconian legislation regarding copyright, and that the only effective means of changing this practice is to universally boycott their products, stand firm.
Doesn't sound like it. The way you made it sound, they'll spin anything to support their draconian agenda, so no matter what happens, copyright infringement will be blamed.
Copying those things isn't the problem; what you would then do with that information is the problem. In the case of copying a movie, no such things happen.
Your analogy seems rather ridiculous.
and thus the outrageous prices and restrictions are considered justified.
Uh, no; the entire reason someone might download to begin with may include escaping the restrictions and ridiculous prices. If they're going to assume that someone downloading for free means they're doing everything right, then clearly they'd make out every situation to mean that their restrictions and prices are okay.
No, I don't understand the "moral hazard" of downloading a movie; I don't even believe there is one.
What makes the fictional dystopias featuring surveillance states interesting isn't simply the fact that they conduct surveillance, but rather what they do with the information.
And since they're humans, you can't trust them.
How many of them involve actions by the state to genuinely protect the citizenry except in an Orwellian fashion?
Again, you couldn't trust them even if they claimed that was their goal; they're humans.
I don't see where it says it doesn't.
Maybe by a strict dictionary definition, but just because the dictionary says a word can be used in a certain way, that doesn't mean that people have to think it's a good idea for it to be used in such a manner.
You just justified the industry's efforts to block and pursue file sharers.
Absolutely nothing would justify that to me.
I don't see it, 'cuz I'm not a moral-less pilferer.
How does downloading a movie mean you're a "moral-less pilferer"?
What's not to like about it?
I don't know, why don't we just block religious websites by default? How about the fact that it's censorship by default, and the content being censored is, of course, content that is deemed 'vulgar' by various imbeciles.
Hence the need for schools.
And a lot of good they're doing (unless you consider rote memorization educations to be a good thing)! Well, they're not completely useless, but they just don't seem very effective at what it is you're talking about.
At that point you ether know how to learn things independently
It would be rather sad if people didn't. At any rate, you don't need a school to teach you how to learn.
Should we be shocked that they actively are, without a warrant? Sort of, yeah.
I don't think people should be shocked; the government has been doing this sort of thing for a while, and then there's that whole TSA thing. I do, however, think that people should voice their opposition to such practices.
'creators' could try to profit from such things with or without copyright; no one is suggesting that we try to hinder such efforts.
has a fundamental right to profit off his created work
I don't believe anyone has a fundamental right to profit. After all, if they did, we'd all be forced to buy people's products.
If you were referring to the draconian nonsense known as copyright, I don't see that as a 'right,' but a temporary privilege.
There's a strong argument for society to ban sibling unions
I disagree. For one thing, it is by no means certain that the children that result from inbreeding will have genetic defects. There's also the fact that the number of people who would do such things is probably rather small. Society won't collapse because some people breed with close family members.
Then there's the fact that freedom is, I believe, simply more important than security. So there is only a strong argument if you're anti-freedom.
Many societies prevent marriage between mentally healthy adults because they are too closely related.
Which I don't believe is right.
Then it seems to me that your problem is with the democratic process and the ability of the government to hold the security services accountable.
My problem is that you seem incredibly naive.
but I in no way trust them to keep me from being blown up.
I in no way trust them with powers that could easily be used to violate people's fundamental rights.
I think you've made it quite clear in the past that you are indifferent to the prospect of the mass slaughter of your fellow citizens
Indifferent? I believe that I'm merely not so naive as to have so much faith in those given so much power and the ability to act in secrecy.
Do you think, twenty years later, people look back and say "DAMN! I wish I hadn't been a coward and was dead like those guys!".
So lots of people are cowards; what else is new? That's why we have the TSA, the Patriot Act, and a host of other nonsense that infringes upon our civil liberties. Guess what mindset we have to thank for that?
I doubt link-spamming is going to help you against people who feel that individual liberties often take precedence over safety.
I get the feeling that you just don't like our (making an assumption here) government.
Just ours? I distrust governments (not just ours) by default, and believe it is absolutely foolish to do otherwise.
The government is filled with all kinds of people, good and bad.
Which is why I don't believe they should be trusted. Even 'good' intentions can (and have, both now and in the past) result in abuse.
But as Americans we are also responsible for raising our voices so that the people that we elected know which direction to go.
As long as the direction most people want the government to go doesn't result in the sacrifices of individual liberties, fine.
There are checks and balances to keep shit from going too crazy.
Checks and balances are meaningless when you allow the government to suspend people's rights. Lincoln ignored the courts on a number of occasions and the government of his time abused its power again and again for reasons similar to the reasons the government claims it's violating our rights now.
But i think you can agree that Emergency denotes a temporary situation.
Even if it is temporary (and when you let the government decide, which you would have to, that isn't even certain), it is, to me, still just as awful.