I think he's just a bit too optimistic. Surely no one is idiotic and naive enough to trust the government with so much power? Sadly, such people do exist.
1) You're completely leeching off other people's work without any of the compensation. You're no better than a common thief.
Right, because blocking certain things on a web page on the open Internet is no different than stealing someone's physical property.
2) Ad blocking is going to be an arms race that I guarantee you will lose. Eventually, all ads are going to be indistinguishable from content and then we're all fucked.
Then I doubt people who hate ads would go to those websites if such a ridiculous thing ever happened.
Ad blocking is going to completely ruin the internet, and douchebags like you are causing it.
Let this be a lesson to people who think that copyright isn't absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe anyone here would seriously defend Nintendo. No... I can.
but only at DNS level and only in smaller numbers. Blocking extreme child porn sites via DNS would be next to useless, so I hope they also block at IP level.
Of course. For the children, we must go to extra lengths!
b) I have had enough philosophy training to know that your position means that all your ethical statements are meaningless subjective nonsense
I think that's because they pretty much are. Does that have anything to do with whether or not the position is correct? Not one bit.
you may as well not even bring it up. It has no content or force.
About as much as two people screaming at one another that they're absolutely correct. People who claim that morality is absolute really don't seem to be any better off in the end.
For learning the most basic of basic math, a Jr. High math book might be useful. If you want to actually understand what you're doing, though... maybe not.
If we don't go back to the gold system, how do you expect our paper money system to survive if counterfeiting is easy?
I err on the side of freedom, so safety isn't a question for me.
And what does anti-counterfeiting have to do with privacy anyway?
You can't figure out how printing nearly-invisible dots on paper printed from a printer so that the government will more easily be able to catch counterfeiters (and anyone else they feel like harassing) is related to privacy? Really?
But no doubt you think we should not only go back to the Gold Standard, but only use actual gold pieces as currency too.
What? I said nothing of the sort.
The problem with this is that it people are assumed to be criminals by default and privacy is sacrificed so we can thwart the evil bogeymen who threaten us so. That's exactly the mindset that allows for people to be molested when they want to get on a plane in the US.
Just another example of sacrificing freedom and privacy for perceived safety (from counterfeiting, in this case). Even though this has been known about for quite a while now, it still seems just as pathetic.
Which could have been, and probably was, abused many times in secret (similarly but not necessarily the same to how Obama used it, but it was to stop The Terrist Bogeyman).
Copyright infringement is a threat to national security, so blindly infringing upon people's freedoms and censoring content at a random corporations request is perfectly justified.
Slashdot Mirror
they hopefully follow what the majority of the electorate wants.
Tyranny of the majority is no good, I think.
Technically, unless you are doing something illegal, it wouldn't matter at this point if your software apps were reporting your activities.
"Technically"? No. Even if you're not doing anything illegal (or if you are but the laws in question are ridiculous), you have everything to fear.
I think he's just a bit too optimistic. Surely no one is idiotic and naive enough to trust the government with so much power? Sadly, such people do exist.
Why do you think that the best approach is to do nothing?
Because the alternatives seem to involve violating people's freedom.
1) You're completely leeching off other people's work without any of the compensation. You're no better than a common thief.
Right, because blocking certain things on a web page on the open Internet is no different than stealing someone's physical property.
2) Ad blocking is going to be an arms race that I guarantee you will lose. Eventually, all ads are going to be indistinguishable from content and then we're all fucked.
Then I doubt people who hate ads would go to those websites if such a ridiculous thing ever happened.
Ad blocking is going to completely ruin the internet, and douchebags like you are causing it.
It's the apocalypse! Run for the hills!
Let this be a lesson to people who think that copyright isn't absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe anyone here would seriously defend Nintendo. No... I can.
time for people to get original and stop trying to make money off "lets play"
Why? I don't see why Nintendo is entitled to the ad revenue at all.
Why? I believe there are plenty of 'bad' teachers who still have jobs.
but only at DNS level and only in smaller numbers. Blocking extreme child porn sites via DNS would be next to useless, so I hope they also block at IP level.
Of course. For the children, we must go to extra lengths!
The magical moral fairy did tell me as much.
I fail to see your point, but that's how I see it.
b) I have had enough philosophy training to know that your position means that all your ethical statements are meaningless subjective nonsense
I think that's because they pretty much are. Does that have anything to do with whether or not the position is correct? Not one bit.
you may as well not even bring it up. It has no content or force.
About as much as two people screaming at one another that they're absolutely correct. People who claim that morality is absolute really don't seem to be any better off in the end.
open a Jr. High math textbook
For learning the most basic of basic math, a Jr. High math book might be useful. If you want to actually understand what you're doing, though... maybe not.
Drop out of school. Anybody who wants to learn any math and language at all is obviously suspicious.
Then wouldn't dropping out of school be suspicious?
Yes, crime is bad
Not necessarily.
If we don't go back to the gold system, how do you expect our paper money system to survive if counterfeiting is easy?
I err on the side of freedom, so safety isn't a question for me.
And what does anti-counterfeiting have to do with privacy anyway?
You can't figure out how printing nearly-invisible dots on paper printed from a printer so that the government will more easily be able to catch counterfeiters (and anyone else they feel like harassing) is related to privacy? Really?
But no doubt you think we should not only go back to the Gold Standard, but only use actual gold pieces as currency too.
What? I said nothing of the sort.
The problem with this is that it people are assumed to be criminals by default and privacy is sacrificed so we can thwart the evil bogeymen who threaten us so. That's exactly the mindset that allows for people to be molested when they want to get on a plane in the US.
I'm trying not to fall for the hype as everyone does, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
They're lucky they're not being treated the same way that they treat others.
I just don't get why it keeps getting pushed as some shining beacon of goodness.
I don't think anyone with a brain does that.
Just another example of sacrificing freedom and privacy for perceived safety (from counterfeiting, in this case). Even though this has been known about for quite a while now, it still seems just as pathetic.
Bush expanded the powers of the state.
Which could have been, and probably was, abused many times in secret (similarly but not necessarily the same to how Obama used it, but it was to stop The Terrist Bogeyman).
And... that somehow justifies this? It certainly doesn't in my mind.
Copyright infringement is a threat to national security, so blindly infringing upon people's freedoms and censoring content at a random corporations request is perfectly justified.
I just think we're way, way past the point where "more" = "worse".
I don't think we'll ever be past that point; 1,001 people dying is worse than 1,000 people dying in my books.
Bush's administration wiretapped suspected terrorists.
Right... they only went after The Bad Guys.