What I meant was this: I believe it's both a waste of money and an invasion of privacy to get information about nearly everyone (probably in an automated way) simply because some people are criminals. Of course, even if it didn't waste money, I'd be against it.
Should it be legal for me to point a camera out a window of my house and record cars that pass by?
You doing it isn't like the government doing it. The government is a very powerful group of people with far more power than you.
Yes, let's arrest everyone who has ever uttered a threat even if they did not mean it. Honestly, this doesn't look like an individual who would even follow through. I can't imagine why people who actually support arresting people for death threats would want the police to waste public resources trying to catch people who were very likely not going to do anything. Comments like these actually seem quite normal.
I dislike DRM, but will defend a software company's right to encrypt their software, and even allow them to require an Internet connection to "unlock/decrypt" that software so that it can be used.
I would too. But I would also defend the right of people to modify their copy of the software to remove said DRM and even distribute cracks for it.
It is? Separate offline and online accounts, and if you really want to, ban any cheaters that somehow slip through (like they already will). No need to force everyone to be online.
Same thing could be said about history class or phy-ed or even english/comm/language.
I meant that it's not really a basic skill that most people use. I find phy-ed classes to be utterly useless given their simplicity, so I wouldn't mind seeing those go. If people want to learn about sports/exercises, they can do that on their own time; don't waste my time with a year-long class that gives out information I can find in five seconds.
history class
Probably not necessary save for a few key events. Too much filler as it is, in my opinion.
and it would be extremely detrimental to us to reduce the learning that students have to do today.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say it would be helpful (there would be fewer distractions) if you wanted them to learn what they actually needed to learn. Combine this with actual teaching, and not simply teaching to the test and rote memorization, and they'll probably fare better. Teach people what they really need, and do it well.
Just like algebra, it could be useful to you. Although for the average person (who most likely have access to medical care), probably not. I certainly don't think we should have mandatory classes that waste months of your time 'teaching' about it!
but you'll need that way of thinking in the future.
She was wrong for a large majority of the population, apparently... At least for more algebra and advanced math. Believe it or not, plenty of people survive without it.
It doesn't take very much resources for somebody who happened to see you at two different places in the same day to go "hey, I saw that person at [X], and later at [Y]".
What does this have to do with anonymity on the Internet? No, I'd say normal people both don't have enough resources to find anything about you and are too ignorant to know where to start to begin with. It's simply not feasible for a normal person to be able to find anything out about you unless you've made it too easy for them. And again, this would just make it easy. You are effectively anonymous just like you're effectively private.
Your only protection from this is other people's apathy
Again, pretty much like with privacy. If they have the time and resources, they can get me. Fortunately, I still have privacy.
and something you cannot ever rely upon to give you all the anonymity you might want.
Not all I would want, no, but enough. Enough to know that it's not a good idea to hand out your name.
If people speak up against the law and it gets discarded, the 'damage' may not be worse. Of course, the government is determined to violate people's privacy, and people don't seem to care (yet), so I doubt it.
is because the people who might be around you do not have any particular interest in you
That's not necessarily true, either. Again, the only people who have the ability to find out anything about you (assuming you didn't willingly give up information) are people with a lot of resources. And then are plenty of ways to make it even more impossible for normal people to find out who you are (that force them to deal with more than just the ISP).
it is far from impregnable.
It does not need to be impregnable just like privacy doesn't.
How in the world is that a straw man? You might feel it's an inappropriate analogy, but how is it a straw man?
"The" is normal usage in all cultures.
As I thought, you missed my point. That's exactly what I'm talking about. I was pointing out how idiotic I feel it is that people getting offended about certain things matter more than people getting offended by other things. Somehow, if someone were to be offended by the word "the," it wouldn't be your fault if they were offended, but in other cases, it would be.
Those limits are where your "free speech" results in real harm to other individuals.
Unlike in this case!
When you mindlessly apply these laws to people who clearly didn't intend to do any harm, you end up harming innocent people, degrading respect for the law, and wasting taxpayer money.
Plus, much of the people whining that no one can take a joke any more will be whining about why the police didn't follow up on the public comments of the next psycho who shoots up a mall or bombs a bus terminal, comments made before he did those atrocities.
No, because I don't worry about unlikely events, and I don't believe that people who are very likely not intending to do harm should be harmed just because there is a minuscule chance that they could. Incidentally, I also don't care for pro-TSA mentalities (everyone getting punished).
Now mod me as troll, because I don't tow the ridiculously naive and cluelessly idealistic slashdot party line on "free speech".
I think you picked the wrong story to make this comment on if that was your intention.
Must be a personal definition. It doesn't really matter, though, because whether or not it's bad to be seen as "immature" and/or "childish" in someone's eyes is certainly subjective.
There are limits, and sexual harrassment is over the line
There are arbitrary limits.
So you strawman my argument
I did? The thing is, what constitutes "professional" behavior is subjective. Your statement, to me, implied that anyone who doesn't act in a certain way will be labeled "unprofessional."
If you actually have a sound reason why acting like an clown in your workplace and having no outward pride or respect in what you do is ideal conduct
Well, for one thing, I have no idea what you really mean. "Respect" is too ambiguous. If you're wasting all of your time not doing your work (perhaps by telling jokes), I'd say that's not ideal (because you won't get any work done). If you occasionally tell a joke that offends someone, I don't see a problem.
Marriage and all the collected social norms of different societies have around relationships can be said to have a evolutionary function.
I'd say marriage has little to do with it given the huge divorce rate. You don't have to get married to be in a long-term relationship (and it might even be safer if you don't).
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, the low cost is the problem
What I meant was this: I believe it's both a waste of money and an invasion of privacy to get information about nearly everyone (probably in an automated way) simply because some people are criminals. Of course, even if it didn't waste money, I'd be against it.
Should it be legal for me to point a camera out a window of my house and record cars that pass by?
You doing it isn't like the government doing it. The government is a very powerful group of people with far more power than you.
Gotta check 'em all.
I would disagree. That seems like a colossal waste of money.
It isn't, and my reply didn't indicate that it was. That's only part of the problem. The problem is that it affects everyone.
Anyone can sit down and write down liscense plate numbers.
But don't waste my tax money doing it to everyone in an automated way.
I have trouble believing anyone could seriously believe even this guy was anything more than what is known as an "internet tough guy."
Yes, let's arrest everyone who has ever uttered a threat even if they did not mean it. Honestly, this doesn't look like an individual who would even follow through. I can't imagine why people who actually support arresting people for death threats would want the police to waste public resources trying to catch people who were very likely not going to do anything. Comments like these actually seem quite normal.
I dislike DRM, but will defend a software company's right to encrypt their software, and even allow them to require an Internet connection to "unlock/decrypt" that software so that it can be used.
I would too. But I would also defend the right of people to modify their copy of the software to remove said DRM and even distribute cracks for it.
It is? Separate offline and online accounts, and if you really want to, ban any cheaters that somehow slip through (like they already will). No need to force everyone to be online.
Same thing could be said about history class or phy-ed or even english/comm/language.
I meant that it's not really a basic skill that most people use. I find phy-ed classes to be utterly useless given their simplicity, so I wouldn't mind seeing those go. If people want to learn about sports/exercises, they can do that on their own time; don't waste my time with a year-long class that gives out information I can find in five seconds.
history class
Probably not necessary save for a few key events. Too much filler as it is, in my opinion.
english/comm/language
Basic skills.
and it would be extremely detrimental to us to reduce the learning that students have to do today.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say it would be helpful (there would be fewer distractions) if you wanted them to learn what they actually needed to learn. Combine this with actual teaching, and not simply teaching to the test and rote memorization, and they'll probably fare better. Teach people what they really need, and do it well.
Just like algebra, it could be useful to you. Although for the average person (who most likely have access to medical care), probably not. I certainly don't think we should have mandatory classes that waste months of your time 'teaching' about it!
but you'll need that way of thinking in the future.
She was wrong for a large majority of the population, apparently... At least for more algebra and advanced math. Believe it or not, plenty of people survive without it.
It doesn't take very much resources for somebody who happened to see you at two different places in the same day to go "hey, I saw that person at [X], and later at [Y]".
What does this have to do with anonymity on the Internet? No, I'd say normal people both don't have enough resources to find anything about you and are too ignorant to know where to start to begin with. It's simply not feasible for a normal person to be able to find anything out about you unless you've made it too easy for them. And again, this would just make it easy. You are effectively anonymous just like you're effectively private.
Your only protection from this is other people's apathy
Again, pretty much like with privacy. If they have the time and resources, they can get me. Fortunately, I still have privacy.
and something you cannot ever rely upon to give you all the anonymity you might want.
Not all I would want, no, but enough. Enough to know that it's not a good idea to hand out your name.
That is using the failed logic that a pirated copy is a lost sale.
Not only that, but it isn't as if ThePirateBay (and it's not even shut down...) is the only place to download things.
(i) So says an anonymous coward.
I don't see how that's related unless he took part in the activities...
Even if he did, I don't see how it matters. I don't agree with what he said, though.
If people speak up against the law and it gets discarded, the 'damage' may not be worse. Of course, the government is determined to violate people's privacy, and people don't seem to care (yet), so I doubt it.
is because the people who might be around you do not have any particular interest in you
That's not necessarily true, either. Again, the only people who have the ability to find out anything about you (assuming you didn't willingly give up information) are people with a lot of resources. And then are plenty of ways to make it even more impossible for normal people to find out who you are (that force them to deal with more than just the ISP).
it is far from impregnable.
It does not need to be impregnable just like privacy doesn't.
Straw man.
How in the world is that a straw man? You might feel it's an inappropriate analogy, but how is it a straw man?
"The" is normal usage in all cultures.
As I thought, you missed my point. That's exactly what I'm talking about. I was pointing out how idiotic I feel it is that people getting offended about certain things matter more than people getting offended by other things. Somehow, if someone were to be offended by the word "the," it wouldn't be your fault if they were offended, but in other cases, it would be.
So do you believe Chik-Fil-A should be allowed to deploy franchises to Chicago or Boston then? Will you support their COO's right to free speech?
Yes.
no, the limits are natural.
No, the limits are defined by law. If there were no legal limit, then... there would be no legal limit.
so no, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre
I can. I just might be punished for it since that apparently isn't considered protected speech.
because
Because the law says so.
no, because you might cause someone else's death or injury in panic
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic at hand (this specific case).
So what?
Saying that everything has limits is false (as those limits, if they exist, are simply defined by the law, and those limits needn't exist).
Your opinion.
Yes, and? How else would I discuss it?
So free software hippie
Don't know where you got that.
do you stand for free speech or not?
Of course. Not sure about the one I replied to, though.
Everything has its limits.
Only if you put limits on it.
Those limits are where your "free speech" results in real harm to other individuals.
Unlike in this case!
When you mindlessly apply these laws to people who clearly didn't intend to do any harm, you end up harming innocent people, degrading respect for the law, and wasting taxpayer money.
Plus, much of the people whining that no one can take a joke any more will be whining about why the police didn't follow up on the public comments of the next psycho who shoots up a mall or bombs a bus terminal, comments made before he did those atrocities.
No, because I don't worry about unlikely events, and I don't believe that people who are very likely not intending to do harm should be harmed just because there is a minuscule chance that they could. Incidentally, I also don't care for pro-TSA mentalities (everyone getting punished).
Now mod me as troll, because I don't tow the ridiculously naive and cluelessly idealistic slashdot party line on "free speech".
I think you picked the wrong story to make this comment on if that was your intention.
by definition
Must be a personal definition. It doesn't really matter, though, because whether or not it's bad to be seen as "immature" and/or "childish" in someone's eyes is certainly subjective.
There are limits, and sexual harrassment is over the line
There are arbitrary limits.
So you strawman my argument
I did? The thing is, what constitutes "professional" behavior is subjective. Your statement, to me, implied that anyone who doesn't act in a certain way will be labeled "unprofessional."
If you actually have a sound reason why acting like an clown in your workplace and having no outward pride or respect in what you do is ideal conduct
Well, for one thing, I have no idea what you really mean. "Respect" is too ambiguous. If you're wasting all of your time not doing your work (perhaps by telling jokes), I'd say that's not ideal (because you won't get any work done). If you occasionally tell a joke that offends someone, I don't see a problem.
Marriage and all the collected social norms of different societies have around relationships can be said to have a evolutionary function.
I'd say marriage has little to do with it given the huge divorce rate. You don't have to get married to be in a long-term relationship (and it might even be safer if you don't).