What are a conscripts options again? They can choose prison/death or obey?
If they obey, they also face death. But really, I think those are valid options when I consider that opposing conscription is opposing the idea that the government owns you and can send you off to die somewhere. I don't think any free country should be conscripting anyone.
All irrelevant. I don't think there's any excuse for violating the constitution and people's rights, and saying, "Well, you'd probably do it too!" isn't very convincing to me in the least. Acknowledging reality (that most people are sheep) and having sympathy for crooks are two different things.
If we were to roll back the programs themselves it would give terrorist organizations and foreign governments a distinct advantage in signals intelligence.
A good question. I think for most people, it's just a waste of time.
Why teach history in school? Not everyone will commit genocide.
That one is actually relevant to politics, so they can perhaps make better decisions about what powers the government should have and what powers it shouldn't. That's what I'd like to say, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Why teach mathematics in school?
Beyond the most simple math? I have no idea. We don't even teach it well enough for people to even begin to truly comprehend it, so I don't know why we bother at this point.
Is stubbornly ignoring reality really a sign of intelligence?
How is not following idiotic instructions ignoring reality? The only people ignoring reality are the ones who come up with these idiotic instructions, or the ones who cause these people to do so.
I'm not seeing your point. I don't consider blind obedience to be a good thing. I don't even consider grades (especially not high school grades) to be very important, if that's what you're trying to get at.
Because, if he did, then you had a clear success criteria, and you failed to follow instructions.
And? I would think that anyone with a brain would already realize that's a terrible idea to begin with. I don't consider it a failing to not follow such ridiculous instructions.
They will only care after the metadata makes them think you're a terrorist.
No, they'll care as soon as you do something they really don't like, whether or not whatever you did was wrong. All this information at their fingertips is merely something they can use to oppress anyone they don't like.
I wonder if you would feel the same way about what the "concerning bit" is if the program they were distributing included a rootkit and keylogger instead of a DRM circumvention.
I would. As far as I'm concerned, government thugs have no business taking action against such things.
Drug dealers think laws against selling drugs are unjust.
I think they're right.
CEOs think laws against insider trading are unjust.
I think they're right.
Nerds think laws against breaking DRM are unjust.
I think they're right.
Does that make it so?
It does to the individual.
Society is the ultimate decision maker on unjust laws.
Every single time someone mentions unjust laws, someone such as yourself swoops in to talk about how the "real world" works. I don't know about anyone else, but I find you people highly unnecessary. I think just about everyone knows how the "real world" works, and that's what they're complaining about to begin with. Begone.
And no. The ultimate decision maker is the individual, as it's a subjective matter. The ones who decide to take action are usually members of the government, and if you think the government often listens to the people (who are mostly apathetic), you're truly naive.
If Americans weren't so squeamish about killing terrorists and other outlaws who commit violent crimes, we wouldn't have to give up our freedoms and we could be safe from their predations.
We don't have to give up our freedoms either way. Whether the security is real or fake is irrelevant; I don't think the land of the free and the home of the brave should be sacrificing its freedom for security, real or imagined.
If the choice is between me keeping my freedom and privacy and Americans having security, quite frankly, I'd rather keep my rights intact.
I'd rather have you keep your rights, and I'd rather keep my rights, too. To me, it doesn't matter whether or not the security is real; freedom is my goal.
I think you'd be surprised at how horrendously incompetent most people are. I'd say young people are nowhere near as 'tech savvy' as some people like to claim they are, to the point where they have difficulty doing much beyond accessing their Facebook pages and using a few specific programs.
Slashdot Mirror
What are a conscripts options again? They can choose prison/death or obey?
If they obey, they also face death. But really, I think those are valid options when I consider that opposing conscription is opposing the idea that the government owns you and can send you off to die somewhere. I don't think any free country should be conscripting anyone.
I give my information to Google willingly.
You might, but there are people whose 'friends' and family gladly surrender information about them to these companies, even without their consent.
And then, of course, any information these companies have is almost always readily accessible to the government.
All irrelevant. I don't think there's any excuse for violating the constitution and people's rights, and saying, "Well, you'd probably do it too!" isn't very convincing to me in the least. Acknowledging reality (that most people are sheep) and having sympathy for crooks are two different things.
and virtually all of us are wrong.
But not all.
No wonder cold fjord hasn't been seen around here lately.
Well, he's around here now.
If we were to roll back the programs themselves it would give terrorist organizations and foreign governments a distinct advantage in signals intelligence.
Yeah, the bogeymen might get us. Can't have that.
Fine for an educational setting, of course.
Really? I think it's most inappropriate for an education setting.
Why teach geography in school?
A good question. I think for most people, it's just a waste of time.
Why teach history in school? Not everyone will commit genocide.
That one is actually relevant to politics, so they can perhaps make better decisions about what powers the government should have and what powers it shouldn't. That's what I'd like to say, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Why teach mathematics in school?
Beyond the most simple math? I have no idea. We don't even teach it well enough for people to even begin to truly comprehend it, so I don't know why we bother at this point.
Not if ignoring the instructions gives no advantages
I'd say it does carry an advantage: Sticking to your principles. I consider not being a drone to be an advantage in and of itself.
Is stubbornly ignoring reality really a sign of intelligence?
How is not following idiotic instructions ignoring reality? The only people ignoring reality are the ones who come up with these idiotic instructions, or the ones who cause these people to do so.
I'm not seeing your point. I don't consider blind obedience to be a good thing. I don't even consider grades (especially not high school grades) to be very important, if that's what you're trying to get at.
So the next justification is that you can't use the degree you buy from a non-accredited university to get a job. Why not?
Because worthless employers think that some worthless pieces of paper are more valuable than others, of course.
Because employers expect that the degree means you have learned a minimum set of per-requisites they require in their employees.
Such employers are lazy, ignorant, and incompetent
Because, if he did, then you had a clear success criteria, and you failed to follow instructions.
And? I would think that anyone with a brain would already realize that's a terrible idea to begin with. I don't consider it a failing to not follow such ridiculous instructions.
but they are still educated
Assuming what you say is even true, that just goes to show that no matter how "educated" someone is, they could still be completely unintelligent.
tell that to the 175 cases.
What a meaningless thing to say. Everything seems bigger and more frightening when you're affected by it.
They don't even have to label you as a terrorist, or anything else.
They will only care after the metadata makes them think you're a terrorist.
No, they'll care as soon as you do something they really don't like, whether or not whatever you did was wrong. All this information at their fingertips is merely something they can use to oppress anyone they don't like.
It's difficult and unwise to remove a politician over a single issue
I don't think it's unwise to remove a politician over something like this.
I wonder if you would feel the same way about what the "concerning bit" is if the program they were distributing included a rootkit and keylogger instead of a DRM circumvention.
I would. As far as I'm concerned, government thugs have no business taking action against such things.
Drug dealers think laws against selling drugs are unjust.
I think they're right.
CEOs think laws against insider trading are unjust.
I think they're right.
Nerds think laws against breaking DRM are unjust.
I think they're right.
Does that make it so?
It does to the individual.
Society is the ultimate decision maker on unjust laws.
Every single time someone mentions unjust laws, someone such as yourself swoops in to talk about how the "real world" works. I don't know about anyone else, but I find you people highly unnecessary. I think just about everyone knows how the "real world" works, and that's what they're complaining about to begin with. Begone.
And no. The ultimate decision maker is the individual, as it's a subjective matter. The ones who decide to take action are usually members of the government, and if you think the government often listens to the people (who are mostly apathetic), you're truly naive.
Not much seems to be done about these draconian copyright laws we have.
If Americans weren't so squeamish about killing terrorists and other outlaws who commit violent crimes, we wouldn't have to give up our freedoms and we could be safe from their predations.
We don't have to give up our freedoms either way. Whether the security is real or fake is irrelevant; I don't think the land of the free and the home of the brave should be sacrificing its freedom for security, real or imagined.
If the choice is between me keeping my freedom and privacy and Americans having security, quite frankly, I'd rather keep my rights intact.
I'd rather have you keep your rights, and I'd rather keep my rights, too. To me, it doesn't matter whether or not the security is real; freedom is my goal.
They probably already know how to pirate.
I think you'd be surprised at how horrendously incompetent most people are. I'd say young people are nowhere near as 'tech savvy' as some people like to claim they are, to the point where they have difficulty doing much beyond accessing their Facebook pages and using a few specific programs.
The US should spend money on this kind of thing - privacy intrusion and all - instead of military adventures. Less bloody and more effective.
How about not spending money on either, and start valuing freedom?
Crack smoking mayor? I have to draw a line there
Oh, of course...