But if you want to stop all the criminals and give the government extraordinary powers (and as we've historically seen, that's such a grand idea!), simply allow them to imprison anyone with no due process. That would satisfy your desire for safety, yes? After all, the government is made up of perfect beings who would never abuse citizens!
Military use of drones is necessary to keep people safe and to fight crime. Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.
Do you by chance support the Patriot Act and the TSA? It sounds like you're the type of person that would sacrifice people's rights for a perceived increase in safety, so it wouldn't surprise me at all.
The problem with drones is that they make the job far too simple, and are actually recording it. The government should not, I believe, have such a power. I don't believe planes or helicopter should be recording us, either.
Next, they'll be wondering why people pirate stuff.
No, they'll call it pure evil, claim that they're losing a ridiculous amount of potential profit, and then expect that to deter people from downloading. As if the file sharers care one bit about what they say...
Better yet, can't the TSA just vanish? Instead of molesting people at airports and violating people's rights, let's just accept the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack (unlikely since we secure cockpit doors now) and be done with it.
We are attentive. Many are aware of the corruption, greed, etc.
"Many"? I very, very highly doubt that. I've noticed quite a few people don't support the TSA anymore, but after 9/11, knee-jerk reactions were rampant. The Patriot Act, idiotic wars, the TSA... all of them just slipped through.
If one were absolutely committed to the belief there was no afterlife and no consequences for their actions in life beyond death then any anti-social behavior could be rationalized as calculated risk.
You could do that even if you weren't an atheist. You simply have to believe in a certain kind of afterlife (one where murderers aren't punished, for instance). Fortunately, however, atheists aren't typically bloodthirsty murderers. I suppose that could happen, but it tends not to.
This is the problem we have in society where instead of advancing thought and morals, we advance an atheist agenda lacking in morals.
I don't know how you concluded that anyone is lacking in morals.
By the way, the first major proponent for National atheism is Carl Marx. This is something to think very strongly about, though I very much doubt that people will do so even after reading that statement.
Memorization of some things is extremely important to reasoning skills.
But certainly not the things you just listed. Knowing why, how, and when to use it is often more important, in my opinion. And oftentimes, rote memorization is unnecessary and counterproductive.
It's not as if she'll get raped each time someone decides to watch the film. She was already raped, and no amount of slippery-slope-style censorship will change that.
But what's funny is that people even bother asking these questions. It's a pointless endeavor because the minute someone answers in a way they didn't expect, they typically begin calling the other person a liar and other such nonsense.
The stuff about banning skiing and similar activities was obviously silly
Banning things doesn't work a grand majority of the time, anyway.
If you've got hundreds of thousands of armed bandits killing people on sights so that they can steal their shoes, then seriously expanded police powers would be justified.
If by "seriously expanded police powers," you mean anything that involves removing any freedoms, then no, I don't believe that'll ever be justified. If you simply mean more police and resources dedicated to the police, perhaps.
so that harsh law enforcement isn't necessary and everybody can life in a more free society.
I think you've already got a problem on your hands when you suggest that "harsh law enforcement" is acceptable at any time.
And cutting them off from everything is something I feel is idiotic, anyway. I believe all drugs should be legal. I don't believe that we should, say, tax certain foods simply because some people eating them are unhealthy.
Some people believe that the GPL is useful as long as copyright exists but that copyright in general shouldn't exist. Also, what do you mean? You're just generalizing. Not everyone feels that way.
I don't want to be inadvertently affected by your actions, so I'll just advocate for draconian laws banning certain activities! Living in a free country just isn't worth it...
and someone else decides it's their right to TAKE it and GIVE it away
Did they also RAPE your intellectual property!? Did they MURDER it, too!? The horror! They're RAPING and MURDERING everyone's intellectual property! No one will have it ever again!
then I am directly harmed and losing something -- money in my pocket
Yes! Copying data is the exact same thing as walking up to the author and stealing money that they never had to begin with!
I wouldn't be giving them money, then. In fact, I think it would be better if you would just download the material (if you feel you must have it), because between supporting them and not supporting them, I believe not supporting them is always the better option. It has nothing to do with entitlement, but the fact that it's simply there. You needn't hold a gun to their head.
Well... I never suggested that there wasn't *ANY* difference... my assertion was about significant differences in the first place.
And I think all the differences add up to become significant differences.
As for ordinary citizens telling the government what they see... remember the Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver last year? Seems to me that quite a few perfectly ordinary people were more than willing to cough up whatever info they had.
That's one example. Bottom line: the government will be able to far more easily acquire the information it desires if they have government-owned cameras and listening devices in various places.
My stance is that if one does something in public, then that person can only reasonably expect it to not be publicly known about to the same extent that other people who have a legal right to be in the vicinity are simply not interested in what that person is doing.
My stance is that the government has no business doing this nonsense. They're the government, not ordinary citizens. If the people don't want them doing this, then they have no business doing it. I'd rather not have the information so centralized (especially to an organization that has the power to arrest people and ruin people's lives).
Slashdot Mirror
But if you want to stop all the criminals and give the government extraordinary powers (and as we've historically seen, that's such a grand idea!), simply allow them to imprison anyone with no due process. That would satisfy your desire for safety, yes? After all, the government is made up of perfect beings who would never abuse citizens!
Military use of drones is necessary to keep people safe and to fight crime. Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.
Do you by chance support the Patriot Act and the TSA? It sounds like you're the type of person that would sacrifice people's rights for a perceived increase in safety, so it wouldn't surprise me at all.
The problem with drones is that they make the job far too simple, and are actually recording it. The government should not, I believe, have such a power. I don't believe planes or helicopter should be recording us, either.
Next, they'll be wondering why people pirate stuff.
No, they'll call it pure evil, claim that they're losing a ridiculous amount of potential profit, and then expect that to deter people from downloading. As if the file sharers care one bit about what they say...
Can't the TSA just have the people scanned twice?
Better yet, can't the TSA just vanish? Instead of molesting people at airports and violating people's rights, let's just accept the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack (unlikely since we secure cockpit doors now) and be done with it.
Disposables are OK, but the ones with the removable blades are not, with good reason. They are just a step down from boxcutters used on 9/11.
I don't think there is any "good reason" for this security theater.
We are attentive. Many are aware of the corruption, greed, etc.
"Many"? I very, very highly doubt that. I've noticed quite a few people don't support the TSA anymore, but after 9/11, knee-jerk reactions were rampant. The Patriot Act, idiotic wars, the TSA... all of them just slipped through.
What, like Ubisoft's DRM-filled games (which are single-player)? You can have a single-player mode that forces you to be online thanks to DRM.
Really, you believe the justice system is fair?
Wait... what?
Is it more fair now than lets say 40 years ago?
Is this part of the "atheist agenda"? Is it by chance related to the homosexual agenda?
Wholly shit man, the moral compass for the US is extremely low overall.
It's definitely different than mine, but I wouldn't call it "low," and I wouldn't say it has anything to do with atheism or atheist agendas.
My guess is that like most people you only see them as freeloading pot heads
Well, you'd be wrong. That'd just be a generalization.
If one were absolutely committed to the belief there was no afterlife and no consequences for their actions in life beyond death then any anti-social behavior could be rationalized as calculated risk.
You could do that even if you weren't an atheist. You simply have to believe in a certain kind of afterlife (one where murderers aren't punished, for instance). Fortunately, however, atheists aren't typically bloodthirsty murderers. I suppose that could happen, but it tends not to.
This is the problem we have in society where instead of advancing thought and morals, we advance an atheist agenda lacking in morals.
I don't know how you concluded that anyone is lacking in morals.
By the way, the first major proponent for National atheism is Carl Marx. This is something to think very strongly about, though I very much doubt that people will do so even after reading that statement.
And Hitler liked puppies!
Memorization of some things is extremely important to reasoning skills.
But certainly not the things you just listed. Knowing why, how, and when to use it is often more important, in my opinion. And oftentimes, rote memorization is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Teenagers have a mindset close to an adult but are not fully there yet. They think they are invincible
I don't remember thinking that even once. I don't think I've ever met anyone who believes they're immortal. Are you referring to the insane?
Perhaps you should look at this as I often did in grade school. This is just preparing you for life.
That just ignores the actual problem and 'teaches' people the obvious. If you want to have them learn about life, ship them to Africa.
It's not as if she'll get raped each time someone decides to watch the film. She was already raped, and no amount of slippery-slope-style censorship will change that.
But what's funny is that people even bother asking these questions. It's a pointless endeavor because the minute someone answers in a way they didn't expect, they typically begin calling the other person a liar and other such nonsense.
The stuff about banning skiing and similar activities was obviously silly
Banning things doesn't work a grand majority of the time, anyway.
If you've got hundreds of thousands of armed bandits killing people on sights so that they can steal their shoes, then seriously expanded police powers would be justified.
If by "seriously expanded police powers," you mean anything that involves removing any freedoms, then no, I don't believe that'll ever be justified. If you simply mean more police and resources dedicated to the police, perhaps.
so that harsh law enforcement isn't necessary and everybody can life in a more free society.
I think you've already got a problem on your hands when you suggest that "harsh law enforcement" is acceptable at any time.
And cutting them off from everything is something I feel is idiotic, anyway. I believe all drugs should be legal. I don't believe that we should, say, tax certain foods simply because some people eating them are unhealthy.
Some people believe that the GPL is useful as long as copyright exists but that copyright in general shouldn't exist. Also, what do you mean? You're just generalizing. Not everyone feels that way.
I don't want to be inadvertently affected by your actions, so I'll just advocate for draconian laws banning certain activities! Living in a free country just isn't worth it...
and someone else decides it's their right to TAKE it and GIVE it away
Did they also RAPE your intellectual property!? Did they MURDER it, too!? The horror! They're RAPING and MURDERING everyone's intellectual property! No one will have it ever again!
then I am directly harmed and losing something -- money in my pocket
Yes! Copying data is the exact same thing as walking up to the author and stealing money that they never had to begin with!
Nothing was taken from you by copying your data; you still have all the data you had, you see.
That sounds about right.
Protesting all of that at once is possible, but I'm not sure it's really necessary. You could do it one by one if need be.
I wouldn't be giving them money, then. In fact, I think it would be better if you would just download the material (if you feel you must have it), because between supporting them and not supporting them, I believe not supporting them is always the better option. It has nothing to do with entitlement, but the fact that it's simply there. You needn't hold a gun to their head.
Well... I never suggested that there wasn't *ANY* difference... my assertion was about significant differences in the first place.
And I think all the differences add up to become significant differences.
As for ordinary citizens telling the government what they see... remember the Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver last year? Seems to me that quite a few perfectly ordinary people were more than willing to cough up whatever info they had.
That's one example. Bottom line: the government will be able to far more easily acquire the information it desires if they have government-owned cameras and listening devices in various places.
My stance is that if one does something in public, then that person can only reasonably expect it to not be publicly known about to the same extent that other people who have a legal right to be in the vicinity are simply not interested in what that person is doing.
My stance is that the government has no business doing this nonsense. They're the government, not ordinary citizens. If the people don't want them doing this, then they have no business doing it. I'd rather not have the information so centralized (especially to an organization that has the power to arrest people and ruin people's lives).
I do not perceive imperfect memory as a significant difference between a person knowing something and it being stored on digitally stored media.
I agree that it's not exactly significant, but I do believe it's a difference. That wasn't the only difference I listed.