I agree; but to be fair, I think it is easy for people with a little less knowledge to heuristically lump bandwidth and latency together, especially if they aren't dealing with (say) satellite links, because links with very low latency are in practice somewhat more likely to have high bandwidth. So if it is wrong, it is at least understandably wrong.
Waving your hands at the wikipedia article for history simply does not demonstrate any relation of entailment between stupid piracy legislation and people being disallowed from quoting 1984. Really?
I don't see any logical connection between the (stupid) DMCA and the hysterical claim that web sites will be shut down for hosting negative movie reviews.
Whether I can "envision a scenario" is irrelevant; I can envision a scenario where I am drowning in cognac, but that doesn't make it likely.
I see tons of negative movie reviews and tons of people quoting 1984 without those websites being shut down.
I don't see any reason to suppose that (stupid) piracy legislation means that such extreme things would start to happen... there is no evidence for that claim that I can see.
This does not entail statements like "you can trust the government" and "any dissenters should be put in jail" any more than your post entails "babies are tasty."
I see no relationship of entailment between piracy legislation and movie blogs being shut down for bad reviews, or forums being shut down when someone quotes 1984.
I'm open to seeing such an entailment demonstrated.
But attacking me personally doesn't demonstrate such an entailment, nor does hand-waving about how the world is run by cash.
We can legitimately disagree, but I don't think crappy candidates and a sense of disenfranchisement make a good case for turning US politics into a contest of arms.
Contests of arms kill civilians, ruin lives, destroy infrastructure and permanently encourage the resolution of conflicts by contests of arms, even where less damaging forms of negotiation would work.
In this century it does not seem that nations become Fascist or Communist hells without armed revolution; but with armed revolution, it seems virtually inevitable that the most ruthless and power-hungry men rise to the top and purge all opponents, starting with the most righteous among the revolutionaries. Then they can use all the usual tactics to keep a lock on power for 50 or more years before the wall starts to crumble (and I can't name a case where this crumbling was caused by armed revolution). So I feel pretty sure that this cure is worse than the disease, and the worst thing I can imagine happening to America.
Because citizens have conflicting interests, one man's responsiveness is another man's unresponsiveness. And with about 150 million other voters, any individual voice is effectively lost even in a fair vote. This is without even getting into citizens who are unlawfully pursuing their interests at the expense of others. We can't expect our government to fix that for us.
I hope that US citizens who maintain battle weapons would use them to oppose the transformation of the US into a war-torn third world country ruled by force, rather than to facilitate that.
I think we have created a wonderful thing in the US and that no number of fights about the top tax bracket or abortion can justify its destruction, nor (for reasons I've outlined) do I find it plausible that political violence is a good solution to our arguments.
Every gun-holder in the US military is governed by a chain of command and by a body of law which provides for very serious consequences if they get out of line. It works. So I would have to say they are not "lunatics with guns" even if a few members of the military, privately, were disposed to behave as lunatics.
Not to be rude, but what authority does "speaking as a Brit" give you to tell me what the US is like?
I do NOT pretend that the US is superior (whatever that means - it sounds like you have a grudge). But credit should be given where it is due - when was the last time we had a coup or replacement of Constitution, again? That seems to me a more reasonable benchmark for stability than some nebulous qualitative judgement based on forum browsing and/or prejudice.
I seem to be under the impression that the UK has also participated in wars - even in unreasonable wars which killed lots of people. Not just Iraq and Afghanistan, which I believe the UK has also been involved in; I am under the impression that the British pursued a number of overtly colonial projects throughout the world in which native populations were used as slave labor to extract resources, and top-down political control was maintained by garrisons and intelligence officers, with all that entails. Not that the populace of the UK had any real awareness, or presently seems to have any real awareness, of the vast scope of the inhumanity practiced by the British Empire, notwithstanding the very direct outrage vented by virtually all of the peoples which the British colon-ized. Has there ever been a comprehensive apology for this? For Britain's seeding of ALL the current conflicts in the Middle East?
Please don't tell me that I am the problem. Fix your own country. This has nothing to do with guns, and less to do with stupid hunters shooting at Google fiber.
I don't think the confrontations generally get to the point where the US military is seriously involved - usually just SWAT and stuff? I don't think the police are idiots, I'm glad they are around to help deal with lunatics and I'm grateful for their dedication. We need more people who are serious about maintaining sane and stable order, and fewer lunatics.
I don't think that armed attack on the US government is a good idea because we have a legitimate democratic republic with the rule of law. It is more effective and more moral to vote, demonstrate, etc. than to try to conduct a civil war. Even if a revolt were successful, the most it would achieve (like most such revolutions) would be to install the most ruthless people available at the time.
The Turner Diaries was a favorite of Timothy McVey and has been picked up by a lot of other cranks. But that isn't the truth about US gun culture, that is just nuts. I very strongly disagree with that nonsense.
You don't understand US gun culture unless you understand that it is antique, and that it is based in rural life; and that due to the history and sheer size of the US, that a lot of the US is rural. People whose nearest neighbors live far away don't have immediate access to 911 police protection or animal control. They may also live off their land.
Good old boys doing stupid things may trace to remnants of this, and they are stupid, but it doesn't mean that all gun culture (or the antique culture of the "West") is stupid. Look, some cultures don't know how to handle alcohol (or other drug), and some cultures have integrated it so fully that it is relatively safe for them, because they have mechanisms for handling it and specified contexts where it is appropriate. It is the same thing here. Cultures all over the world have different views and ways of dealing with lethal weapons without anyone being crazy. We're not all Londoners or New Yorkers or Vegans, and I don't think that we should be. I think the variety makes the world richer.
That's why I don't think owning firearms makes a person "gun happy" and I don't think that there is no legitimate reason to own firearms. That doesn't mean I think everyone should carry loaded firearms around all the time, or that it's wise to carry them to angry political rallies as a way to intimidate opponents, or that it makes sense to rant about how we should attack the US government, or black people, or anything like that. I can recall feeling a bit repelled by ESR's rhetoric when I read his page. It is just that in my culture we have room for defensive carry and for hunting, and I think my culture has a right to exist. (Probably it's also a bad thing if the only people who are armed are gun-happy barbarians.)
It seems to me misguided to focus obsessively on gun accidents to the exclusion of illegally obtained guns, heart disease or car accidents. But I don't think gun-control advocates are devils and I don't think every man, woman and child needs rocket-propelled grenades or fully automatic rifles to fight the legitimate government with. I just disagree with the few of those people who think that guns should be wholly banned across the US.
Most of the 300 million-or-so residents of the US do want to work here, and not a small number of people from other countries also come here to study, start a new life, and - yes - do business. A lot of us actually like our country (which doesn't mean we have to think that Europe or Asia are bad). But if living here is not your cup of tea, you have the freedom to leave.
Well, you have every right to write angry letters to congressmen, or complain in the newspaper, or for that matter on slashdot. But "the government" is not a unitary entity, so I'm not sure whether any of the people getting your message are the bad guy that you want to reach.
But your movie blog is gone the first time you give a bad review.
Your political forum is shut down the first time some kid quotes 1984.
Etc, etc..
Do you have any evidence of this? I don't see how it follows from the article, so it sounds like paranoia, and I'll regard it as such until I have any evidence at all to back it up.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree; but to be fair, I think it is easy for people with a little less knowledge to heuristically lump bandwidth and latency together, especially if they aren't dealing with (say) satellite links, because links with very low latency are in practice somewhat more likely to have high bandwidth. So if it is wrong, it is at least understandably wrong.
A stupid and litigious cult issues DMCA notices, therefore the US Government will shut down forums where people quote 1984? Really?
Waving your hands at the wikipedia article for history simply does not demonstrate any relation of entailment between stupid piracy legislation and people being disallowed from quoting 1984. Really?
I don't see any logical connection between the (stupid) DMCA and the hysterical claim that web sites will be shut down for hosting negative movie reviews.
Whether I can "envision a scenario" is irrelevant; I can envision a scenario where I am drowning in cognac, but that doesn't make it likely.
I see tons of negative movie reviews and tons of people quoting 1984 without those websites being shut down.
I don't see any reason to suppose that (stupid) piracy legislation means that such extreme things would start to happen... there is no evidence for that claim that I can see.
This does not entail statements like "you can trust the government" and "any dissenters should be put in jail" any more than your post entails "babies are tasty."
I see no relationship of entailment between piracy legislation and movie blogs being shut down for bad reviews, or forums being shut down when someone quotes 1984.
I'm open to seeing such an entailment demonstrated.
But attacking me personally doesn't demonstrate such an entailment, nor does hand-waving about how the world is run by cash.
We can legitimately disagree, but I don't think crappy candidates and a sense of disenfranchisement make a good case for turning US politics into a contest of arms.
Contests of arms kill civilians, ruin lives, destroy infrastructure and permanently encourage the resolution of conflicts by contests of arms, even where less damaging forms of negotiation would work.
In this century it does not seem that nations become Fascist or Communist hells without armed revolution; but with armed revolution, it seems virtually inevitable that the most ruthless and power-hungry men rise to the top and purge all opponents, starting with the most righteous among the revolutionaries. Then they can use all the usual tactics to keep a lock on power for 50 or more years before the wall starts to crumble (and I can't name a case where this crumbling was caused by armed revolution). So I feel pretty sure that this cure is worse than the disease, and the worst thing I can imagine happening to America.
Because citizens have conflicting interests, one man's responsiveness is another man's unresponsiveness. And with about 150 million other voters, any individual voice is effectively lost even in a fair vote. This is without even getting into citizens who are unlawfully pursuing their interests at the expense of others. We can't expect our government to fix that for us.
I hope that US citizens who maintain battle weapons would use them to oppose the transformation of the US into a war-torn third world country ruled by force, rather than to facilitate that.
I think we have created a wonderful thing in the US and that no number of fights about the top tax bracket or abortion can justify its destruction, nor (for reasons I've outlined) do I find it plausible that political violence is a good solution to our arguments.
I don't see why you have singled out income taxes here. Why are sales taxes or property taxes better than income taxes?
Every gun-holder in the US military is governed by a chain of command and by a body of law which provides for very serious consequences if they get out of line. It works. So I would have to say they are not "lunatics with guns" even if a few members of the military, privately, were disposed to behave as lunatics.
Not to be rude, but what authority does "speaking as a Brit" give you to tell me what the US is like?
I do NOT pretend that the US is superior (whatever that means - it sounds like you have a grudge). But credit should be given where it is due - when was the last time we had a coup or replacement of Constitution, again? That seems to me a more reasonable benchmark for stability than some nebulous qualitative judgement based on forum browsing and/or prejudice.
I seem to be under the impression that the UK has also participated in wars - even in unreasonable wars which killed lots of people. Not just Iraq and Afghanistan, which I believe the UK has also been involved in; I am under the impression that the British pursued a number of overtly colonial projects throughout the world in which native populations were used as slave labor to extract resources, and top-down political control was maintained by garrisons and intelligence officers, with all that entails. Not that the populace of the UK had any real awareness, or presently seems to have any real awareness, of the vast scope of the inhumanity practiced by the British Empire, notwithstanding the very direct outrage vented by virtually all of the peoples which the British colon-ized. Has there ever been a comprehensive apology for this? For Britain's seeding of ALL the current conflicts in the Middle East?
Please don't tell me that I am the problem. Fix your own country. This has nothing to do with guns, and less to do with stupid hunters shooting at Google fiber.
I don't think the confrontations generally get to the point where the US military is seriously involved - usually just SWAT and stuff? I don't think the police are idiots, I'm glad they are around to help deal with lunatics and I'm grateful for their dedication. We need more people who are serious about maintaining sane and stable order, and fewer lunatics.
I don't think that armed attack on the US government is a good idea because we have a legitimate democratic republic with the rule of law. It is more effective and more moral to vote, demonstrate, etc. than to try to conduct a civil war. Even if a revolt were successful, the most it would achieve (like most such revolutions) would be to install the most ruthless people available at the time.
The Turner Diaries was a favorite of Timothy McVey and has been picked up by a lot of other cranks. But that isn't the truth about US gun culture, that is just nuts. I very strongly disagree with that nonsense.
You don't understand US gun culture unless you understand that it is antique, and that it is based in rural life; and that due to the history and sheer size of the US, that a lot of the US is rural.
People whose nearest neighbors live far away don't have immediate access to 911 police protection or animal control. They may also live off their land.
Good old boys doing stupid things may trace to remnants of this, and they are stupid, but it doesn't mean that all gun culture (or the antique culture of the "West") is stupid. Look, some cultures don't know how to handle alcohol (or other drug), and some cultures have integrated it so fully that it is relatively safe for them, because they have mechanisms for handling it and specified contexts where it is appropriate. It is the same thing here. Cultures all over the world have different views and ways of dealing with lethal weapons without anyone being crazy. We're not all Londoners or New Yorkers or Vegans, and I don't think that we should be. I think the variety makes the world richer.
That's why I don't think owning firearms makes a person "gun happy" and I don't think that there is no legitimate reason to own firearms. That doesn't mean I think everyone should carry loaded firearms around all the time, or that it's wise to carry them to angry political rallies as a way to intimidate opponents, or that it makes sense to rant about how we should attack the US government, or black people, or anything like that. I can recall feeling a bit repelled by ESR's rhetoric when I read his page. It is just that in my culture we have room for defensive carry and for hunting, and I think my culture has a right to exist. (Probably it's also a bad thing if the only people who are armed are gun-happy barbarians.)
It seems to me misguided to focus obsessively on gun accidents to the exclusion of illegally obtained guns, heart disease or car accidents. But I don't think gun-control advocates are devils and I don't think every man, woman and child needs rocket-propelled grenades or fully automatic rifles to fight the legitimate government with. I just disagree with the few of those people who think that guns should be wholly banned across the US.
Most of the 300 million-or-so residents of the US do want to work here, and not a small number of people from other countries also come here to study, start a new life, and - yes - do business. A lot of us actually like our country (which doesn't mean we have to think that Europe or Asia are bad). But if living here is not your cup of tea, you have the freedom to leave.
Well, you have every right to write angry letters to congressmen, or complain in the newspaper, or for that matter on slashdot. But "the government" is not a unitary entity, so I'm not sure whether any of the people getting your message are the bad guy that you want to reach.
But your movie blog is gone the first time you give a bad review.
Your political forum is shut down the first time some kid quotes 1984.
Etc, etc..
Do you have any evidence of this? I don't see how it follows from the article, so it sounds like paranoia, and I'll regard it as such until I have any evidence at all to back it up.