So because you don't like how some frank discussions were revealed, you think it's appropriate to cover up killings and who knows what else under a veil of "classified"? So glad you have the big picture, here. That's a particularly unproductive way of arguing as perhaps you now appreciate.
You are being disingenuous. In another post you said I shouldn't support Assange since he is being investigated for rape, even though the subject was on Wikileaks and not Assange. So you are opposed to Wikileaks and scaring people from supporting them is what you are trying to do. You are not merely giving out friendly advice for people to not make a mistake, you are fighting against freedom of the press by trying to suppress it through fear. Your statements might as well be used to say that no one should run as or vote for an independent politician in America since such people invariably end up dead or having their life ruined by the government. I don't want to live in China, but it seems you do so do what you want and live with the consequences.
From your other posts it is obvious you are opposed to Wikileaks, and so you are invoking violent threats by proxy to fight Wikileaks. You don't fear evil cells in government departments (actually terrorist cells in the government, but that word is so overused), rather you congratulate them and extend their reach by spreading fear of them. I wouldn't have considered donating to Wikileaks otherwise, but now I'm going to do so to show my support for freedom of the press. I'm sure I'm going to be fine, though if not then the world is in much worse condition than I thought and Wikileaks is the sort of thing that can help fight that.
Assange has not been charged, he is under investigation, and in any case charges mean nothing - convictions do. Even then from the looks of it Assange is accused of "Swedish Rape" which is as related to rape as "Swedish Fish" are to fish. However, we were talking about Wikileaks not Assange, so don't change the subject. You're a wily one.
At least the agents you image to be doing these things will be familiar with their option to leak information about their activities in order to protect their country from their superiors.
It's like they are paying you, though the actual implication of what you are saying is that Wikileaks is not merely a good thing, it is absolutely essential because there are things that need to be leaked immediately and Wikileaks promotes that.
That is a different subject. I didn't write that America is a shitty country or a good country, or that it stands for something good or bad. What I wrote is that unless you have some substantial responsibility for making it however it is, it is irrational for you to be proud on that account since it doesn't reflect on you. It makes as much sense as it would for me to be proud that plants have achieved photosynthesis. A great accomplishment to be sure, and both plants and I live on earth, so I guess I do have a tenuous link to plants in that both I and plants come from Earth. Yet them having done so is none of my doing and so me being prideful of their accomplishments is irrational.
Yes, it's always dangerous to do business with large companies like Amazon or Paypal that aggressively try to obtain a monopoly in their market, because these kind of companies usually give a shit about individual customers.
Oh god no, "could care less" was bad enough, now that negation of intellect is spreading into other areas. I'm going to be in the corner feeling depressed. What you mean is "don't give a shit". Do you do this as a mistake, because you don't know the difference or just to torment people who do?
You didn't get it. The idea is that you're being irrational if you feel proud for yourself on behalf of something someone else did without a significant involvement by you in some way. You can be proud of your children in the sense that you had something to do with whatever they accomplished and that indirectly reflects on you. You can be proud of a friend if you played a significant role in his success. There might even be a tiny proportion of fans of sports teams that can rightfully be proud when they win due to them having done substantial things to make the win possible. The proportion of citizens that have cause to be proud of their country is just as tiny. No American alive today was involved in any way with the founding of America, and so feeling proud of what happened then is taking someone's else's glory for yourself - it is strutting stolen feathers. Not that that ever stopped anyone.
Arrogance is perfectly possible even if it is based on real accomplishment - it is based on how you behave in relation to other people and not what you have accomplished. If someone is looking down on a commoner for being a commoner, unlike his fine self, then he is arrogant no matter whether he has some merit that the commoner does not.
In a certain sense you are right that you can't give people the key and not give them the key at the same time. In the same sense public key cryptography does not work because you are giving people the (private) key, just in a form (the public key) that isn't easily accessible. Yet, public key cryptography does work because accessing the private key from the public key is so difficult that it isn't worth the bother. In the same way, you can make cameras where extracting the key is so difficult that it isn't worth the bother. Especially if each individual camera has its own key.
It's certainly just as accurate (which is to say not very) to say that it is like all the doctors with houses refuse to administer any medicine outside of M&M's, since medicine may have some side effects and we can't have that. Meanwhile, Wikileaks is at the market giving away vaccines for free, because that's what's needed tiny risks or not.
I don't think there is a safe way. The documents you have been given could have been altered in trivial ways to be specific to just you, so the people who gave you the documents will know it was your copy that got leaked. This can be playing around with white space, inserting irrelevant numbers (e.g. incorrect page numbers or contact telephone numbers), watermarks, spelling errors, alternative spellings, word choice, inserting bogus documents into the collection, etc. Then there is the technical possibilities like putting an identifier in the PDF that isn't displayed. I'd expect Wikileaks can fix the latter but not the former. Unless they have the leak from enough separate individuals to extract the identifiers, which doesn't seem possible in most cases.
It is you who are confusing physical objects and ideas. In this case paintings are obviously owned by the painter because he owns the canvas and the paint used to make it. What is being discussed is the idea of the painting, that which is copied when making a copy - the information that describes it. OP is saying you can't own such ideas, not that you can't an object which happens to embody such ideas.
Ahh but you forget trauma and violent death. No one lives forever, even if your body was capable of it. Eventually you will see enough of your friends and loved ones die, and the world will change so much, that you will probably consider suicide.
If extending life is inviting tragedy, why haven't you ended yours yet? No, I'm not advocating that, I'm saying that you'll want to continue living at 80 for exactly the same reasons that you don't kill yourself right now.
Slashdot Mirror
So because you don't like how some frank discussions were revealed, you think it's appropriate to cover up killings and who knows what else under a veil of "classified"? So glad you have the big picture, here. That's a particularly unproductive way of arguing as perhaps you now appreciate.
You are being disingenuous. In another post you said I shouldn't support Assange since he is being investigated for rape, even though the subject was on Wikileaks and not Assange. So you are opposed to Wikileaks and scaring people from supporting them is what you are trying to do. You are not merely giving out friendly advice for people to not make a mistake, you are fighting against freedom of the press by trying to suppress it through fear. Your statements might as well be used to say that no one should run as or vote for an independent politician in America since such people invariably end up dead or having their life ruined by the government. I don't want to live in China, but it seems you do so do what you want and live with the consequences.
It's not that stupid laws should morally be followed, it's that you are going to be in a lot of trouble if you don't follow them.
Wait... Pacman has a storyline outside of "nom nom nom aarrgh ghost nom nom nom"!?
From your other posts it is obvious you are opposed to Wikileaks, and so you are invoking violent threats by proxy to fight Wikileaks. You don't fear evil cells in government departments (actually terrorist cells in the government, but that word is so overused), rather you congratulate them and extend their reach by spreading fear of them. I wouldn't have considered donating to Wikileaks otherwise, but now I'm going to do so to show my support for freedom of the press. I'm sure I'm going to be fine, though if not then the world is in much worse condition than I thought and Wikileaks is the sort of thing that can help fight that.
Assange has not been charged, he is under investigation, and in any case charges mean nothing - convictions do. Even then from the looks of it Assange is accused of "Swedish Rape" which is as related to rape as "Swedish Fish" are to fish. However, we were talking about Wikileaks not Assange, so don't change the subject. You're a wily one.
I think the point is that anyone can upload anything, just like on Wikipedia.
At least the agents you image to be doing these things will be familiar with their option to leak information about their activities in order to protect their country from their superiors.
It's like they are paying you, though the actual implication of what you are saying is that Wikileaks is not merely a good thing, it is absolutely essential because there are things that need to be leaked immediately and Wikileaks promotes that.
At least the psyops have been effective enough to get to you, so I'll give them that.
That is a different subject. I didn't write that America is a shitty country or a good country, or that it stands for something good or bad. What I wrote is that unless you have some substantial responsibility for making it however it is, it is irrational for you to be proud on that account since it doesn't reflect on you. It makes as much sense as it would for me to be proud that plants have achieved photosynthesis. A great accomplishment to be sure, and both plants and I live on earth, so I guess I do have a tenuous link to plants in that both I and plants come from Earth. Yet them having done so is none of my doing and so me being prideful of their accomplishments is irrational.
Words don't have to mean what their constituent words spell out.
Yes, it's always dangerous to do business with large companies like Amazon or Paypal that aggressively try to obtain a monopoly in their market, because these kind of companies usually give a shit about individual customers.
Oh god no, "could care less" was bad enough, now that negation of intellect is spreading into other areas. I'm going to be in the corner feeling depressed. What you mean is "don't give a shit". Do you do this as a mistake, because you don't know the difference or just to torment people who do?
You didn't get it. The idea is that you're being irrational if you feel proud for yourself on behalf of something someone else did without a significant involvement by you in some way. You can be proud of your children in the sense that you had something to do with whatever they accomplished and that indirectly reflects on you. You can be proud of a friend if you played a significant role in his success. There might even be a tiny proportion of fans of sports teams that can rightfully be proud when they win due to them having done substantial things to make the win possible. The proportion of citizens that have cause to be proud of their country is just as tiny. No American alive today was involved in any way with the founding of America, and so feeling proud of what happened then is taking someone's else's glory for yourself - it is strutting stolen feathers. Not that that ever stopped anyone.
Arrogance is perfectly possible even if it is based on real accomplishment - it is based on how you behave in relation to other people and not what you have accomplished. If someone is looking down on a commoner for being a commoner, unlike his fine self, then he is arrogant no matter whether he has some merit that the commoner does not.
You seem to believe that you disagree with me though your post makes it clear that you don't. It's a little strange.
In a certain sense you are right that you can't give people the key and not give them the key at the same time. In the same sense public key cryptography does not work because you are giving people the (private) key, just in a form (the public key) that isn't easily accessible. Yet, public key cryptography does work because accessing the private key from the public key is so difficult that it isn't worth the bother. In the same way, you can make cameras where extracting the key is so difficult that it isn't worth the bother. Especially if each individual camera has its own key.
It's certainly just as accurate (which is to say not very) to say that it is like all the doctors with houses refuse to administer any medicine outside of M&M's, since medicine may have some side effects and we can't have that. Meanwhile, Wikileaks is at the market giving away vaccines for free, because that's what's needed tiny risks or not.
I don't think there is a safe way. The documents you have been given could have been altered in trivial ways to be specific to just you, so the people who gave you the documents will know it was your copy that got leaked. This can be playing around with white space, inserting irrelevant numbers (e.g. incorrect page numbers or contact telephone numbers), watermarks, spelling errors, alternative spellings, word choice, inserting bogus documents into the collection, etc. Then there is the technical possibilities like putting an identifier in the PDF that isn't displayed. I'd expect Wikileaks can fix the latter but not the former. Unless they have the leak from enough separate individuals to extract the identifiers, which doesn't seem possible in most cases.
While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl, [...]
Yes, by saying that you aren't that's exactly what you are doing. Strangely, your post would otherwise have contained no such suggestion.
And more importantly, it would mean end of religions, unless we want to fool ourselves now on new, grandiose scale.
That's exactly what we want.
It is you who are confusing physical objects and ideas. In this case paintings are obviously owned by the painter because he owns the canvas and the paint used to make it. What is being discussed is the idea of the painting, that which is copied when making a copy - the information that describes it. OP is saying you can't own such ideas, not that you can't an object which happens to embody such ideas.
you are just blowing smoke up your own butt.
Could you elaborate on how that is done?
I want to live forever.
Ahh but you forget trauma and violent death. No one lives forever, even if your body was capable of it. Eventually you will see enough of your friends and loved ones die, and the world will change so much, that you will probably consider suicide.
I'll take that.
If extending life is inviting tragedy, why haven't you ended yours yet? No, I'm not advocating that, I'm saying that you'll want to continue living at 80 for exactly the same reasons that you don't kill yourself right now.