The techie/geek community has a very particular, libertarian-flavored sort of inbred stupidity. Bitcoin is a perfect vehicle to exploit this stupidity.
HTH
People do this in public places all the time. Some, however, seem more interested in figuring out what bothers the cops, and then ritually pushing those buttons, than actually making any point or getting any message out. Somewhat ironically, those are the ones you are more likely to hear about in the news.
In related news, China is eager for us to develop cutting-edge technology faster, so they'll have more to steal as part of the most awesometastic double-dipping scheme ever.
No, I mean "sensible" in the dictionary-definition sense.
Or in other words, an adjective that is inapplicable to most comments made by the foaming-at-the-mouth-at-the-mere-mention-of-IP crowd. *laughs*
You're correct; however, this is Slashdot and sensible comments on the subject of illegal file sharing will be shouted down by children and modded (Score: -100, Fascist Pig).
that I wish someone would trash Sony's servers, steal its customer data, and torch its corporate headquarters. Because that's just the right way to do things.
When you say "we", do you mean the United States? Because there's already such a program in place at... you guessed it... the same law school whose prof made the proposal to the UK IP minister.
But, you would have had to read the feature article to know that.
Lol clueless twit. This is why most people need to be a lawyer to not sound like an idiot when talking about the law. "I'm right" is not a position; "Law X says I'm right" is not an argument; "I'm right because certain lawyers say I'm right -- other lawyers say I'm wrong, but they are WRONG!" is also not an argument. "Bill X violates the constitution" is not an argument in any way; it's ALMOST a position (one of which you need to have before making an argument in defense of one) but doesn't quite make the grade because it's hopelessly non-specific. Saying "the Constitution mandates X, whereas the bill forbids it" is not, by itself, an argument that Bill X is unconstitutional; and even if it were, simply saying something doesn't make it so. You have to PROVE it by "showing your work".
In short, you have done every dumbass thing that uninformed dumbasses do when talking about the law. Failing to stake a position; failing to make an argument; purporting to reject arguments you haven't even bothered to read or understand, based on the identity of the people making them (that's called an "ad hominem fallacy" FYI); simply naming laws and asserting that they conclusively prove you're right (without saying HOW or WHY or identifying relevant language OR EVEN providing a proper citation to the law that can be used to verify what you're saying; among many others too numerous to list.
Again, you'll have to pardon me if I think the Spanish government has a better handle on the constitutionality of the law – when all you are offering to "rebut" that is the hopelessly general, unsupported, un-cited CONCLUSIONS of law (note: not arguments) which you prefer. Simply saying you're right and the government is wrong doesn't cut it. And if the unconstitutionality of the bill were beyond question, you can rest assured either that the parliament wouldn't be presenting it, or that it will be struck down quickly. It's either already been declared unconstitutional, or its constitutionality is open to argument. When the highest court of the jurisdiction (that will be the highest court in spain, FYI) has conclusively pronounced on the subject, then the matter will be settled. Until then, there are only arguments. That could be a problem, since you don't seem to like making legal arguments, or at any rate you don't even have a basic idea of what a legal argument looks like and thus have a corresponding lack of competence on the subject.
Keep talking, kid. I can keep this up forever. However I recommend you do some research and start making sense if you expect your viewpoint to be taken seriously.
Hint: INCLUDE the research with CITATIONS as part of your argument and EXPLAIN HOW THE CITED MATERIAL SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT. If someone has said something that proves you're right, don't just say it; PROVE IT. That way, you'll either have shown you're right, or the person you're spewing rhetoric at will see the flaw in your argument and point it out to you. If you simply say "nuh uh I'm right" the audience can neither conclude that you're right NOR conclude that you're wrong, but they can certainly conclude you're a blathering idiot who likes to hear himself talk.
Awesome idiotic comparison.
"The AVERAGE TIME ACTUALLY SERVED for jail sentence for a serious crime is only somewhat longer than the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SENTENCE THAT CAN BE HANDED DOWN (NOT NECESSARILY ACTUALLY SERVED) for a much less serious crime."
WOW!!
This is sort of like saying that the absolute maximum speed that can be reached for 0.1 second by a Toyota Prius with a rocket engine strapped to its roof is the same as the average cruising speed of a $200,000 Ferrari running in 3rd gear with the top down. In other words: it's a ridiculous, ill-constructed, useless comparison.
Stupid comments breed like fruit flies on these forums.
And as usual Slashdot features a bunch of clueless twits whining about (1) a law that they don't understand and (2) the law, which they don't understand. And screaming for blood in the streets like something right out of Lord of the Flies.
The feature article, meanwhile, simply concludes that the law is terrible without presenting any coherent arguments.
If you bothered to read and understand the law, you'd see that it has no potential for Billy Joe to get arrested for embedding the latest Lady Gaga video on his Facebook page.
This is a troubling violation of these students' privacy and freedom of information. This sounds like exactly something the MafiAA would do. I hope Anonymous takes down the servers of the MCAT people, and any police agencies involved in perpetrating this serious injustice, and I hope they destroy the credit and financial lives of the individuals who went to the overlord police thugs in the first place.
Well, I certainly don't think that politicians or bankers are "honest", or that wars are fought for "justice", among other things. The world is not so black and white and I don't attempt to force it into that mold for the sake of my own self-satisfaction. Politics and history are little more than a series of ugly compromises; but this does not imply that anything substantially better is possible or likely. The point is that maintenance of the status quo can be (and is, I think) a good thing even if the status quo isn't great. (At the same time, I would strongly disagree that things like long-term copyright monopolies are symptoms of a serious disease).
Perhaps I have been giving your views as little credit as you give mine. That said, there is little to be gained from rhetoric and soapboxing, which is what I think your comments boil down to. My intuition suggests to me that you are in your early 20's and not as radical as you used to be. Perhaps the future will bring a calmer, less fiery you. Though even I recognize that this sounds condescending, it's not meant in that way.
I don't think this conversation will lead anywhere fruitful. However, I think it's safe to point out that neither of us is a "troll" in the technical sense of the word. To thine own self be true.
The difference is that there is some logic and intelligence behind the current system, whereas your vision of the way things should be – insofar as you actually have such a vision rather than a collection of rambling complaints that don't really add up to anything other than the fact that life isn't perfect – seems painfully idiotic and naive.
Alternatively, if you have some sort of subtly sophisticated plan for mankind lurking in your head, in my opinion you'll need to develop better language skills or otherwise improve your ability to share that plan with the world; or at least start trying harder. Your comments here simply make you sound, as I originally suggested, "pretty dumb".
You now seem a bit more ignorant and wide-eyed crazy than I initially suspected. If these are in fact your genuine views and you are not trolling, I suppose you should go about seeking the violent overthrow of what, to you, is a worldwide system of corrupt governments bent on oppression of the righteous masses by a selfish, hateful few. I think you'd experience very limited and perhaps non-existent success with a plan of non-violent overthrow, because frankly few people will accept, let alone fight for, such a bullshit world-view as the one you appear to have. You'll need guns to make people drink your Kool-Aid.
"Natural law" entitles you to exactly as much global Internet connectivity as you can create for yourself and/or retain or obtain by force. You may find that "actual law" and insufficient military/economic capabilities prevent you from getting everything you feel you're entitled to.
Ok, that was some really bad unit conversion. More like 10x 60-inch HDTVs at once. Still seems quite a lot. My last power bill was less than 300 kwh for the whole month, and that's with computer, giant monitor, and PS3 kicking for long periods of time.
they should have been arrested for being stupid enough to mine BitCoin.
And on the one hand, this raises the question, Is this a worthwhile use of large amounts valuable electricity? Doesn't quite do it justice even to imagine that the guy is watching almost 250x 60-inch HDTVs at the same time.
I also wonder how worthwhile the currency platform itself is, if the original issuance of coin is monopolized by random cybercriminal server farms.
Slashdot Mirror
The techie/geek community has a very particular, libertarian-flavored sort of inbred stupidity. Bitcoin is a perfect vehicle to exploit this stupidity. HTH
What a thoughtful and well-reasoned comment!
People do this in public places all the time. Some, however, seem more interested in figuring out what bothers the cops, and then ritually pushing those buttons, than actually making any point or getting any message out. Somewhat ironically, those are the ones you are more likely to hear about in the news.
(with quotes) and you'll be rewarded with quite a gem.
In related news, China is eager for us to develop cutting-edge technology faster, so they'll have more to steal as part of the most awesometastic double-dipping scheme ever.
No, I mean "sensible" in the dictionary-definition sense. Or in other words, an adjective that is inapplicable to most comments made by the foaming-at-the-mouth-at-the-mere-mention-of-IP crowd. *laughs*
You're correct; however, this is Slashdot and sensible comments on the subject of illegal file sharing will be shouted down by children and modded (Score: -100, Fascist Pig).
that I wish someone would trash Sony's servers, steal its customer data, and torch its corporate headquarters. Because that's just the right way to do things.
Only 7 characters, no punctuation or special chars? I have far stronger PW's than this on every XP machine I own.
When you say "we", do you mean the United States? Because there's already such a program in place at... you guessed it... the same law school whose prof made the proposal to the UK IP minister.
But, you would have had to read the feature article to know that.
But wouldn't this stunt have been more likely to produce the desired impact if they had hacked an actual FBI website?
Lol clueless twit. This is why most people need to be a lawyer to not sound like an idiot when talking about the law. "I'm right" is not a position; "Law X says I'm right" is not an argument; "I'm right because certain lawyers say I'm right -- other lawyers say I'm wrong, but they are WRONG!" is also not an argument. "Bill X violates the constitution" is not an argument in any way; it's ALMOST a position (one of which you need to have before making an argument in defense of one) but doesn't quite make the grade because it's hopelessly non-specific. Saying "the Constitution mandates X, whereas the bill forbids it" is not, by itself, an argument that Bill X is unconstitutional; and even if it were, simply saying something doesn't make it so. You have to PROVE it by "showing your work".
In short, you have done every dumbass thing that uninformed dumbasses do when talking about the law. Failing to stake a position; failing to make an argument; purporting to reject arguments you haven't even bothered to read or understand, based on the identity of the people making them (that's called an "ad hominem fallacy" FYI); simply naming laws and asserting that they conclusively prove you're right (without saying HOW or WHY or identifying relevant language OR EVEN providing a proper citation to the law that can be used to verify what you're saying; among many others too numerous to list.
Again, you'll have to pardon me if I think the Spanish government has a better handle on the constitutionality of the law – when all you are offering to "rebut" that is the hopelessly general, unsupported, un-cited CONCLUSIONS of law (note: not arguments) which you prefer. Simply saying you're right and the government is wrong doesn't cut it. And if the unconstitutionality of the bill were beyond question, you can rest assured either that the parliament wouldn't be presenting it, or that it will be struck down quickly. It's either already been declared unconstitutional, or its constitutionality is open to argument. When the highest court of the jurisdiction (that will be the highest court in spain, FYI) has conclusively pronounced on the subject, then the matter will be settled. Until then, there are only arguments. That could be a problem, since you don't seem to like making legal arguments, or at any rate you don't even have a basic idea of what a legal argument looks like and thus have a corresponding lack of competence on the subject.
Keep talking, kid. I can keep this up forever. However I recommend you do some research and start making sense if you expect your viewpoint to be taken seriously.
Hint: INCLUDE the research with CITATIONS as part of your argument and EXPLAIN HOW THE CITED MATERIAL SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT. If someone has said something that proves you're right, don't just say it; PROVE IT. That way, you'll either have shown you're right, or the person you're spewing rhetoric at will see the flaw in your argument and point it out to you. If you simply say "nuh uh I'm right" the audience can neither conclude that you're right NOR conclude that you're wrong, but they can certainly conclude you're a blathering idiot who likes to hear himself talk.
In other news, I've heard of other illegal activities that don't magically become legal when done on the Internet.
Typical government thugs trying to strip away the People's freedom of information. I hope Anonymous takes them down.
Awesome idiotic comparison. "The AVERAGE TIME ACTUALLY SERVED for jail sentence for a serious crime is only somewhat longer than the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SENTENCE THAT CAN BE HANDED DOWN (NOT NECESSARILY ACTUALLY SERVED) for a much less serious crime." WOW!! This is sort of like saying that the absolute maximum speed that can be reached for 0.1 second by a Toyota Prius with a rocket engine strapped to its roof is the same as the average cruising speed of a $200,000 Ferrari running in 3rd gear with the top down. In other words: it's a ridiculous, ill-constructed, useless comparison. Stupid comments breed like fruit flies on these forums.
And as usual Slashdot features a bunch of clueless twits whining about (1) a law that they don't understand and (2) the law, which they don't understand. And screaming for blood in the streets like something right out of Lord of the Flies. The feature article, meanwhile, simply concludes that the law is terrible without presenting any coherent arguments. If you bothered to read and understand the law, you'd see that it has no potential for Billy Joe to get arrested for embedding the latest Lady Gaga video on his Facebook page.
This is a troubling violation of these students' privacy and freedom of information. This sounds like exactly something the MafiAA would do. I hope Anonymous takes down the servers of the MCAT people, and any police agencies involved in perpetrating this serious injustice, and I hope they destroy the credit and financial lives of the individuals who went to the overlord police thugs in the first place.
Well, I certainly don't think that politicians or bankers are "honest", or that wars are fought for "justice", among other things. The world is not so black and white and I don't attempt to force it into that mold for the sake of my own self-satisfaction. Politics and history are little more than a series of ugly compromises; but this does not imply that anything substantially better is possible or likely. The point is that maintenance of the status quo can be (and is, I think) a good thing even if the status quo isn't great. (At the same time, I would strongly disagree that things like long-term copyright monopolies are symptoms of a serious disease). Perhaps I have been giving your views as little credit as you give mine. That said, there is little to be gained from rhetoric and soapboxing, which is what I think your comments boil down to. My intuition suggests to me that you are in your early 20's and not as radical as you used to be. Perhaps the future will bring a calmer, less fiery you. Though even I recognize that this sounds condescending, it's not meant in that way. I don't think this conversation will lead anywhere fruitful. However, I think it's safe to point out that neither of us is a "troll" in the technical sense of the word. To thine own self be true.
The difference is that there is some logic and intelligence behind the current system, whereas your vision of the way things should be – insofar as you actually have such a vision rather than a collection of rambling complaints that don't really add up to anything other than the fact that life isn't perfect – seems painfully idiotic and naive.
Alternatively, if you have some sort of subtly sophisticated plan for mankind lurking in your head, in my opinion you'll need to develop better language skills or otherwise improve your ability to share that plan with the world; or at least start trying harder. Your comments here simply make you sound, as I originally suggested, "pretty dumb".
You now seem a bit more ignorant and wide-eyed crazy than I initially suspected. If these are in fact your genuine views and you are not trolling, I suppose you should go about seeking the violent overthrow of what, to you, is a worldwide system of corrupt governments bent on oppression of the righteous masses by a selfish, hateful few. I think you'd experience very limited and perhaps non-existent success with a plan of non-violent overthrow, because frankly few people will accept, let alone fight for, such a bullshit world-view as the one you appear to have. You'll need guns to make people drink your Kool-Aid.
I'm going to have to ask you to be more articulate, because that sounded like utter nonsense.
"Natural law" entitles you to exactly as much global Internet connectivity as you can create for yourself and/or retain or obtain by force. You may find that "actual law" and insufficient military/economic capabilities prevent you from getting everything you feel you're entitled to.
You sound pretty dumb.
Ok, that was some really bad unit conversion. More like 10x 60-inch HDTVs at once. Still seems quite a lot. My last power bill was less than 300 kwh for the whole month, and that's with computer, giant monitor, and PS3 kicking for long periods of time.
they should have been arrested for being stupid enough to mine BitCoin. And on the one hand, this raises the question, Is this a worthwhile use of large amounts valuable electricity? Doesn't quite do it justice even to imagine that the guy is watching almost 250x 60-inch HDTVs at the same time. I also wonder how worthwhile the currency platform itself is, if the original issuance of coin is monopolized by random cybercriminal server farms.