The not-so-good news is that in a "compromise," the board also voted to require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Score one for the Discovery Institute.
No, score one for science. If one examines all sides of scientific evidence for those scientific explanations, then creationism and ID are left out in the cold because they are not based on science, are not scientific explanations, and thus can not be discussed.
Further, if the goal is to encourage critical thinking, then ID and creationism are in trouble because they do not stand up to critical examination.
What you have missed is they want this to be a BINDING resolution which will require laws be passed in member countries.
Re:Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 1
And, Muslims world wide still practice arranged marriages for girls as young as 12, some of whom get treated as slaves for her new "family". Oh, and their courts, as punishment for 12 yo boy allegedly having sex with a woman from a "senior clan", orders his sister gangraped as punishment.
Your argument, while appropos to the past, still fails to address the fact of their continued behavior.
Re:no assault on free speech but support for belie
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 1
If it is to protect all religions, why does it only mention Isalm? Muslims believe speaking the truth about their religion somehow defames it, such as talking about how Islam oppresses women or how they use madrasas to turn children into violent, ignorant radicals. They believe depicting Mohammed defames Islam.
No, this law is to sweep the abuses, violence, and oppression of Islam under the carpet.
Blocking torrents is well within their rights and if it is listed as being against their terms of service, then by using the VPN service to violate the terms of service, one should have one's ISP account canceled.
Convenience does not make something right, nor does it make said thing a right. Regardless of what you want, you have to live with what you have agreed to and if you use something like this to get around that agreement, then you are just a dishonest, selfish asshole.
But, you already have privacy while using the Pirate Bay. So, again, why would you need or want to increase the overhead of a legitimate use when it is unnecessary?
There is legitimate torrents on TPB, it takes about 5 seconds to find them. They have lots of public domain ebooks, linux distros, FOSS software, and (my favorite) old movies which exist prior to copyright, or never got the status.
Why would one want or need to use a VPN to get such legal and legitimate items, especially when one considers the overhead of such an encrypted channel?
I have addressed your "snuff pipe" statement in your other post.
Disingenuous argument. The communications of the military base are classified by law and it is illegal for them to be insecure. Also, if the military base is in a foreign country, the activities may be illegal within said country.
It is not improper because it is still not an unjust state. Preventing you from violating other people's rights does not make the state unjust. Refusing to give in to your selfish desires to the harm of others does not make the state unjust.
You call the state unjust because it will not capitulate to your petty greed. That makes you childish and unjust.
A VPN connection would serve simply to conceal my activities which can include torrents such as the one linked above (of which there are many more examples).
Why would you need or want to conceal such activity? The use of a VPN in such a case is not only counter-intuitive butalso counter productive. The example is disingenuous.
Your arguments are specious because this VPN is not for browsing but "for users looking to cover their tracks when torrenting". Browsing does not enter into the picture because of the stated use of the VPN.
And particularly of those of weighting economic gain by efficiently licensing use of content by creators to a larger audience.
Again, the copyright holder sets the price and thus his own economic gain. The size of the economic gain and the efficiency of the licensing is a direct result of the holder's desire. If the creator is not the holder, then the creator no longer has any say in the distribution as the creator gave up that right when he gave up the copyright to the holder.
Please consider it the possibility, That copyright theft is more than symbolic of a desire to use the copyrighted material.
You are right, it is more than symbolic of said desire. It is the actually imposition of said desire.
Also that the holder of the legal protections that is a "copyright" isn't weighing the price asked properly or is providing use of the copyrighted material in an inefficient manner.
The holder sets the price asked. If one does not wish to pay said price, then one should neither pay the price nor enjoy the content.
Crack pipes are always considered drug paraphernalia because there is no legitimate use for a crack pipe. What is the legitimate use of a VPN connection to the Pirate Bay? Please provide examples current on Pirate Bay.
There is "strong security" and then there is "security that is geared to prevent legal investigation".
There comes a point where "strong security" becomes suspicious in its own right due to its emphasis on preventing legal investigation and the enforcement of rights.
Slashdot Mirror
No, score one for science. If one examines all sides of scientific evidence for those scientific explanations, then creationism and ID are left out in the cold because they are not based on science, are not scientific explanations, and thus can not be discussed.
Further, if the goal is to encourage critical thinking, then ID and creationism are in trouble because they do not stand up to critical examination.
Fixed that for you.
You seem to forget that the death cult of Christianity has an equally long history of oppressing and killing those who do not believe in Christianity.
What you have missed is they want this to be a BINDING resolution which will require laws be passed in member countries.
And, Muslims world wide still practice arranged marriages for girls as young as 12, some of whom get treated as slaves for her new "family". Oh, and their courts, as punishment for 12 yo boy allegedly having sex with a woman from a "senior clan", orders his sister gangraped as punishment.
Your argument, while appropos to the past, still fails to address the fact of their continued behavior.
If it is to protect all religions, why does it only mention Isalm?
Muslims believe speaking the truth about their religion somehow defames it, such as talking about how Islam oppresses women or how they use madrasas to turn children into violent, ignorant radicals. They believe depicting Mohammed defames Islam.
No, this law is to sweep the abuses, violence, and oppression of Islam under the carpet.
Politicians do not get as much privacy as you apparently think.
Blocking torrents is well within their rights and if it is listed as being against their terms of service, then by using the VPN service to violate the terms of service, one should have one's ISP account canceled.
Convenience does not make something right, nor does it make said thing a right. Regardless of what you want, you have to live with what you have agreed to and if you use something like this to get around that agreement, then you are just a dishonest, selfish asshole.
How is this not enabling copyright infringement?
No, he does not.
Having strong security while doing something that has been proven to be dominated by illegal activity, it is suspicious.
But, you already have privacy while using the Pirate Bay. So, again, why would you need or want to increase the overhead of a legitimate use when it is unnecessary?
Why would one want or need to use a VPN to get such legal and legitimate items, especially when one considers the overhead of such an encrypted channel?
I have addressed your "snuff pipe" statement in your other post.
I do not smoke. However, my local "headshop" does, in fact, sell regular pipes and hookahs.
Snuff pipes are for "snuffing" (snorting) tobacco, a practice that, while out of favor, is still practiced.
Disingenuous argument. The communications of the military base are classified by law and it is illegal for them to be insecure. Also, if the military base is in a foreign country, the activities may be illegal within said country.
It is not improper because it is still not an unjust state. Preventing you from violating other people's rights does not make the state unjust. Refusing to give in to your selfish desires to the harm of others does not make the state unjust.
You call the state unjust because it will not capitulate to your petty greed. That makes you childish and unjust.
That is not the stated use of the service, to wit:
Why would you need or want to conceal such activity? The use of a VPN in such a case is not only counter-intuitive butalso counter productive. The example is disingenuous.
Your arguments are specious because this VPN is not for browsing but "for users looking to cover their tracks when torrenting". Browsing does not enter into the picture because of the stated use of the VPN.
Again, the copyright holder sets the price and thus his own economic gain. The size of the economic gain and the efficiency of the licensing is a direct result of the holder's desire. If the creator is not the holder, then the creator no longer has any say in the distribution as the creator gave up that right when he gave up the copyright to the holder.
Your arguments are specious.
You are right, it is more than symbolic of said desire. It is the actually imposition of said desire.
The holder sets the price asked. If one does not wish to pay said price, then one should neither pay the price nor enjoy the content.
A bong is just a water pipe, just like a hookah.
Crack pipes are always considered drug paraphernalia because there is no legitimate use for a crack pipe. What is the legitimate use of a VPN connection to the Pirate Bay? Please provide examples current on Pirate Bay.
Did the Pirate Bay do that? Or, are you trying to change the argument?
If that was his point, he should have said so. As it is, his analogies do not support such a claim.
There is "strong security" and then there is "security that is geared to prevent legal investigation".
There comes a point where "strong security" becomes suspicious in its own right due to its emphasis on preventing legal investigation and the enforcement of rights.
Smoking tobacco is not a common, legitimate use of those products? You are really going to say that? Really?
List them and site examples currently on Pirate Bay.