Could you explain why simply expecting prosecutors to obey the law and not violate the Bill of Rights, like you and I are expected to, is such a "difficult issue"?
At the core of it, Libertarians want your rights to be upheld, and the non-anarchist ones want a government that upholds your rights instead of violating them.
It's that simple, and there is just plain and simply nothing wrong with that. Those with an anti-Libertarian agenda are the ones who want to ultimately violate your rights.
Why is "I don't like having someone listen in on my private phone calls" a 'political' viewpoint? Surely that's something anyone can relate to? Who actually likes having someone listen to their phone calls?
The money that (honest) rich people have isn't a "collective investment" "by society". Someone like, say, Stephen King is rich, but not because any of "invested" our money in him, but because people bought his books. When you "invest" the money is yours and you "own" the asset. When you buy Stephen King's books, you hand over your money and the money becomes his. Are you suggesting we own rich people? If so, wouldn't that be akin to slavery?
Could you please explain in more detail what you're referring to? I don't fully understand - if a company could be "gutted" and its assets sold for MORE than the company's purchase price, then surely its previous owners wouldn't sell it at that price in the first place? Wouldn't that mean they were selling it as much less than its market value? And if they were, how would that be the fault of the purchaser?
I mean, say I own a company with $1 million in assets, and want to sell it. You seem to be claiming that a fabled Captain of Industry could buy my company for $ million and then "gut" it for, say, $1.2 million. But if said Captain could do that, surely I would sell it for $1.2 million in the first place, or else I would "gut" it myself, because surely I could stand to make far more that way?
I love how you can just say something really fuzzy like "some of the greatest economic growth" and pretend to conclude facts from it... another actual fact is that some of the greatest economic growth in this country's history occurred before there was income tax AT ALL. Fact. And another fun fact: Some of the country's worst economic times, like the most recent recession, occurred when taxes were far, far higher than before there was any income tax at all. Your "theory" needs a little refining. You're not supposed to work backwards from your biased agenda-laden conclusion, science doesn't work that way.
Why do we supposedly need "something to hide" in order to find it sucky being watched/eavesdropped all the time? The fact is it just plain SUCKS if you have to live your life knowing that somebody is/can watch what you're doing and listening to what you're saying. This is why we have things like curtains, why we usually close the bathroom door, and why the Panopticon is referred to is conceptually always a "prison". We shouldn't have to justify not being monitored, that notion turns everything about the principle of burden of proof on its head. How many normal honest people actually LIKE being monitored on things like Skype and Facebook, and would they prefer to be monitored if given a choice? Frankly I think Skype (and Facebook etc. with their algorithmic monitoring of everything everyone does) can go fuck themselves and I am actively looking for more secure alternatives.
Almost there, but not quite. The real distinction that should bother everyone is not 99% vs 1%, and it's not even really "non-attitudinal vs "attitudinal" (though you're hinting in the right direction) - rather, it's moral vs immoral. The reason it doesn't bother people as much that Stephen King is rich, vs say some crooked banking exec, is that Stephen King probably made most or all of his money honestly and through hard work (and not through financial fraud and/or kleptocratic "bailouts"). But morality is not really directly about class or wealth - there are moral and immoral people at all wealth levels - it's not "class warfare" we should be fighting (e.g. "the rich" or even "the powerful"), but rather "morality warfare" by society's moral class and against its immoral class.
In fact, if you really think about it, it's society's immoral, powerful members that stand to benefit from confusing people into thinking it's the "99%" vs the "1%".. because as long as you're fighting the wrong thing, they can "divide and rule/steal".
You're kidding, right? You clearly haven't been here long; the anti-government-spying culture here used to be much stronger, and if anything, it is being "derailed" by people who blindly trust the government, and who criticize the critics of government spying, like you.
"Who watches the watchers" is a red herring question. You shouldn't even be asked such a question, because the more fundamental question is that of protecting the concept enshrined in the Bill of Rights that you should not be being watched at all unless there is some actual evidence that you are committing or planning a crime, and a warrant has been obtained via proper procedure. Merely having someone watch the watchers is irrelevant if they're just watching the Bill of Rights be violated.
I don't think Aurora was a deliberate false flag, but there is at minimum *some* conflict of interest in that allowing the massacre to proceed actually raises public support for giving NSA still more far-reaching powers.
The fact that Paul is against environmental regulations shows that he is in fact a corporate tool
And the fact that you're a blatant liar shows that you do not care for the truth and lack morals. Paul's own website is clear that he is in favor of laws that protect against pollution. It's pretty rich you talking about who "is" and "is not" a hypocrite, given you blatantly lie in your post.
I don't get the point of your comment... we're not complaining because it's surprising, but because it sucks, and we want to discuss what to do about it.
Yes, there are:/ Also, a heavily pacified squeamish population brainwashed with 'all violence is bad' propaganda is just ripe for rule by fascism.
I think what Chris Stevens really needs is to set himself up with a multi-screen surround sound top-notch gaming system, immerse himself in the best violent games on the market, and just allow himself to enjoy it, he might discover that it's actually, like, fun.
That was actually butt-obvious from the context already (especially to anyone who has spent more than three seconds ever checking out solar panel pricing). IMHO you didn't really need to clarify that, just to satisfy some pedantic egotist trying to demonstrate their superiority by pretending your use of units was confusing to anyone 'clued up'.
That's fucking stupid. Even Nelson Mandela operated under false names at times, and for good reason - he could have been murdered simply for believing in freedom and equal rights. And what about all the Jews in WWII Germany, you think the ones trying to sneak out of the country should have openly shouted their real identities on the streets rather?
This also represents basically a new class of monitoring, that of continual monitoring of ALL human action by AI's (since that's basically what this is, being watched by an AI). It takes society to a whole new "Welcome to the Panopticon" level.
Algorithmic monitoring will soon be behind all mass-surveillance, e.g. automatically scanning every CCTV image to see if what you're actually doing might be considered 'suspicious' (e.g. looked at a young girl for just a few seconds too long? look 'fidgety'? look 'angry'? etc.). Algorithmic real-time monitoring of all over-the-wire voice conversations (e.g. telephone, cellphone, VoIP) will all very very soon be a possibility. AI's behind automated flying drones will be watching you in the streets, reporting you to authorities if you seem 'suspicious'.
The future is arriving very quickly, and we need to deal with this head-on and not blithely dismiss it, before it becomes widely entrenched - we need to be asking serious questions NOW about what kind of world we really want our children and grandchildren to grow up in, and how to achieve that. We need to be asking, who are all these technologies REALLY trying to protect - you, from the common street criminal, or will the kleptocratic financial cartels still be stealing billions care-free?
Thank you - was beginning to think I was the only one getting annoyed with how every thread on/. seems to start with someone declaring loudly to the world how the topic is simply not new/surprising to them. Get over your little egos folks.
Yes, if only police had been sitting in the theater, they would have magically been able to fire only perfectly-aimed shots at the crazy dude's head. Not. What exactly is your point?
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you?
On the contrary, I feel safer when around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun, than one who does not. And actually that's just logical if you really think about it for a few moments.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you explain why simply expecting prosecutors to obey the law and not violate the Bill of Rights, like you and I are expected to, is such a "difficult issue"?
At the core of it, Libertarians want your rights to be upheld, and the non-anarchist ones want a government that upholds your rights instead of violating them.
It's that simple, and there is just plain and simply nothing wrong with that. Those with an anti-Libertarian agenda are the ones who want to ultimately violate your rights.
Somalia isn't actually an anarchy, please stop repeating this 'urban myth'.
Why is "I don't like having someone listen in on my private phone calls" a 'political' viewpoint? Surely that's something anyone can relate to? Who actually likes having someone listen to their phone calls?
The money that (honest) rich people have isn't a "collective investment" "by society". Someone like, say, Stephen King is rich, but not because any of "invested" our money in him, but because people bought his books. When you "invest" the money is yours and you "own" the asset. When you buy Stephen King's books, you hand over your money and the money becomes his. Are you suggesting we own rich people? If so, wouldn't that be akin to slavery?
Could you please explain in more detail what you're referring to? I don't fully understand - if a company could be "gutted" and its assets sold for MORE than the company's purchase price, then surely its previous owners wouldn't sell it at that price in the first place? Wouldn't that mean they were selling it as much less than its market value? And if they were, how would that be the fault of the purchaser?
I mean, say I own a company with $1 million in assets, and want to sell it. You seem to be claiming that a fabled Captain of Industry could buy my company for $ million and then "gut" it for, say, $1.2 million. But if said Captain could do that, surely I would sell it for $1.2 million in the first place, or else I would "gut" it myself, because surely I could stand to make far more that way?
I love how you can just say something really fuzzy like "some of the greatest economic growth" and pretend to conclude facts from it ... another actual fact is that some of the greatest economic growth in this country's history occurred before there was income tax AT ALL. Fact. And another fun fact: Some of the country's worst economic times, like the most recent recession, occurred when taxes were far, far higher than before there was any income tax at all. Your "theory" needs a little refining. You're not supposed to work backwards from your biased agenda-laden conclusion, science doesn't work that way.
Why do we supposedly need "something to hide" in order to find it sucky being watched/eavesdropped all the time? The fact is it just plain SUCKS if you have to live your life knowing that somebody is/can watch what you're doing and listening to what you're saying. This is why we have things like curtains, why we usually close the bathroom door, and why the Panopticon is referred to is conceptually always a "prison". We shouldn't have to justify not being monitored, that notion turns everything about the principle of burden of proof on its head. How many normal honest people actually LIKE being monitored on things like Skype and Facebook, and would they prefer to be monitored if given a choice? Frankly I think Skype (and Facebook etc. with their algorithmic monitoring of everything everyone does) can go fuck themselves and I am actively looking for more secure alternatives.
Almost there, but not quite. The real distinction that should bother everyone is not 99% vs 1%, and it's not even really "non-attitudinal vs "attitudinal" (though you're hinting in the right direction) - rather, it's moral vs immoral. The reason it doesn't bother people as much that Stephen King is rich, vs say some crooked banking exec, is that Stephen King probably made most or all of his money honestly and through hard work (and not through financial fraud and/or kleptocratic "bailouts"). But morality is not really directly about class or wealth - there are moral and immoral people at all wealth levels - it's not "class warfare" we should be fighting (e.g. "the rich" or even "the powerful"), but rather "morality warfare" by society's moral class and against its immoral class.
In fact, if you really think about it, it's society's immoral, powerful members that stand to benefit from confusing people into thinking it's the "99%" vs the "1%" .. because as long as you're fighting the wrong thing, they can "divide and rule/steal".
You're kidding, right? You clearly haven't been here long; the anti-government-spying culture here used to be much stronger, and if anything, it is being "derailed" by people who blindly trust the government, and who criticize the critics of government spying, like you.
"Who watches the watchers" is a red herring question. You shouldn't even be asked such a question, because the more fundamental question is that of protecting the concept enshrined in the Bill of Rights that you should not be being watched at all unless there is some actual evidence that you are committing or planning a crime, and a warrant has been obtained via proper procedure. Merely having someone watch the watchers is irrelevant if they're just watching the Bill of Rights be violated.
I don't think Aurora was a deliberate false flag, but there is at minimum *some* conflict of interest in that allowing the massacre to proceed actually raises public support for giving NSA still more far-reaching powers.
The fact that Paul is against environmental regulations shows that he is in fact a corporate tool
And the fact that you're a blatant liar shows that you do not care for the truth and lack morals. Paul's own website is clear that he is in favor of laws that protect against pollution. It's pretty rich you talking about who "is" and "is not" a hypocrite, given you blatantly lie in your post.
I don't get the point of your comment ... we're not complaining because it's surprising, but because it sucks, and we want to discuss what to do about it.
Yes, there are :/ Also, a heavily pacified squeamish population brainwashed with 'all violence is bad' propaganda is just ripe for rule by fascism.
I think what Chris Stevens really needs is to set himself up with a multi-screen surround sound top-notch gaming system, immerse himself in the best violent games on the market, and just allow himself to enjoy it, he might discover that it's actually, like, fun.
That was actually butt-obvious from the context already (especially to anyone who has spent more than three seconds ever checking out solar panel pricing). IMHO you didn't really need to clarify that, just to satisfy some pedantic egotist trying to demonstrate their superiority by pretending your use of units was confusing to anyone 'clued up'.
That's fucking stupid. Even Nelson Mandela operated under false names at times, and for good reason - he could have been murdered simply for believing in freedom and equal rights. And what about all the Jews in WWII Germany, you think the ones trying to sneak out of the country should have openly shouted their real identities on the streets rather?
Yeah, Marx was right, that's why everyone is dying to get into the prosperous lands of Cuba and North Korea.
Doesn't matter if there's prior art, this so-called "invention" is so 'f-cking obvious', it's not even an invention.
2. Nobody said get rid of patents.
Actually, I do think we should get rid of patents. They are immoral.
Whether you like it or not, patents have been around for over a couple hundred years
Your logical fallacy is ... argumentum ad antiquitatem .
This also represents basically a new class of monitoring, that of continual monitoring of ALL human action by AI's (since that's basically what this is, being watched by an AI). It takes society to a whole new "Welcome to the Panopticon" level.
Algorithmic monitoring will soon be behind all mass-surveillance, e.g. automatically scanning every CCTV image to see if what you're actually doing might be considered 'suspicious' (e.g. looked at a young girl for just a few seconds too long? look 'fidgety'? look 'angry'? etc.). Algorithmic real-time monitoring of all over-the-wire voice conversations (e.g. telephone, cellphone, VoIP) will all very very soon be a possibility. AI's behind automated flying drones will be watching you in the streets, reporting you to authorities if you seem 'suspicious'.
The future is arriving very quickly, and we need to deal with this head-on and not blithely dismiss it, before it becomes widely entrenched - we need to be asking serious questions NOW about what kind of world we really want our children and grandchildren to grow up in, and how to achieve that. We need to be asking, who are all these technologies REALLY trying to protect - you, from the common street criminal, or will the kleptocratic financial cartels still be stealing billions care-free?
Thank you - was beginning to think I was the only one getting annoyed with how every thread on /. seems to start with someone declaring loudly to the world how the topic is simply not new/surprising to them. Get over your little egos folks.
Yes, if only police had been sitting in the theater, they would have magically been able to fire only perfectly-aimed shots at the crazy dude's head. Not. What exactly is your point?
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you?
On the contrary, I feel safer when around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun, than one who does not. And actually that's just logical if you really think about it for a few moments.