I have the courage to face both terrorist and government.
You don't have courage at all; otherwise, you wouldn't be so willing to give up freedom and privacy in exchange for security theater. How does it feel to be a naive coward?
If you lose enough security you'll have difficulty enjoying freedom.
No, I won't. I can't imagine how dense you must be to actually be afraid of the terrorist bogeyman. I'll take my chances, thanks.
Taking reasonable steps against terrorists is justified.
"Reasonable" to me means that no one's rights or privacy will be violated, and that the constitution will be followed. Gathering everyone's data isn't following the constitution at all, even if they have to get warrants from secret courts to actually look at the data.
You, on the other hand, seem to live in fear of government and ignore the dangers of the terrorist.
You're just someone who ignores history. People with power will abuse it. This is a fact.
Right. I'm so scared of the evil bogeymen who will get me if we don't have secret courts and other such nonsense! Hey, you know, I'd rather take my chances; take your secrecy and excuses and stuff it.
Think about it. Everyone knows that the government is made up of perfect angels who would never abuse their powers or make mistakes, so what do innocent people have to fear? Nothing! History has shown us time and time again that corrupt governments simply don't and can't exist, and if you say otherwise, you just have an overactive imagination.
I say our next move should be to install government-owned surveillance equipment in everyone's houses. After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear? People could be committing crimes in their houses, so it's justified.
What it comes down to for me is either you respect the rights of the creator of a work, or you don't.
I know I don't respect such 'rights,' but are they truly rights? I know that copyright lasts virtually forever, but I don't think rights fade with time, so copyright is more of a privilege given to certain people to encourage innovation. These 'rights' do not exists so these people can have a working business model, but they exist for the people.
In fact, he was just recently defending the practice of violating people's rights and privacy in order to keep them more 'secure.' Even if it were that he didn't have any power over any of this (and it's not), he has shown his true colors numerous times; no one should be defending him.
It's why intellectual property is, in fact, property.
If it actually was like normal property, we wouldn't need copyright law or any other such thing.
Your notion of "material goods" being distinct is actually what fails. Property is a legal concept, not a physical good.
Property is a legal concept, but copyrights and patents are not anything like real property; they're basically just government-enforced monopolies over ideas and methods. That's not even close to real property.
Most of the people here don't give a rats about intellectual property unless they are ranting about how Hollywood and proprietary software's model is broken. When it's one of our own though, it's pitchforks and torches.
Have you considered that the people who argue the former aren't always the people who are upset by things such as this?
but there's no way to protect yourself on the Internets except to be a law-abiding person.
It's difficult to be a law abiding citizen because there are so many laws that it's difficult to not run afoul of at least a few. And really, you also have to hope that the government is made up of perfect angels who would never abuse their powers or make mistakes; otherwise, you may get hurt despite being a law-abiding person...
And it's *YOU* who bears the ultimate responsibility. Not "The Government", not the DA, not the police. YOU.
Right... the people doing these things have nothing to do with any of it. If someone's doing nothing or actually cheering on this sort of nonsense, I can see it being partly their fault, but that's not always the case.
Since that's false, you must have used an interesting line of logic to reach that conclusion.
You insinuated that changing your mind (about a political matter) absolved you of all responsibility for that choice.
No, I didn't. Just that upon seeing this wreck, some of them might change their minds, and that there is no need for them to quietly observe the situation when they could be making themselves useful.
Nonsense. I've not given up, and that's the entire point.
Yes, focusing on something that has a nonzero chance of doing anything is giving up
It's not, and that's why you have to continue pushing for change using a variety of methods. Voting for third parties instead of voting for evil is but one method.
Sometimes it gives you nothing, but what's the problem with that? Would you rather be filling in the answers with whatever nonsense that you can dream up? Why is it so bad to simply admit that something is unknown?
After all, where did they come from, and what keeps them running?
Ah, a classic. I love this type of argument, because one can use it to 'prove' the existence of all sorts of crazy things. To answer your question? The flying spaghetti monster. Why? Because my own ignorance is evidence of the flying spaghetti monster's existence.
Most interesting, but that's not what I was referring to.
If you know the numbers aren't there you are just being a smug idiot on a high moral horse bragging about hitting windmills.
Ah, so we should all just give up! The people who want to make change? Give up. At the start of every movement, you probably won't have very many people on your side, but as time goes by, and with enough effort, you might be able to muster up an army. It's by no means certain, but it's a hell of a lot better than voting for evil.
It might take time for things to change, but your attitude is absolutely poisonous.
There's a huge difference between corporations and government.
If corporations get your information, both they and the government will have it. Don't forget that many corporations bow down to the government when if it's to protect the children or to stop the terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the courage to face both terrorist and government.
You don't have courage at all; otherwise, you wouldn't be so willing to give up freedom and privacy in exchange for security theater. How does it feel to be a naive coward?
If you lose enough security you'll have difficulty enjoying freedom.
No, I won't. I can't imagine how dense you must be to actually be afraid of the terrorist bogeyman. I'll take my chances, thanks.
Taking reasonable steps against terrorists is justified.
"Reasonable" to me means that no one's rights or privacy will be violated, and that the constitution will be followed. Gathering everyone's data isn't following the constitution at all, even if they have to get warrants from secret courts to actually look at the data.
You, on the other hand, seem to live in fear of government and ignore the dangers of the terrorist.
You're just someone who ignores history. People with power will abuse it. This is a fact.
Right. I'm so scared of the evil bogeymen who will get me if we don't have secret courts and other such nonsense! Hey, you know, I'd rather take my chances; take your secrecy and excuses and stuff it.
Freedom is more important than security, so take your cowardice elsewhere.
But if they have nothing to hide, why are they so secretive?
Think about it. Everyone knows that the government is made up of perfect angels who would never abuse their powers or make mistakes, so what do innocent people have to fear? Nothing! History has shown us time and time again that corrupt governments simply don't and can't exist, and if you say otherwise, you just have an overactive imagination.
I say our next move should be to install government-owned surveillance equipment in everyone's houses. After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear? People could be committing crimes in their houses, so it's justified.
What it comes down to for me is either you respect the rights of the creator of a work, or you don't.
I know I don't respect such 'rights,' but are they truly rights? I know that copyright lasts virtually forever, but I don't think rights fade with time, so copyright is more of a privilege given to certain people to encourage innovation. These 'rights' do not exists so these people can have a working business model, but they exist for the people.
In fact, he was just recently defending the practice of violating people's rights and privacy in order to keep them more 'secure.' Even if it were that he didn't have any power over any of this (and it's not), he has shown his true colors numerous times; no one should be defending him.
No, people who voted for Obama were just naive. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil.
It's why intellectual property is, in fact, property.
If it actually was like normal property, we wouldn't need copyright law or any other such thing.
Your notion of "material goods" being distinct is actually what fails. Property is a legal concept, not a physical good.
Property is a legal concept, but copyrights and patents are not anything like real property; they're basically just government-enforced monopolies over ideas and methods. That's not even close to real property.
do I have fair-use rights to use your house for educational purposes?
What a great comparison! Monopolies over ideas are definitely the same as physical objects that belong to people.
Most of the people here don't give a rats about intellectual property unless they are ranting about how Hollywood and proprietary software's model is broken. When it's one of our own though, it's pitchforks and torches.
Have you considered that the people who argue the former aren't always the people who are upset by things such as this?
It is wrong that it ever became permanent and was supposed to only be a temp measure
No, no, no. It was wrong that it ever passed to begin with.
but there's no way to protect yourself on the Internets except to be a law-abiding person.
It's difficult to be a law abiding citizen because there are so many laws that it's difficult to not run afoul of at least a few. And really, you also have to hope that the government is made up of perfect angels who would never abuse their powers or make mistakes; otherwise, you may get hurt despite being a law-abiding person...
This crap started late in the GWB's second term
Are you talking about a specific event? If not, well, the government has been violating the constitution in a number of ways for a very long time...
And it's *YOU* who bears the ultimate responsibility. Not "The Government", not the DA, not the police. YOU.
Right... the people doing these things have nothing to do with any of it. If someone's doing nothing or actually cheering on this sort of nonsense, I can see it being partly their fault, but that's not always the case.
Changing your mind doesn't absolve you of responsibility for causing it.
No, it doesn't. Now WTF are you talking about? I didn't say anything about absolving responsibility, or even imply it...
So you must be a Republican.
Since that's false, you must have used an interesting line of logic to reach that conclusion.
You insinuated that changing your mind (about a political matter) absolved you of all responsibility for that choice.
No, I didn't. Just that upon seeing this wreck, some of them might change their minds, and that there is no need for them to quietly observe the situation when they could be making themselves useful.
Nonsense. I've not given up, and that's the entire point.
Yes, focusing on something that has a nonzero chance of doing anything is giving up
It's not, and that's why you have to continue pushing for change using a variety of methods. Voting for third parties instead of voting for evil is but one method.
What answers can science give us
Sometimes it gives you nothing, but what's the problem with that? Would you rather be filling in the answers with whatever nonsense that you can dream up? Why is it so bad to simply admit that something is unknown?
After all, where did they come from, and what keeps them running?
Ah, a classic. I love this type of argument, because one can use it to 'prove' the existence of all sorts of crazy things. To answer your question? The flying spaghetti monster. Why? Because my own ignorance is evidence of the flying spaghetti monster's existence.
There is no "direct" voting for anything
Most interesting, but that's not what I was referring to.
If you know the numbers aren't there you are just being a smug idiot on a high moral horse bragging about hitting windmills.
Ah, so we should all just give up! The people who want to make change? Give up. At the start of every movement, you probably won't have very many people on your side, but as time goes by, and with enough effort, you might be able to muster up an army. It's by no means certain, but it's a hell of a lot better than voting for evil.
It might take time for things to change, but your attitude is absolutely poisonous.
Why is it not plausible?
It's about as plausible as a flying spaghetti monster.
The only reason you think it's not plausible is because you're arrogant and think you know everything when in fact you know very little.
I suppose you think it's arrogant to say that Santa Claus doesn't exist, too.
If a murderer feels remorse, do you set him free because he changed his mind?
What does that have to do with someone changing their mind about a political matter?
There's a huge difference between corporations and government.
If corporations get your information, both they and the government will have it. Don't forget that many corporations bow down to the government when if it's to protect the children or to stop the terrorists.