That ruling was definitely in error, and this is 100% unconstitutional, no matter what some judges may say, or have said. So unless you're going to make a paradoxical statement that the Supreme Court is always right, you should agree with me.
And metadata is nothing more than data. What else is it, if not a kind of data? The funny thing is, the could *just as easily* retrieve the 'actual' data, so what makes that any more private? Nothing but legal fictions.
Really? Violating the fourth amendment is legal? I somewhat doubt that. It is unconstitutional for the government to search people at airports like this.
The only harm caused by that is to "human dignity", which you don't think is at all important anyway.
It's a vague piece of shit, and no, I don't think hurt feelings are an excuse for censorship.
However, like rape, getting molested by government thugs is a violation of your personal space and a violation of the constitution. You're desperately trying to compare incomparable issues (One is an argument against government thugs censoring information, and the other is an argument *for* government thugs getting into people's lives and violating the fourth amendment and privacy rights.) so you can justify your precious censorship.
Yeah, god forbid we try to have the best of both.
You can't *have* the "best" (What does that even mean? It's 100% subjective.) of both. Hurt feelings are not, never will be, and never have been an excuse for censorship. Look, I get it; you don't care about freedom of speech. Just admit that you're a censorship lover and be done with it.
1. Clarifies that individual warrants based on probablecause are required to conduct surveillance on any U.S. person (citizen or permanent resident) or any personlocated inside the U.S.
Quite obviously not happening. They're collecting everyone's information, essentially.
Regardless of who's worse, no one can deny that Obama, Bush, and their ilk are slimy pieces of shit that don't care about people's rights or the constitution.
a point I keep bringing up because this entire program seems useless for capturing terrorists like Al Qaeda.
Even if the NSA were effective at stopping terrorists, it would *still* be unacceptable, as it violates people's fundamental liberties and the constitution.
because a majority knew about it. or suspected it.
I seriously doubt that. People who said something about it were often labeled as conspiracy nuts. People don't really care because they don't care about freedom, privacy, or the constitution, and believe that they have nothing to fear if they believe they have nothing to hide.
I see you perpetuating evil by mindlessly following the strictest interpretation of your principles regardless of the consequences in the real world.
The consequences are that people's feelings get hurt. I see you perpetuating evil by taking the easy, evil way out (censorship) and destroying freedom in the process.
Go get molested by the TSA.
Either you care about human dignity or you don't. Evidently you don't.
"human dignity" (an ambiguous piece of shit) means little to me in the face of important things like freedom of speech.
Oh, yes, what awful passengers those people are. It's not as if it's the government thugs that are awful for harassing people and violating their rights and the constitution, no; it's the passengers.
The couple in question is still free to procreate.
Just like you're still free to travel even though the TSA will molest you at airports. The availability of alternate solutions does not mean that your individual liberties are not being infringed upon; you are taking away one possible choice, and that alone is enough to infringe upon people's individual liberties, no matter how many other choices exist.
So is forcing someone to live in a world where another member of their society can run a website hosting videos of them being raped.
People say things that I don't like all the time. I for one don't even care about kiddie porn. But you don't see me asking for censorship and abandoning my principles.
One can care about free speech without it being the only consideration in all situations at all times.
Either you care about free speech and oppose censorship, or you don't. There is no in-between.
And it doesn't take a lot of empathy to see the difference.
The situations aren't exactly the same (I never said otherwise), but censorship is always evil.
There is no way for a 3rd party like 'society' to determine the 'fact' objectively.
Nor do they need to. There is such a thing as "good enough" in the 'justice' system. Your problem is that you conflate the act of banning something because it 'causes' people emotional 'damage' with getting rid of all forms of subjectivity everywhere; that's just nonsense. The two simply aren't the same.
Nope. I do. I just don't let it be the single consideration.
It should be the single most important consideration, if you care about free speech.
Definitions don't just vanish. Certain usages of words may fall out of usage, but that doesn't mean you can't use them in those ways. If you're talking to an ignoramus, all you have to do is tell them what you mean when you're using it.
The subjective emotional damage. It is this sort of mentality that allows government thugs to, for instance, censor 'swear words' on television, or ban public nudity; it's just nonsense, and it is tyranny.
The difference between rape and consensual sex is a subjective judgment too.
Simply incorrect, and you're missing the point. It's based on consent and ownership of the body. Separate hurt feelings from the *objective fact* of whether or not someone gave consent. And I merely said we should not ban things just because people's feelings get hurt, not that we can eliminate subjectivity from everything.
Yeah, I care about free speech too.
No, you don't. You only care about speech you don't vehemently disagree with.
Are we using the same internet? I think the internet is getting steadily more constricted.
It may seem that way, and they certainly try to implement censorship, but if you've been paying attention, they are failing.
The benefit I see from using such simplistic personality labels is that it highlights differences between people that can cause some fairly large misunderstandings.
On the other hand, the general buys into this pseudoscience and gains an even larger misconception of what real science looks like.
Yes, saying Joe is an introvert is using a simple label, but is a more detailed explanation of what is going on necessary?
Yes, it is, because giving people crappy multiple choice tests and asking them to evaluate how they believe they act isn't exactly scientific; it's just garbage.
I see harm to the victims and their families in the ongoing shame and humiliation simply by being out there, readily available to the public.
Emotional 'damage' is subjective. Allowing the government to ban things based on that is tyranny.
In the general case I see harm in speech such as menacing death threats, and even bullying.
I don't.
I think the ongoing shame and humiliation of the victims is a price society should not deem worth 'indulging their great pleasure' in the material.
Well, again, I care about free speech and am 100% opposed to censorship, so I don't think people's emotional nonsense should determine what needs to be banned.
But the censorship crowd has already lost. The Internet is simply too big a phenomena for you people to control it, and for that, I am grateful. Hopefully, in the future, new technology will arise that makes it even more impossible.
And still other people realize that all this INTP/INTJ/whatever garbage is pseudoscience that serves only to satisfy people who have a strong desire for simplistic labels above all else.
Slashdot Mirror
Not happening because i don't love censorship.
You want to marry it.
That ruling was definitely in error, and this is 100% unconstitutional, no matter what some judges may say, or have said. So unless you're going to make a paradoxical statement that the Supreme Court is always right, you should agree with me.
And metadata is nothing more than data. What else is it, if not a kind of data? The funny thing is, the could *just as easily* retrieve the 'actual' data, so what makes that any more private? Nothing but legal fictions.
Really? Violating the fourth amendment is legal? I somewhat doubt that. It is unconstitutional for the government to search people at airports like this.
The only harm caused by that is to "human dignity", which you don't think is at all important anyway.
It's a vague piece of shit, and no, I don't think hurt feelings are an excuse for censorship.
However, like rape, getting molested by government thugs is a violation of your personal space and a violation of the constitution. You're desperately trying to compare incomparable issues (One is an argument against government thugs censoring information, and the other is an argument *for* government thugs getting into people's lives and violating the fourth amendment and privacy rights.) so you can justify your precious censorship.
Yeah, god forbid we try to have the best of both.
You can't *have* the "best" (What does that even mean? It's 100% subjective.) of both. Hurt feelings are not, never will be, and never have been an excuse for censorship. Look, I get it; you don't care about freedom of speech. Just admit that you're a censorship lover and be done with it.
Individual Warrants for Persons Inside the US
1. Clarifies that individual warrants based on probablecause are required to conduct surveillance on any U.S. person (citizen or permanent resident) or any personlocated inside the U.S.
Quite obviously not happening. They're collecting everyone's information, essentially.
Regardless of who's worse, no one can deny that Obama, Bush, and their ilk are slimy pieces of shit that don't care about people's rights or the constitution.
a point I keep bringing up because this entire program seems useless for capturing terrorists like Al Qaeda.
Even if the NSA were effective at stopping terrorists, it would *still* be unacceptable, as it violates people's fundamental liberties and the constitution.
because a majority knew about it. or suspected it.
I seriously doubt that. People who said something about it were often labeled as conspiracy nuts. People don't really care because they don't care about freedom, privacy, or the constitution, and believe that they have nothing to fear if they believe they have nothing to hide.
I see you perpetuating evil by mindlessly following the strictest interpretation of your principles regardless of the consequences in the real world.
The consequences are that people's feelings get hurt. I see you perpetuating evil by taking the easy, evil way out (censorship) and destroying freedom in the process.
Go get molested by the TSA.
Either you care about human dignity or you don't. Evidently you don't.
"human dignity" (an ambiguous piece of shit) means little to me in the face of important things like freedom of speech.
Oh, yes, what awful passengers those people are. It's not as if it's the government thugs that are awful for harassing people and violating their rights and the constitution, no; it's the passengers.
smart TSA agents
Are nonexistent.
We should just get government thugs out of airports.
The program was lawful and Constitutional
Nope. Just read the damn constitution and get an opinion of your own.
Fine, maybe the butcher down the street will do it. After all, as long as there are consenting adults, that's fine, right?
Yep. If some dumbass wants to risk it, I don't really care; fewer stupid people that way.
The couple in question is still free to procreate.
Just like you're still free to travel even though the TSA will molest you at airports. The availability of alternate solutions does not mean that your individual liberties are not being infringed upon; you are taking away one possible choice, and that alone is enough to infringe upon people's individual liberties, no matter how many other choices exist.
Awful, awful logic.
So is forcing someone to live in a world where another member of their society can run a website hosting videos of them being raped.
People say things that I don't like all the time. I for one don't even care about kiddie porn. But you don't see me asking for censorship and abandoning my principles.
One can care about free speech without it being the only consideration in all situations at all times.
Either you care about free speech and oppose censorship, or you don't. There is no in-between.
Why would anyone believe it suddenly becomes okay to violate people's fundamental liberties simply because someone is trying to "earn a living"?
And it doesn't take a lot of empathy to see the difference.
The situations aren't exactly the same (I never said otherwise), but censorship is always evil.
There is no way for a 3rd party like 'society' to determine the 'fact' objectively.
Nor do they need to. There is such a thing as "good enough" in the 'justice' system. Your problem is that you conflate the act of banning something because it 'causes' people emotional 'damage' with getting rid of all forms of subjectivity everywhere; that's just nonsense. The two simply aren't the same.
Nope. I do. I just don't let it be the single consideration.
It should be the single most important consideration, if you care about free speech.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
Definitions don't just vanish. Certain usages of words may fall out of usage, but that doesn't mean you can't use them in those ways. If you're talking to an ignoramus, all you have to do is tell them what you mean when you're using it.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
True, but its the damage that matters here.
The subjective emotional damage. It is this sort of mentality that allows government thugs to, for instance, censor 'swear words' on television, or ban public nudity; it's just nonsense, and it is tyranny.
The difference between rape and consensual sex is a subjective judgment too.
Simply incorrect, and you're missing the point. It's based on consent and ownership of the body. Separate hurt feelings from the *objective fact* of whether or not someone gave consent. And I merely said we should not ban things just because people's feelings get hurt, not that we can eliminate subjectivity from everything.
Yeah, I care about free speech too.
No, you don't. You only care about speech you don't vehemently disagree with.
Are we using the same internet? I think the internet is getting steadily more constricted.
It may seem that way, and they certainly try to implement censorship, but if you've been paying attention, they are failing.
The benefit I see from using such simplistic personality labels is that it highlights differences between people that can cause some fairly large misunderstandings.
On the other hand, the general buys into this pseudoscience and gains an even larger misconception of what real science looks like.
Yes, saying Joe is an introvert is using a simple label, but is a more detailed explanation of what is going on necessary?
Yes, it is, because giving people crappy multiple choice tests and asking them to evaluate how they believe they act isn't exactly scientific; it's just garbage.
I see harm to the victims and their families in the ongoing shame and humiliation simply by being out there, readily available to the public.
Emotional 'damage' is subjective. Allowing the government to ban things based on that is tyranny.
In the general case I see harm in speech such as menacing death threats, and even bullying.
I don't.
I think the ongoing shame and humiliation of the victims is a price society should not deem worth 'indulging their great pleasure' in the material.
Well, again, I care about free speech and am 100% opposed to censorship, so I don't think people's emotional nonsense should determine what needs to be banned.
But the censorship crowd has already lost. The Internet is simply too big a phenomena for you people to control it, and for that, I am grateful. Hopefully, in the future, new technology will arise that makes it even more impossible.
And still other people realize that all this INTP/INTJ/whatever garbage is pseudoscience that serves only to satisfy people who have a strong desire for simplistic labels above all else.