you are implicitly agreeing to be subject to all of the regulations of the state.
That might be how the law views things, but in reality, going about your business doesn't mean you implicitly agree to anything. Tyrannical governments love this sort of 'logic', though. It's like saying that you implicitly agree to have government thugs molest you at airports merely because you try to get on a plane; I believe that's been argued, but it's bullshit nonetheless.
Absolutely, because anyone can do that and in that respect you have no expectation of privacy.
The whole concept of "expectation of privacy" is garbage, because if the government violates people's privacy enough, any expectations of privacy will no longer be "reasonable." Rather, the question should be, "Should people have privacy in this instance?" The question of whether an individual can observe others in a public place is *completely different* from the question of whether the government should have the power to install surveillance devices everywhere in public places; they shouldn't have such a power.
This forum is a voice for lots of people who speak very loudly about something they claim to care about (constitutional rights) but know practically nothing about it.
It's also apparently a place for cretins to speak of laws in place of morality or ethics, and pretend that everyone else is talking about laws, even when some are talking about morality.
I love privacy and freedom, but not privacy to conceal criminal acts, and freedom to commit them.
If you want police to have the ability to infringe upon people's privacy and freedom to get at the 'bad guys,' then you don't actually love freedom or privacy.
The bottom line is that police are allowed to engage in general surveillance (it's called "patrolling") for the purpose of controlling crime.
Which has nothing to do with ubiquitous and automatic surveillance of public places. Stop trying to equate the two things.
Your expectation of privacy ends at the border of the public space.
Stop putting forth this nonsensical and incorrect (There is some degree of privacy even in public places.) argument as if it's a justification for automatic and ubiquitous surveillance. I do *not* believe for one millisecond that the government should have to the power to install surveillance devices everywhere in public places just to stop the big, bad bogeymen you're so scared of.
Having an expectation of privacy in the public space is antithetical to freedom, and is antithetical to a civilized society
It's antithetical to neither, and opposing ubiquitous surveillance of public places is certain not antithetical to either. Again, you fail at understanding the real issue.
I've never seen a bigger bunch of vocal kooks who don't want their rights protected, which is exactly what defines you and your ilk. You are the ones who hate freedom and individual liberty, because you want to make it impossible for those rights to be protected.
The government is supposed to be 'good'; it's supposed to respect people's rights. If we surrender our rights for 'safety' (Which likely doesn't even exist.), then we have tyranny. The government should be *better* than mere criminals. When it comes to these rights, you should be afraid of the government, not random bogeymen that the government claims it will protect you from.
I oppose this precisely because I want my rights and privacy protected. In a free society, individual liberties and privacy are considered more important than safety. That is why the TSA and NSA surveillance are evil, and would be evil *even if* they were effective.
If you're going to try to equate patrolling to ubiquitous surveillance again, don't even bother with a reply.
There is no expectation of privacy when you are out in public
Stop repeating this nonsense; there is some degree of privacy even in public. The kind of privacy that's being discussed is privacy from being spied on by ubiquitous government surveillance devices that are installed in public places.
nor in anything that can be investigated with plain human senses (plain view, plain smell, etc).
The idea that hearing a conversation (or something similar) is the same as sticking surveillance devices everywhere in public places is simply absurd. I don't know why so many people are so stupid as to not be able to see that using humans to conduct surveillance on other humans would require massive manpower that machines don't require, or that this gives them a convenient and cost-effective way to collect all this data in a central location. The differences are absolutely huge; quit being an idiot.
You guys need to get over yourselves.
You need to get over yourself; your mentality literally ruins countries.
Your arguments have been debunked time and time again. I think you people are just willfully ignorant, or hate freedom and privacy.
That wouldn't really help me, because I'd just stop after the first problem or so, since doing 20 problems that are pretty much the same is unnecessary and detrimental. It also wouldn't help me shake the feeling that I could be using my time to understand why everything works (In my case, I was already far beyond what the class was working on.).
there is no way your kid aced math courses when taking the time to add groups of x when there was a much better shortcut available.
It seems you have no idea what it means to understand math, if you believe that not using certain shortcuts to calculate the result of some problem means that someone's kids didn't ace math courses (which is a very low bar to begin with, by the way).
Nope. It just has people memorize procedures and patterns, just like what we have now. If you think that merely having people do something in a slightly different way is going to magically give them a deep and intuitive understanding of why the math even works (which is what's most important), then you're silly. I did look at Common Core, and I was thoroughly unimpressed, just like I am with the status quo.
I did. It's more of the same garbage that we have now, just phrased in different ways. This will not help students have a deep and intuitive understanding of why the math works, which, given the level of much of the material, is quite pathetic. I'd say it's neither better or worse than the status quo; it's just a waste of time.
Intelligence has little to do with the ability to never make mistakes when writing. It looks more like you're just grasping at straws and trying to find reasons to think that the AC is 'unintelligent'. Your idea of intelligence is absurd.
I don't agree with some of the things he said, but I still don't agree with the idea that intelligence is about never making mistakes and being able to correctly spew forth memorized facts.
No, he deprived them of their right to control copying.
That's a laughable "right," and it's also laughable that any country that claims to be free would try to restrict something that's akin to breathing in the information age. I don't recognize any such "right," even if the law does. Microsoft can get fucked.
We could spend years explaining to everyone what intellectual property is
The term "intellectual property" is a propaganda term meant to group unrelated things together, and falsely equate them to property.
Do you download from TPB, at least admit it is stealing.
Why would I admit that? Why don't you admit that it's not stealing? You do realize that even the law itself doesn't say it's stealing, right? And it's not as if you can't get completely legal things as TPB, so merely downloading from TPB means nothing. The word "stealing" is highly inappropriate; you're just confusing people who don't understand copyright even further.
Put yourself in the situation. You have a software program you invented. You sell it and use the money to buy food and pay rent. Now someone copies it and sells it for a lower cost, maybe even claiming to be you (couterfiet).
Potential profit was never yours to begin with, as it's not something you can truly have. Since you promote copyright and its ilk, you must be anti-free market. Funny how you talk about poor artists and such, but all you people really want is to control others through censorship, and to control what they do with their own equipment.
Homework -- self practice -- is where you actually learn the material.
I never bothered to do any homework, yet was far beyond any of the other students, who didn't understand why anything worked. That's because all the busywork assignments just had you doing the same thing over and over; they were just rote exercises, and didn't have anything to do with understanding.
You wouldn't happen to be T.J. Kincaid, would you? A.k.a TheAmazingAtheist?
He has "extreme pedophilic fantasies" [archive.org], and you sound an awful lot like him.
Are you just pretending to be one of those retarded "for the children" people, or are you actually one? Some of them seem to absolutely love guilt by association.
Disapproving of pedophiles and rapists is generally supported.
Which is largely ignorance caused by the irrational and hateful "for the children" crowd that tries to take away our rights (through censorship, "Tough On Crime" policies, and generally laws which punish even the innocent). Pedophiles aren't necessarily child molesters, and vice versa. A pedophile is not even necessarily attracted only to children.
Slashdot Mirror
you are implicitly agreeing to be subject to all of the regulations of the state.
That might be how the law views things, but in reality, going about your business doesn't mean you implicitly agree to anything. Tyrannical governments love this sort of 'logic', though. It's like saying that you implicitly agree to have government thugs molest you at airports merely because you try to get on a plane; I believe that's been argued, but it's bullshit nonetheless.
Absolutely, because anyone can do that and in that respect you have no expectation of privacy.
The whole concept of "expectation of privacy" is garbage, because if the government violates people's privacy enough, any expectations of privacy will no longer be "reasonable." Rather, the question should be, "Should people have privacy in this instance?" The question of whether an individual can observe others in a public place is *completely different* from the question of whether the government should have the power to install surveillance devices everywhere in public places; they shouldn't have such a power.
This forum is a voice for lots of people who speak very loudly about something they claim to care about (constitutional rights) but know practically nothing about it.
It's also apparently a place for cretins to speak of laws in place of morality or ethics, and pretend that everyone else is talking about laws, even when some are talking about morality.
I love privacy and freedom, but not privacy to conceal criminal acts, and freedom to commit them.
If you want police to have the ability to infringe upon people's privacy and freedom to get at the 'bad guys,' then you don't actually love freedom or privacy.
The bottom line is that police are allowed to engage in general surveillance (it's called "patrolling") for the purpose of controlling crime.
Which has nothing to do with ubiquitous and automatic surveillance of public places. Stop trying to equate the two things.
Your expectation of privacy ends at the border of the public space.
Stop putting forth this nonsensical and incorrect (There is some degree of privacy even in public places.) argument as if it's a justification for automatic and ubiquitous surveillance. I do *not* believe for one millisecond that the government should have to the power to install surveillance devices everywhere in public places just to stop the big, bad bogeymen you're so scared of.
Having an expectation of privacy in the public space is antithetical to freedom, and is antithetical to a civilized society
It's antithetical to neither, and opposing ubiquitous surveillance of public places is certain not antithetical to either. Again, you fail at understanding the real issue.
I've never seen a bigger bunch of vocal kooks who don't want their rights protected, which is exactly what defines you and your ilk. You are the ones who hate freedom and individual liberty, because you want to make it impossible for those rights to be protected.
The government is supposed to be 'good'; it's supposed to respect people's rights. If we surrender our rights for 'safety' (Which likely doesn't even exist.), then we have tyranny. The government should be *better* than mere criminals. When it comes to these rights, you should be afraid of the government, not random bogeymen that the government claims it will protect you from.
I oppose this precisely because I want my rights and privacy protected. In a free society, individual liberties and privacy are considered more important than safety. That is why the TSA and NSA surveillance are evil, and would be evil *even if* they were effective.
If you're going to try to equate patrolling to ubiquitous surveillance again, don't even bother with a reply.
There is no expectation of privacy when you are out in public
Stop repeating this nonsense; there is some degree of privacy even in public. The kind of privacy that's being discussed is privacy from being spied on by ubiquitous government surveillance devices that are installed in public places.
nor in anything that can be investigated with plain human senses (plain view, plain smell, etc).
The idea that hearing a conversation (or something similar) is the same as sticking surveillance devices everywhere in public places is simply absurd. I don't know why so many people are so stupid as to not be able to see that using humans to conduct surveillance on other humans would require massive manpower that machines don't require, or that this gives them a convenient and cost-effective way to collect all this data in a central location. The differences are absolutely huge; quit being an idiot.
You guys need to get over yourselves.
You need to get over yourself; your mentality literally ruins countries.
Your arguments have been debunked time and time again. I think you people are just willfully ignorant, or hate freedom and privacy.
That wouldn't really help me, because I'd just stop after the first problem or so, since doing 20 problems that are pretty much the same is unnecessary and detrimental. It also wouldn't help me shake the feeling that I could be using my time to understand why everything works (In my case, I was already far beyond what the class was working on.).
there is no way your kid aced math courses when taking the time to add groups of x when there was a much better shortcut available.
It seems you have no idea what it means to understand math, if you believe that not using certain shortcuts to calculate the result of some problem means that someone's kids didn't ace math courses (which is a very low bar to begin with, by the way).
Nope. It just has people memorize procedures and patterns, just like what we have now. If you think that merely having people do something in a slightly different way is going to magically give them a deep and intuitive understanding of why the math even works (which is what's most important), then you're silly. I did look at Common Core, and I was thoroughly unimpressed, just like I am with the status quo.
Go look at common core
I did. It's more of the same garbage that we have now, just phrased in different ways. This will not help students have a deep and intuitive understanding of why the math works, which, given the level of much of the material, is quite pathetic. I'd say it's neither better or worse than the status quo; it's just a waste of time.
Intelligence has little to do with the ability to never make mistakes when writing. It looks more like you're just grasping at straws and trying to find reasons to think that the AC is 'unintelligent'. Your idea of intelligence is absurd.
I don't agree with some of the things he said, but I still don't agree with the idea that intelligence is about never making mistakes and being able to correctly spew forth memorized facts.
No, he deprived them of their right to control copying.
That's a laughable "right," and it's also laughable that any country that claims to be free would try to restrict something that's akin to breathing in the information age. I don't recognize any such "right," even if the law does. Microsoft can get fucked.
the difference is minor and trivial.
No, it isn't. It's what makes the difference between being correct and being fuckin' wrong.
And anyone who thinks they should be entitled to exclusivity of such things is a moron.
We could spend years explaining to everyone what intellectual property is
The term "intellectual property" is a propaganda term meant to group unrelated things together, and falsely equate them to property.
Do you download from TPB, at least admit it is stealing.
Why would I admit that? Why don't you admit that it's not stealing? You do realize that even the law itself doesn't say it's stealing, right? And it's not as if you can't get completely legal things as TPB, so merely downloading from TPB means nothing. The word "stealing" is highly inappropriate; you're just confusing people who don't understand copyright even further.
Put yourself in the situation. You have a software program you invented. You sell it and use the money to buy food and pay rent. Now someone copies it and sells it for a lower cost, maybe even claiming to be you (couterfiet).
Potential profit was never yours to begin with, as it's not something you can truly have. Since you promote copyright and its ilk, you must be anti-free market. Funny how you talk about poor artists and such, but all you people really want is to control others through censorship, and to control what they do with their own equipment.
Who modded this nonsensical propaganda up?
Never?
Homework -- self practice -- is where you actually learn the material.
I never bothered to do any homework, yet was far beyond any of the other students, who didn't understand why anything worked. That's because all the busywork assignments just had you doing the same thing over and over; they were just rote exercises, and didn't have anything to do with understanding.
That is not true learning.
You wouldn't happen to be T.J. Kincaid, would you? A.k.a TheAmazingAtheist?
He has "extreme pedophilic fantasies" [archive.org], and you sound an awful lot like him.
Are you just pretending to be one of those retarded "for the children" people, or are you actually one? Some of them seem to absolutely love guilt by association.
As a whole, there's nothing to defend, because they haven't necessarily raped anyone.
"tasteless" is utterly subjective and jokes are jokes, no matter how "tasteless" you believe them to be.
Disapproving of pedophiles and rapists is generally supported.
Which is largely ignorance caused by the irrational and hateful "for the children" crowd that tries to take away our rights (through censorship, "Tough On Crime" policies, and generally laws which punish even the innocent). Pedophiles aren't necessarily child molesters, and vice versa. A pedophile is not even necessarily attracted only to children.