Because it's simple biology - gay couples can't have children on their own.
Not just gay couples. Many heterosexual couples can't have children, or don't want to, and yet are allowed to be married. Religious nonsense has no place in government, and the idea that a contract between two consenting people must be made up for some specific reason is absurd.
"Gay people are evil and should be stoned to death" is hate speech (though given no specific incitement to violence, is protected speech). "I don't think people of the same sex should be allowed to marry" is a valid political view, and is also protected speech.
By the first amendment, all speech is protected speech. Judges have modified the constitution with invisible ink, but that does not change what the first amendment says.
It's utterly absurd that there wouldn't be another way around it. Why can you not give permission to certain people to allow them visitation without marrying someone?
Escalation to economic retaliation or violence crosses the line.
People are not trying to get the government to take away his job. People are simply doing something akin to voting with their wallets and boycotting the company on principle. There is nothing wrong with this approach, and it is perfectly in line with freedom to exercise control of your private property.
Then you're not paying attention. It's happening even in this article.
I'm just dismayed by the incivility.
I'm not. I have zero tolerance for blatant stupidity. These homophobes (Which often use religious nonsense to justify their homophobia.) are almost always incredibly unintelligent. You can be 'uncivil' (whatever that subjective trash means to you) and still have logical arguments, so it's irrelevant anyway.
The argument that "perhaps new ways of living / family structures will cause society to crumble, as the traditional way is what's proven" seems quite reasonable to me.
It seems "quite reasonable" right up until you realize that we're talking about a silly contract between adults, and that they're trying to get their worthless religious beliefs enforced by a government that's supposed to be secular. Please stay on topic and realize what these losers are arguing about. They don't even provide a single shred of evidence to support their nonsensical claims, and the arguments usually begin over whether we should use the word "marriage" or not.
No, that's how you label someone as an "unperson": incapable of moral decision, and thus not a moral entity, much like you can't reason with a panther, or a volcano.
Incorrect. I did not say they're not a person. Or would you like me to say that? In fact, they can make moral decisions; I just think they're often wrong. But hey, maybe you don't believe unintelligent people exist. In that case, you're ignoring reality.
Did you know that words can have multiple meanings, and that separation of church and state is a good thing? Letting people's religious garbage get in the government is very bad indeed.
These people are trying to change a well established definition.
No, they're trying to get the government to use a different, but equally valid, definition.
If you knew a bit about language, you'd know that it changes over time. For instance, many words have multiple definitions.
Arguments for my point of view have been presented time and time again. Or have you never seen people arguing with homophobic religious people? If so, you haven't been paying attention. All of their homophobic arguments have been debunked thousands of times over. Will you now pretend that all viewpoints are equally valid?
As I said, they're people, but unintelligent people. Nothing will get through to them; they've been either thoroughly brainwashed since birth, or they're utterly irrational. Not many of them ever change.
Your sarcasm shows that you don't actually understand the point.
Not really. Your post said basically nothing. I don't care if authority figures (even judges) think or say this is okay, and I know some people are angry that others have minds of their own and will yell at me for thinking this way, but their opinions are laughable to me as well.
You keep repeating the same thing without offering any sort of justification for why having a different opinion can be classified as "willful ignorance." Stop wasting my time, you insect.
Wow, I've never looked at it that way. How very insightful. The people in power don't think their abuses of power are wrong, or even abuses of power? What a shocking revelation! I'm going to view the NSA in a whole new light, and it's all thanks to you.
So, they were legal searches approved by the FISA court.
Yeah, the masters of rubberstamping. Also, note how most things they approve of are unacceptably broad. The NSA shouldn't be able to collect the data *at all*.
You don't trust the people you gave trust to?
Never, at any point, have I ever gave them my trust.
That's the thing about liberty. It means that you have to tolerate people that you disagree with and don't particularly like. It's not liberty if everyone only tolerates people with their own brand of group think. That's more like communism or theocracy.
Who, exactly, is trying to take away his rights? Is the person you replied to trying to get the government to silence him?
Your intolerance is the same as his intolerance.
I'm intolerant of a number of things, and one of those things includes blatant stupidity. I have no problem with intolerance as long as it's directed at an actual problem.
I wasn't aware that having a specific job was a right. Is the government taking away his job as a way of punishing him for his speech? If no, then your comment is rather irrelevant. He'd likely only lose his job if this 'Don't use a tool because some CEO believes something I don't like!' nonsense takes off on a massive scale.
I reject that use of the term as well. This is a legal matter, too.
And yes, whether wilful or not, you are ignorant.
To be ignorant, I'd have to lack the knowledge that people use these terms in these ways. I do not, so I am not ignorant. I just reject those usages, just like I reject propaganda terms like "intellectual property."
I know that's not what you want to hear, so go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears like a child might.
To not know the difference between being opposed to something and not knowing of its existence shows that you're ignorant. I know that's not what you want to hear, so go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears like a child might.
It's where the automatic reaction of a religious nutter/science fanboi,conservative/liberal,capitalist/commie is to automatically assume the other person belongs to the enemy camp and that their argument boils down to the stupidest, most improbable, idiotic choice, and then the whooping and hollering ensues as they descend upon their diy strawmen.
Your blind faith makes you resemble a religious nutter. There was no straw man. I'm going to quote you directly:
"That's rich. Protect your data?
This is about pirated material. If you aren't a pirate, there's absolutely nothing to worry about. rtfa before making something else up."
You want to eliminate innovation and public sharing of knowledge? Get rid of patents and watch concepts die in a garage or languish in a lab for lifetimes because inventors are so scared to lose out on their edge in business that they never share it with the rest of the world.
Most importantly, I believe freedom is more important than 'safety' from a lack of innovation.
Second, you have no scientific evidence to back up your view of what a society without patents would look like. If you're going to reply with speculation or act like societies with vastly different cultures and forms of governments are evidence, then don't bother.
What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation than I am now is completely irrelevant to whether or not my arguments or beliefs are valid. It is also not a surprise that humans would suddenly change positions when it suits them; they're only looking out for their themselves. I don't think I'd do such a thing, but doing so would not make someone's previous beliefs wrong. And it would be copying, not stealing.
Since you're using such blatantly illogical 'arguments', I'll say that yes, you are unintelligent.
I should add, the only people who think patents should be abolished are people who don't create anything.
It only takes a single example to reveal how untrue that statement is. To say that no authors can disagree with you is incredibly arrogant.
It's also a mere ad hominem, so it's not even logical. Even if someone doesn't "create" anything, that doesn't make their arguments wrong.
Anyone who creates has a different opinion.
Well, how nice of you to decide what everyone else thinks. I'm a software developer and 100% against patents. Am I not a "creator"? Are you going to resort to a No True Scotsman now?
but ranting around about getting rid of them just makes you look ignorant.
I rant about getting rid of them because I value real private property rights (the ability to use your own resources to accomplish some goal, which at present may infringe upon some patent) over monopolies over procedures enforced by worthless government thugs.
I should add, no human being disagrees with me. If you disagree, you're not a True Human.
If this sort of technology had been used against the founding fathers, it would have been unconstitutional.
Or rather, its unconstitutionality would have been more explicit. In any case, it's still pretty damn clear that it's unconstitutional to gather everyone's communications, if you care at all about the spirit of the constitution. Comparing data to mail isn't going to help.
The Fourth Amendment says the government may not do unreasonable searches and seizures. The NSA, AFAIK, seized nothing.
If you were going to use lawyer logic, you shouldn't have bothered replying. If this sort of technology had been used against the founding fathers, it would have been unconstitutional.
It took as much metadata as it could about emails, but is that unreasonable?
Yes.
It's like noting down addresses at the Post Office
No, it's not. You cannot compare data to mail. The actual data is no less private than the "metadata" (*Which is just data!*), so why not collect that, too? How is that any more private? It isn't; not in the case of data. I expect that data that is sent over the Internet (Whether it's deemed "metadata" or not.) be left alone by worthless government thugs; I want it to be private from them. I do not expect that no one reads the text on the front of mail.
They recorded the contents of the emails automatically, with no human seeing them except under court order
Doing something automatically doesn't make anything better. Tons of malware operates automatically, but that doesn't make it okay. My privacy and the constitution are being violated regardless of whether humans are reading the data (not "metadata").
As for court orders, that court is just a piece of shit rubberstamping court. Fuck them.
Yes, I'm sure corporations never make mistakes and your absolute faith in them is not misplaced at all. Oh, wait; you're an idiot. This is like saying "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Many aspects of the DMCA are pieces of garbage and need to be thrown out. Especially the part about DMCA notices.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's simple biology - gay couples can't have children on their own.
Not just gay couples. Many heterosexual couples can't have children, or don't want to, and yet are allowed to be married. Religious nonsense has no place in government, and the idea that a contract between two consenting people must be made up for some specific reason is absurd.
"Gay people are evil and should be stoned to death" is hate speech (though given no specific incitement to violence, is protected speech).
"I don't think people of the same sex should be allowed to marry" is a valid political view, and is also protected speech.
By the first amendment, all speech is protected speech. Judges have modified the constitution with invisible ink, but that does not change what the first amendment says.
It's utterly absurd that there wouldn't be another way around it. Why can you not give permission to certain people to allow them visitation without marrying someone?
Escalation to economic retaliation or violence crosses the line.
People are not trying to get the government to take away his job. People are simply doing something akin to voting with their wallets and boycotting the company on principle. There is nothing wrong with this approach, and it is perfectly in line with freedom to exercise control of your private property.
I've never once seen such an argument.
Then you're not paying attention. It's happening even in this article.
I'm just dismayed by the incivility.
I'm not. I have zero tolerance for blatant stupidity. These homophobes (Which often use religious nonsense to justify their homophobia.) are almost always incredibly unintelligent. You can be 'uncivil' (whatever that subjective trash means to you) and still have logical arguments, so it's irrelevant anyway.
The argument that "perhaps new ways of living / family structures will cause society to crumble, as the traditional way is what's proven" seems quite reasonable to me.
It seems "quite reasonable" right up until you realize that we're talking about a silly contract between adults, and that they're trying to get their worthless religious beliefs enforced by a government that's supposed to be secular. Please stay on topic and realize what these losers are arguing about. They don't even provide a single shred of evidence to support their nonsensical claims, and the arguments usually begin over whether we should use the word "marriage" or not.
No, that's how you label someone as an "unperson": incapable of moral decision, and thus not a moral entity, much like you can't reason with a panther, or a volcano.
Incorrect. I did not say they're not a person. Or would you like me to say that? In fact, they can make moral decisions; I just think they're often wrong. But hey, maybe you don't believe unintelligent people exist. In that case, you're ignoring reality.
Did you know that words can have multiple meanings, and that separation of church and state is a good thing? Letting people's religious garbage get in the government is very bad indeed.
These people are trying to change a well established definition.
No, they're trying to get the government to use a different, but equally valid, definition.
If you knew a bit about language, you'd know that it changes over time. For instance, many words have multiple definitions.
Arguments for my point of view have been presented time and time again. Or have you never seen people arguing with homophobic religious people? If so, you haven't been paying attention. All of their homophobic arguments have been debunked thousands of times over. Will you now pretend that all viewpoints are equally valid?
As I said, they're people, but unintelligent people. Nothing will get through to them; they've been either thoroughly brainwashed since birth, or they're utterly irrational. Not many of them ever change.
Wow, how clever. I never even saw that brilliant rebuttal coming.
Your sarcasm shows that you don't actually understand the point.
Not really. Your post said basically nothing. I don't care if authority figures (even judges) think or say this is okay, and I know some people are angry that others have minds of their own and will yell at me for thinking this way, but their opinions are laughable to me as well.
You keep repeating the same thing without offering any sort of justification for why having a different opinion can be classified as "willful ignorance." Stop wasting my time, you insect.
And if we actually knew what they were doing instead of having to guess, we'd probably agree.
Nope. They simply should not be collecting the data.
Wow, I've never looked at it that way. How very insightful. The people in power don't think their abuses of power are wrong, or even abuses of power? What a shocking revelation! I'm going to view the NSA in a whole new light, and it's all thanks to you.
So, they were legal searches approved by the FISA court.
Yeah, the masters of rubberstamping. Also, note how most things they approve of are unacceptably broad. The NSA shouldn't be able to collect the data *at all*.
You don't trust the people you gave trust to?
Never, at any point, have I ever gave them my trust.
That's the thing about liberty. It means that you have to tolerate people that you disagree with and don't particularly like. It's not liberty if everyone only tolerates people with their own brand of group think. That's more like communism or theocracy.
Who, exactly, is trying to take away his rights? Is the person you replied to trying to get the government to silence him?
Your intolerance is the same as his intolerance.
I'm intolerant of a number of things, and one of those things includes blatant stupidity. I have no problem with intolerance as long as it's directed at an actual problem.
I wasn't aware that having a specific job was a right. Is the government taking away his job as a way of punishing him for his speech? If no, then your comment is rather irrelevant. He'd likely only lose his job if this 'Don't use a tool because some CEO believes something I don't like!' nonsense takes off on a massive scale.
Well this is no different.
I reject that use of the term as well. This is a legal matter, too.
And yes, whether wilful or not, you are ignorant.
To be ignorant, I'd have to lack the knowledge that people use these terms in these ways. I do not, so I am not ignorant. I just reject those usages, just like I reject propaganda terms like "intellectual property."
I know that's not what you want to hear, so go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears like a child might.
To not know the difference between being opposed to something and not knowing of its existence shows that you're ignorant. I know that's not what you want to hear, so go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears like a child might.
It's where the automatic reaction of a religious nutter/science fanboi,conservative/liberal,capitalist/commie is to automatically assume the other person belongs to the enemy camp and that their argument boils down to the stupidest, most improbable, idiotic choice, and then the whooping and hollering ensues as they descend upon their diy strawmen.
Your blind faith makes you resemble a religious nutter. There was no straw man. I'm going to quote you directly:
"That's rich. Protect your data?
This is about pirated material. If you aren't a pirate, there's absolutely nothing to worry about. rtfa before making something else up."
Sorry, logic doesn't apply to paranoid USians living in a police state.
I didn't see any logic whatsoever; just blind faith.
You want to eliminate innovation and public sharing of knowledge? Get rid of patents and watch concepts die in a garage or languish in a lab for lifetimes because inventors are so scared to lose out on their edge in business that they never share it with the rest of the world.
Most importantly, I believe freedom is more important than 'safety' from a lack of innovation.
Second, you have no scientific evidence to back up your view of what a society without patents would look like. If you're going to reply with speculation or act like societies with vastly different cultures and forms of governments are evidence, then don't bother.
What I would or would not believe if I were in a different situation than I am now is completely irrelevant to whether or not my arguments or beliefs are valid. It is also not a surprise that humans would suddenly change positions when it suits them; they're only looking out for their themselves. I don't think I'd do such a thing, but doing so would not make someone's previous beliefs wrong. And it would be copying, not stealing.
Since you're using such blatantly illogical 'arguments', I'll say that yes, you are unintelligent.
I should add, the only people who think patents should be abolished are people who don't create anything.
It only takes a single example to reveal how untrue that statement is. To say that no authors can disagree with you is incredibly arrogant.
It's also a mere ad hominem, so it's not even logical. Even if someone doesn't "create" anything, that doesn't make their arguments wrong.
Anyone who creates has a different opinion.
Well, how nice of you to decide what everyone else thinks. I'm a software developer and 100% against patents. Am I not a "creator"? Are you going to resort to a No True Scotsman now?
but ranting around about getting rid of them just makes you look ignorant.
I rant about getting rid of them because I value real private property rights (the ability to use your own resources to accomplish some goal, which at present may infringe upon some patent) over monopolies over procedures enforced by worthless government thugs.
I should add, no human being disagrees with me. If you disagree, you're not a True Human.
If this sort of technology had been used against the founding fathers, it would have been unconstitutional.
Or rather, its unconstitutionality would have been more explicit. In any case, it's still pretty damn clear that it's unconstitutional to gather everyone's communications, if you care at all about the spirit of the constitution. Comparing data to mail isn't going to help.
The Fourth Amendment says the government may not do unreasonable searches and seizures. The NSA, AFAIK, seized nothing.
If you were going to use lawyer logic, you shouldn't have bothered replying. If this sort of technology had been used against the founding fathers, it would have been unconstitutional.
It took as much metadata as it could about emails, but is that unreasonable?
Yes.
It's like noting down addresses at the Post Office
No, it's not. You cannot compare data to mail. The actual data is no less private than the "metadata" (*Which is just data!*), so why not collect that, too? How is that any more private? It isn't; not in the case of data. I expect that data that is sent over the Internet (Whether it's deemed "metadata" or not.) be left alone by worthless government thugs; I want it to be private from them. I do not expect that no one reads the text on the front of mail.
They recorded the contents of the emails automatically, with no human seeing them except under court order
Doing something automatically doesn't make anything better. Tons of malware operates automatically, but that doesn't make it okay. My privacy and the constitution are being violated regardless of whether humans are reading the data (not "metadata").
As for court orders, that court is just a piece of shit rubberstamping court. Fuck them.
"This is about pirated material. If you aren't a pirate, there's absolutely nothing to worry about."
That statement that you made is blatantly false. Own up to it.
Yes, I'm sure corporations never make mistakes and your absolute faith in them is not misplaced at all. Oh, wait; you're an idiot. This is like saying "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Many aspects of the DMCA are pieces of garbage and need to be thrown out. Especially the part about DMCA notices.