He revealed the secrets to everyone. You'd have to be an idiot to overlook the fact that he revealed the government's treachery and immoral activities. It's 100% worth it that even "competing governments" now know everything, because it means that The People--which the government should be afraid of--are now fully informed. Anyone who says otherwise is anti-democracy and is the type of person who'd sacrifice freedom for safety, exactly the type of thing we don't need in "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
He had the balls to take the risk, why not put your neck on the line if you really care about the USA?
What's the point? We have the information, and now it's up to us.
if not immediately by sympathetic conservative lawmakers then by a very sympathetic collection of citizens across the US.
The conservative lawmakers, along with the democrats, are the ones who voted for things like the Patriot Act to begin with. They're the ones who keep saying that freedom doesn't matter. These politicians are freedom-hating scumbags, like all of them. Even now, many are saying Snowden shouldn't have leaked the materials.
Are you people really so mindless that you have to appeal to laws? All Snowden did was reveal the government's wrongdoings (unconstitutional and otherwise). If you don't like that, well, maybe you should blame the government for being evil scumbags in the first place, as well as the people who voted the fuckers who allowed this in to begin with.
since the main reason to adopt this software is to not pay at all.
The main reason for me to adopt it is so that I can know what it's doing and more easily have control over what it does.
Indeed, who would review other people's code for free or for fun?
Plenty of people. Who would make software for free or for fun? Plenty. The fact that you have to ask such questions proves your own ignorance. You think everyone is out for money, but that is not true. But there are also people who do review it for money.
And what about the fallacy of the claim that proprietary software is secure? No software is completely secure, but at least with open source, you have control over it, and you can see what it's doing, even if it's unlikely you'll spot anything. That's the real claim people are making, not that it's completely secure.
Humans can perform acrobatics that any animal on earth would envy.
X is better than Y does not mean that X is good. The human body has a number of flaws and even seemingly innocuous foods are unhealthy to eat. You can't exactly expect a mindless process to produce 'perfect' results, so it goes without saying that the human body could be improved drastically. All the bad qualities make the human body seem horrendously weak, which isn't the same as saying that other animals are better.
Too bad you haven't picked up on any of those traits.
You need to get out of the "X being better than Y means that X is good!" phase. If that was not how you intended it, then phrase your arguments differently. Either that, or realize that some good qualities don't cancel out the negatives.
Just because it's "software" doesn't make it, and the processes that produce it, magically immune to logical, ethical, and legal analysis.
No, but these analogies are often garbage and demonstrate that the person doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. Like that idiot who mentioned drug dealers. He should just stop making analogies, because he's a god damn moron.
There should be no analogies, as comparing software to the real world means you're profoundly ignorant to begin with. It's simply wrong to blame the developers of P2P software for the actions of the users; period. Anyone who says otherwise is an authoritarian piece of garbage.
If you don't despise freedom, you'll agree with me.
In any case, why don't we get a bit creative? The TSA was 'justified' with the reasoning that you don't have to get on an airplane, so by trying to get on one, you consent to having your rights violated. You don't have to be in a certain city at a certain time, either. Therefore, everyone's constitutional rights can be suspended while they're in that city. And hey, why not just suspend everyone's rights, period? Man, this is fun! Using bullshit lawyer logic to justify blatant and unjustifiable violations of people's fundamental liberties sure is a blast!
Nothing you said justifies blatant censorship of specific content the FCC deems 'offensive' (or however they phrase it). It doesn't matter that it's a broadcast spectrum or anything.
See my other reply, but largely your rights are only absolute in to the extent they don't infringe on others rights.
'Bad' words do not infringe upon others' rights. I sincerely hope you're not defending government censorship, which is always intolerable.
The movie theatre example is the classic one from law school, it's illegal, and not free speech to yell "fire" in a movie theatre because it causes a panic and injures others.
It's both classic and stupid. It's a good example of how allowing the government to violate people's free speech rights leads to tyranny, as the verdict of that case led to war protestors being convicted.
But this is not that. It's completely different, in fact, and even people who disagree with my absolutist position towards free speech should be able to see that.
If a station wants to use the commons, that is send a radio signal out that everyone can listen to, they have to get a license to use that spectrum and because it goes to "everyone" they have to abide by a common set of rules.
Bullshit. This is like free speech zones or protest permits; absolutely unacceptable. I see nowhere in the first amendment that allows this sort of blatant censorship. You are suggesting that the government has the power to set a "common set of rules" that people have to follow to obtain a license to use a spectrum, and they can use that to censor whatever they please. That is absolutely disgusting, and it makes me want to vomit.
Government thugs shouldn't be able to censor a god damn fucking thing.
Don't like the constitution? Move to amend it. I won't agree with anything less.
See literal textual absurdity goes both ways.
By doing that, all you're doing is changing the reason that the constitution needs to be amended. You're not actually convincing me that we should just interpret it as whatever makes us most happy at the moment.
Though I would debate that reasoning by saying that I'm not a complete literalist in the sense that I do believe we should take into account the general idea of what the founding fathers had in mind, which would eliminate your word play.
The solution to that would be to *amend it*, not "applying reason," which is ambiguous nonsense. That's basically modifying the constitution, not interpreting it, and that's just unacceptable.
Sounds like you'd have no problems with New York State (or New York City) requiring any news article to be approved by government censors, eh?
What I'm about to say isn't really about states, but we have a similar problem. What happens if you say something the FCC doesn't like ('bad' words or something) on TV? If they don't censor it, they can get fined, or worse. And many people think this egregious and blatant violation of free speech and the constitution is somehow acceptable. I wonder why that is?
Every single article of the Constitution requires common sense to interpret.
"common sense" is ambiguous and useless. One person's "common sense" is another's nonsense. The constitution is meant to be read, not ignored in favor of subjective "common sense."
I dread that term. I only use it when I'm pointing out how idiotic it is.
It doesn't even say that States can't infringe on the freedom of speech.
The 14th amendment changed that, not "common sense." That's how it should be done: If something is wrong, amend it.
Hardly anyone even claims it implies you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater when you have no reason to believe there is fire.
I'm one of the people who does. Don't like it? Amend. Same for everything else. I find it intolerable that certain self-proclaimed 'freedom lovers' think it is acceptable simply to ignore it.
Do you really want a Constitution 10,000 or 100,000 pages long?
You're assuming that it needs to be in order to spell out its intentions; it doesn't. If there are restrictions on freedom of speech, it can spell those out in general.
One whose Second Amendment alone has to be constantly reviewed and updated because new devastating chemical and biological agents are developed, or something 1000 times more powerful than a nuclear weapon and weighs only one pound is invented?
Did you bother to read the article? I'm assuming not. The feds wanted targeted information, they requested targeted information, they got a court order for targeted information. Lavabit decided they didn't need to bother following the court order, and then the feds got broader because he was messing around. So...
So the government is still at fault for asking for more information than necessary. You seem to be saying that the government can do as it pleases in response to someone else's actions, which is simply a poisonous notion.
You know what? When my kids eff around and lie to me in the same ways, I react the same way the government/courts did.
So you think the government should act like parents and violate everyone's rights? An interesting idea, but one I will have to reject.
Slashdot Mirror
He revealed the secrets to everyone. You'd have to be an idiot to overlook the fact that he revealed the government's treachery and immoral activities. It's 100% worth it that even "competing governments" now know everything, because it means that The People--which the government should be afraid of--are now fully informed. Anyone who says otherwise is anti-democracy and is the type of person who'd sacrifice freedom for safety, exactly the type of thing we don't need in "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
He had the balls to take the risk, why not put your neck on the line if you really care about the USA?
What's the point? We have the information, and now it's up to us.
if not immediately by sympathetic conservative lawmakers then by a very sympathetic collection of citizens across the US.
The conservative lawmakers, along with the democrats, are the ones who voted for things like the Patriot Act to begin with. They're the ones who keep saying that freedom doesn't matter. These politicians are freedom-hating scumbags, like all of them. Even now, many are saying Snowden shouldn't have leaked the materials.
Are you people really so mindless that you have to appeal to laws? All Snowden did was reveal the government's wrongdoings (unconstitutional and otherwise). If you don't like that, well, maybe you should blame the government for being evil scumbags in the first place, as well as the people who voted the fuckers who allowed this in to begin with.
since the main reason to adopt this software is to not pay at all.
The main reason for me to adopt it is so that I can know what it's doing and more easily have control over what it does.
Indeed, who would review other people's code for free or for fun?
Plenty of people. Who would make software for free or for fun? Plenty. The fact that you have to ask such questions proves your own ignorance. You think everyone is out for money, but that is not true. But there are also people who do review it for money.
And what about the fallacy of the claim that proprietary software is secure? No software is completely secure, but at least with open source, you have control over it, and you can see what it's doing, even if it's unlikely you'll spot anything. That's the real claim people are making, not that it's completely secure.
Humans can perform acrobatics that any animal on earth would envy.
X is better than Y does not mean that X is good. The human body has a number of flaws and even seemingly innocuous foods are unhealthy to eat. You can't exactly expect a mindless process to produce 'perfect' results, so it goes without saying that the human body could be improved drastically. All the bad qualities make the human body seem horrendously weak, which isn't the same as saying that other animals are better.
Too bad you haven't picked up on any of those traits.
You need to get out of the "X being better than Y means that X is good!" phase. If that was not how you intended it, then phrase your arguments differently. Either that, or realize that some good qualities don't cancel out the negatives.
Software is real. It's part of the world.
What a revelation.
Just because it's "software" doesn't make it, and the processes that produce it, magically immune to logical, ethical, and legal analysis.
No, but these analogies are often garbage and demonstrate that the person doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. Like that idiot who mentioned drug dealers. He should just stop making analogies, because he's a god damn moron.
There should be no analogies, as comparing software to the real world means you're profoundly ignorant to begin with. It's simply wrong to blame the developers of P2P software for the actions of the users; period. Anyone who says otherwise is an authoritarian piece of garbage.
you can't turn 50000 steelworkers and car makers into coders in the space of a year.
Most likely, you can't turn most of them into *good* coders at all; that takes intelligence and aptitude that most people don't have.
If you don't despise freedom, you'll agree with me.
In any case, why don't we get a bit creative? The TSA was 'justified' with the reasoning that you don't have to get on an airplane, so by trying to get on one, you consent to having your rights violated. You don't have to be in a certain city at a certain time, either. Therefore, everyone's constitutional rights can be suspended while they're in that city. And hey, why not just suspend everyone's rights, period? Man, this is fun! Using bullshit lawyer logic to justify blatant and unjustifiable violations of people's fundamental liberties sure is a blast!
Nothing you said justifies blatant censorship of specific content the FCC deems 'offensive' (or however they phrase it). It doesn't matter that it's a broadcast spectrum or anything.
See my other reply, but largely your rights are only absolute in to the extent they don't infringe on others rights.
'Bad' words do not infringe upon others' rights. I sincerely hope you're not defending government censorship, which is always intolerable.
The movie theatre example is the classic one from law school, it's illegal, and not free speech to yell "fire" in a movie theatre because it causes a panic and injures others.
It's both classic and stupid. It's a good example of how allowing the government to violate people's free speech rights leads to tyranny, as the verdict of that case led to war protestors being convicted.
But this is not that. It's completely different, in fact, and even people who disagree with my absolutist position towards free speech should be able to see that.
If a station wants to use the commons, that is send a radio signal out that everyone can listen to, they have to get a license to use that spectrum and because it goes to "everyone" they have to abide by a common set of rules.
Bullshit. This is like free speech zones or protest permits; absolutely unacceptable. I see nowhere in the first amendment that allows this sort of blatant censorship. You are suggesting that the government has the power to set a "common set of rules" that people have to follow to obtain a license to use a spectrum, and they can use that to censor whatever they please. That is absolutely disgusting, and it makes me want to vomit.
Government thugs shouldn't be able to censor a god damn fucking thing.
Don't like the constitution? Move to amend it. I won't agree with anything less.
See literal textual absurdity goes both ways.
By doing that, all you're doing is changing the reason that the constitution needs to be amended. You're not actually convincing me that we should just interpret it as whatever makes us most happy at the moment.
Though I would debate that reasoning by saying that I'm not a complete literalist in the sense that I do believe we should take into account the general idea of what the founding fathers had in mind, which would eliminate your word play.
The solution to that would be to *amend it*, not "applying reason," which is ambiguous nonsense. That's basically modifying the constitution, not interpreting it, and that's just unacceptable.
Sounds like you'd have no problems with New York State (or New York City) requiring any news article to be approved by government censors, eh?
What I'm about to say isn't really about states, but we have a similar problem. What happens if you say something the FCC doesn't like ('bad' words or something) on TV? If they don't censor it, they can get fined, or worse. And many people think this egregious and blatant violation of free speech and the constitution is somehow acceptable. I wonder why that is?
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to.
1 + 1 = 2, you fucking moron.
Every single article of the Constitution requires common sense to interpret.
"common sense" is ambiguous and useless. One person's "common sense" is another's nonsense. The constitution is meant to be read, not ignored in favor of subjective "common sense."
I dread that term. I only use it when I'm pointing out how idiotic it is.
It doesn't even say that States can't infringe on the freedom of speech.
The 14th amendment changed that, not "common sense." That's how it should be done: If something is wrong, amend it.
Hardly anyone even claims it implies you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater when you have no reason to believe there is fire.
I'm one of the people who does. Don't like it? Amend. Same for everything else. I find it intolerable that certain self-proclaimed 'freedom lovers' think it is acceptable simply to ignore it.
Do you really want a Constitution 10,000 or 100,000 pages long?
You're assuming that it needs to be in order to spell out its intentions; it doesn't. If there are restrictions on freedom of speech, it can spell those out in general.
One whose Second Amendment alone has to be constantly reviewed and updated because new devastating chemical and biological agents are developed, or something 1000 times more powerful than a nuclear weapon and weighs only one pound is invented?
So amend it.
Did you bother to read the article? I'm assuming not. The feds wanted targeted information, they requested targeted information, they got a court order for targeted information. Lavabit decided they didn't need to bother following the court order, and then the feds got broader because he was messing around. So...
So the government is still at fault for asking for more information than necessary. You seem to be saying that the government can do as it pleases in response to someone else's actions, which is simply a poisonous notion.
You know what? When my kids eff around and lie to me in the same ways, I react the same way the government/courts did.
So you think the government should act like parents and violate everyone's rights? An interesting idea, but one I will have to reject.