If you enjoy film and television, and previously music, then ignoring the content completely isn't an option.
If all you're able to enjoy is DRM-encumbered garbage, then you may have a problem on your hands. Seriously, stop being a "consumer"; it's just a waste of money, and an insulting term.
You cannot "consume" content; it'll be there afterwards. Just a propaganda term.
Sure, others live as hermits and luddites, and just turn away from every modern piece of technology
Erm... you're out of your fucking mind if you think that you have to live as a hermit or a luddite (You do know that luddites were people who opposed technology to save their jobs, right?) just because you don't use proprietary software or DRM.
so even he fails to hold true to his own faith.
What about your own stupid "faith" (Man, people don't even know how to use that term.), where everything is surrendered in the name of being a worthless "consumer"?
And that's probably just a misunderstanding on your part. Few people pay attention to what he actually says.
Besides, there's one final option if you really want to "consume" the content: Just download it.
Do people seriously use the word "consume" when they're talking about watching movies, or other such things? Really? I'd say only idiots do that.
Society today uses many synonyms that all work just fine in this context. God, Buddha, Allah, Nature, Random Chance, etc.
All of which is nonsense, though "random chance" will have to be explained further.
In other words, you have rights because you exist.
Rights are a human invention. People in general have rights because they banded together and decided to create governments that have certain limits on their powers, among other things.
Rights are not things that just magically exist, and that idea is superstitious nonsense.
And a history class would be very incorrect (at least in the US) to teach anything other than the fact that those who wrote the founding documents of the US believed anything other than that our rights were granted to us by our creator.
It would incorrect to say that some of the founding fathers did not believe such a thing, but it would also be incorrect (Or inappropriate for a history class, if you prefer.) to say that it's true. That is the difference.
Teaching what they believed is fine. Holding up those archaic beliefs as the truth is what would be troublesome.
But yes, let's do stop teaching actual historical facts in history class so we can further eliminate any hope of ever retaining and/or reserving any rights to ourselves.
Claiming that a creator granted you rights has never ensured that they'll be respected (And even if it did, that wouldn't make it true.), and never will. If the oppressors have more power than you, you're pretty much done for until such a time when that's no longer true, and people decide to act on their personal beliefs.
Besides, when you sarcastically said that we should stop teaching actual historical facts in history class, that seems to imply that we're doing it correctly now. I don't agree with that. And furthermore, even if we *were* doing it correctly now, then that just shows that that alone can't stop the rights violations; after all, we have things like the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, stop-and-frisk, and a number of other nasty things that violate people's rights.
The first amendment should apply wherever it says it applies; it's part of the highest law of the land.
Oh and BTW, no one thinks you search for kiddy porn. But if the first amendment applied in every situation, they could.
They could anyway, because as far as I know, the US doesn't have much in the way of laws against certain thoughts.
As for the actual speech... if other people believe it without actual evidence, and take actions that harm others based on that speech, whose fault is it really? If we're talking about the actual actions, then it's the fault of the people who decided to take those actions in response to the speech.
Your first mistake and probably the biggest mistake is in thinking the Constitution gives you rights.
A mistake many people make. It's basically a list of powers that the government has, and it can't do anything more than that.
Nothing in the US constitution gives you rights
It establishes a government with limited powers that enables certain rights to exist; rights that many people have deemed desirable.
you have rights bestowed upon you by your creator
My parents?
If you would have paid attention in your US history classes, you would know that instead of inventing whatever you think fits the bill when you decide you need to know something.
If US history classes are teaching *anything* about a creator granting rights, something is horribly wrong. Well, I know the education system is bad, but at the very least, they thankfully never mentioned such a thing when I was in school.
If it is helping them, you have no right to complain. Actually, you have no right to complain either way.
Since when do we not have the right to free speech? You are aware, of course, that making your objections known, in addition to not buying the product, is pretty much the only way to change things? You need to let them know what's wrong, and it's well within your rights to do so.
If you don't want what someone offers or how they offer it, don't buy it.
There's another option that many people choose to take.
You can't force someone to sell you their wares in a form you want.
If anyone believes it without verifying anything, it's their fault. Our system is setup so that personal responsibility no longer exists, and those who do the real damage are never blamed.
I'll give you the right to be an asshole but in return I reserve the right to beat the shit out of you for it.
Well, you don't have that right, unless by "beat the shit out of you," you mean arguing with someone with words.
Yeah get out of your mom's basement and into the real world then. I suppose its ok to call in a fake bomb threat too?
Why don't you leave your mom's basement and come into the Real World? The "real world" is what people who disagree with you aren't in, even though everyone lives in the "real world" and have no choice to do anything else.
I suppose its ok to call in a fake bomb threat too?
Yeah, I do think we should stop overreacting to everything. Whenever someone jokes, swat teams come in. Whenever someone falsely accuses someone of something, swat teams bust in. It's ridiculous, and needs to stop. Use some intelligent investigation if it's even necessary, and stop overreacting to everything.
No the whole reason this issue exists is because in the real world that *doesnt* happen.
You do realize that this was just made up in a court room, right? This isn't an event that was actually a well-known problem at the time it would brought up.
Oh well if *you* havent seen it then it *cant* be true.
Then kindly link to a case where this happened. It wouldn't change my mind about free speech, but I would stop saying it hasn't happened.
Choosing not to implement something is also valid. You also have the right to choose a different browser, and so do I. Many people who refuse to use DRM or even support it will have to use another browser now, decreasing their number of choices.
And since we have the source, there are plenty of options. Still sad to see a major browser go this route.
He said "Those of you that live and work in the real world enabled the holocaust", a comparison of DRM indifferents to those who stood by when the Holocaust happened.
Which, again, could very well be referring to people who are more concerned about convenience and the "real world" to do anything to stop injustice, or they could even actively promote it.
Or it might just be that that person is an idiot. At this point, and since it was an AC, there's no way to tell.
Clearly the result of the former having the *choice* of whether to participate or not renders the analogy ridiculous and invalid.
Not unless that was the entire point of the analogy.
Only if it is a poor analogy.
Nah, there are plenty of people who don't even know what an analogy is, or how human language works.
Now, maybe this analogy was poor, but that isn't my point.
No I'm not saying it's not dangerous and harmful, I'm only saying it can be and there are also situations in where it is not and in those places where I can simply treat it as a black box and confine it then it is not dangerous and harmful at all.
I'm saying that the mere concept of DRM and proprietary software is, to me, harmful and dangerous to my freedoms. I'm not talking about 'practical' dangers or anything of the sort.
Then don't support it. You don't have any right to dictate their decisions.
I won't. And neither do you, so why do you insist I'm taking away choice, when really, no matter what happens, someone is taking away some choice from someone? I just don't understand the point.
Besides, I may not have the right to dictate their decisions, but I never claimed to have such a right. People are merely criticizing them for doing things that they don't like, and that's well within people's rights. Mozilla can ignore this if they feel like it, and they probably will.
The consequences of DRM are not at all similar to any part of the holocaust, therefore "collaborating" with DRM is not at all similar to collaborating with Nazis.
But they might be similar in at least one way. That's all it takes.
Whether the analogy amounts to anything useful is an entirely different matter.
He is literally saying that people who accept DRM in Firefox would allow the holocaust to happen and are also accepting the "fight against terrorism" line.
Human language isn't always literal. My interpretation might not be off. But unless clarified further, it very well could be.
Wrong, they give you 2 options, you do one of them instead of taking action to ensure the creation of a 3rd. Rosa Parks did not simply "not ride the bus".
I already listed numerous things that I do in my attempt to stop it. So again, how does the term "government boot-licker" apply to me? Your use of the term is so general and useless that it applies to anyone who uses a strategy that you don't like, not to mention the fact that it's completely different from the normal use of the term.
Wrong again, subjective opinions are not fact, that is a fact.
Look at the text you quoted again. I did not say that subjective opinions are fact.
I never said they don't exist, I said they potentially could exist but you insist on impugning the entire market out of your fear of a few bad apples, terrorism works on you.
It's far from a few bad apples; history is absolutely full of abuses of power.
If you don't exercise the options then it has no impact...seriously how daft are you to not realize that? Explain how it can have an impact if you don't exercise that option.
It seems you are stuck thinking that the only impacts are physical and personal. I do not think that way. Even though I never ride on planes and never did even before the TSA came around, I think the government thugs in the airports are impacting my freedoms.
Wrong, you are free to feel however you like, but you insist on imposing those on others.
If voicing your opinion is the same as imposing on others, then I'm 100% fine with imposing on others. And you seem to have no problem with it, either.
You don't want them to have choice, if you were ok with choice you would have no problem with DRM in firefox, but you don't want people to have that choice because you want to push your religious ideals on others.
You're seemingly pushing for your own "religious ideals," and they're that Firefox should absolutely allow people the choice to use DRM.
Wrong again, I clearly said be specific, you failed, try again.
Nope. I answered.
You're the one trying to eliminate choice, and you're the one losing so it's your problem.
You don't understand something. You're also eliminating my choice by implementing DRM in Firefox, because I refuse to use anything that supports 'features' like this that are specifically implemented for the purposes of DRM.
If you really wanted "choice," just use a different browser. It's about as valid as attacking me for supposedly taking away your choices, and it's just as self-imposed.
As for "losing," (Whatever that means in this context...) do you honestly think the person you're arguing with is going to agree with that? How pointless.
It's merely your point of view.
That's merely your point of view. That's a fact.
No I'm trying to get an example of your opposition to the specific scenario I laid out, which you failed time and time again to do, and you will fail again.
I will "fail" again because you're only looking for very specific answers. To me, lack of choice in computing is dangerous and harmful in and of itself. To you, that does not seem to be the case. But it is to me. Because of that, there's nothing I can say to convince you, unless I could somehow find an event that happened in the real world that demonstrates the dangers of proprietary software and DRM in the very specific situation that you laid out, which likely wouldn't happen. Since I can't be theoretical, all I could ever do is provide links to past events that satisfy your specific conditions.
if not you can admit that DRM is not bad in all situations, so here goes:
I feel DRM is always bad. I doubt you actively want DRM; just the content. I thought this was all about forsaking those ideals when it's convenient enough, not whether DRM is always bad.
Nobody said the analogy fails because they are not exactly the same but you keep thinking somebody does.
Perhaps not you, but S.O.B. above said this: "Anyone who equates someone who accepts DRM with someone who accepts the systematic slaughter of an entire people by the state needs to have their sense of proportion adjusted."
Then you must isolate that element and present it as analogous to the similarity in the situation being discussed. An analogy breaks down when you try to transfer the meaning of a cause-and-effect scenario from one context to another but can only retain the cause *or* the effect which is what has happened in this attempt.
An analogy breaks down when it's useless or irrelevant.
If I understand it, the point was that people accept all sorts of nonsense in their attempt to live in the "real world" and keep its convenience. Scared of the terrorist bogeyman? Let the government do as it pleases; you have mouths to feed, and it's much too cumbersome to do anything stop it. Something to that effect.
The key factor of *choice* has been lost in the analogy which is why it fails
If he said they were similar in that way, then you'd be right. But he didn't.
The problem with using such analogies isn't that they're always wrong, but that people will inevitably misinterpret you, making it a complete waste of time.
No it's that you let them dictate what you do and do not do, they can control you simply by putting in place a requirement that you won't comply with, you are just as easily manipulated as those who do comply with the requirement.
That still does not make someone a government boot-licker. You accuse me of stating my subjective views as a fact, yet here you are doing just that.
And what do you suggest I do as a form of protest? Go with the flow, and just accept it? If so, that's absolutely absurd. You seem to be suggesting that absolutely nothing should be done, because if anything is done, it's a sign that you're a government boot-licker, which, to you, is anyone who does anything in response to the government's actions, since doing something means they're controlling you.
Wrong, only a religious zealot presents his subjective point of view as fact.
Either you're a religious zealot who states his opinions as facts, or you're not and you don't. Nice false dichotomy.
And you seem to be presenting plenty of subjective viewpoints as facts.
They potentially could exist and if they did exist they could potentially have a real impact, but fear-mongering is your only argument.
With the whole NSA debacle, Sony rootkits, and the countless times that corporations and governments have taken advantage of their powers (Are you seriously going to make me list every act of corruption?), you'd be ignorant to think it's just fear-mongering. In fact, you are profoundly ignorant.
Again it potentially could and sometimes does but in many cases it does not.
No, it does have a real impact, because it restricts your options. That is just a fact, regardless of whether you decide to take advantage of them.
How do you expect to convince people that something is bad if you can't even identify any specific real impact?
How do you expect to not live in a police state if you don't take into account how certain government powers might be abused, even if they haven't been?
And I already did. The NSA is a great example.
You just can't accept that people don't have the devotion to the religious ideals that you have.
You seem to have your own devotion to religious ideals, and they come in the form of opposing me and accusing me of having religious ideals. That can easily be turned back upon you, insect.
It's just the specific question I asked but you are deflecting because you know you cannot answer it.
I already did answer it.
But with that said, you're merely opposing me so fervently because you know I'm right, and you just don't want to admit it. Wow, telling others what they think deep down in their heart of hearts sure is hard!
Your problem is your inability to make your argument in an objective manner
Funny... I'd say that's your problem.
you can state your point of view all you want and attempt to bully people who think differently by calling them "ignorant"
I 'bully' people that way because it's The Truth. You know this as well as I do, and that's why you feel the need to use much-abused terms like "deflecting," "religious zealot," "religious ideals," and "bully."
but that you need to resort to that means are unable to educate people on the virtues of your ideals
That you need to resort to saying that means you know that you're 100% incorrect.
either because they are not relevant or because they have to real impact - and that is your failure.
To be honest, you're not doing a very good job of arguing against me. I know this because I decided it myself, so it's true.
And again, you say you're not obsessed with the here-and-now, but it seems all you think about is the present, and neve
Stop being so desperate to defend the right to be an asshole.
People have always had that right in most cases. That's quite the draconian attitude you have.
Obviously if anybody is allowed to incite panic by sounding a fire alarm whenever they want then eventually people are not going to take such a thing seriously.
Then that's their fault. And I care far more about free speech than safety.
Now ideally we live in a world where people are not just assholes for the sake of it however that idealized world is not reality but if you can get us to the point where that is the case then the whole "fire-theater" issue goes away by itself
In practice, the idiot would just be laughed at and kicked out of the theater. I've never--not once--seen where this whole 'falsely screaming fire in a crowded theater' thing caused a panic.
If the theater owner doesn't like it, then kick the guy out. Asshole authoritarians don't understand this matter at all.
What's even more pathetic is that the court ruling this came from allowed war protestors to be convicted, and yet people feel it's a good idea to cite it as an example of what's right with the world. Good job, assholes.
Once again, using an analogy is not the same thing as saying two things are exactly alike. It could be that they share just one similarity. If you're going to call me ignorant, first make sure it's not you who is ignorant.
Look for the actual reason the person made the analogy to begin with, and if it doesn't hold up, attack the analogy with a logical rebuttal *for that reason*. Attacking it because the two situations are not exactly the same is just a straw man. Pointing out where the situations differ is equally pointless, unless you're pointing out that the similarities aren't so similar after all.
What a strange definition of "government boot-licker." Here I thought it referred to those who practically worship the government and believe whatever it says. But no, it's anyone who is at all affected by the government's corruption; everyone.
You specifically said you were uncooperative with law enforcement and 'acting like corrupt thugs' is just a point of view.
In the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a point of view. With all the shit that they do, this is just a fact.
That's because most of the "dangers" of proprietary software do not have any real impact aside from the ad absurdum extrapolations of conspiracy theorists.
Backdoors or bugs that make one insecure that you have practically zero chance of catching and fixing do not have real impact? Being practically unable to get updates from anywhere other than the original developer (With FOSS, it can just be forked of the original developer screws up.) has no real impact? Not having any real control has no impact? Free software is not a be-all-end-all fix for everything, but letting people have the possibility to truly understand and control what the software is doing is an important step forward. The whole NSA affair shows this, as you're left even more vulnerable when an entity as large as the government is working with tons of corporations. Don't take this to mean that free software is immune from all of this, because again, it's not.
And I view lack of control as a very real impact in and of itself.
Like I said if I watch Netflix on an AppleTV that is a whole bunch of proprietary software and DRM but what are you suggesting is "dangerous" about that? Specifically, not perceived, not some extrapolated theory, the real, specific here-and-now danger?
If specific here-and-now danger is all you're worried about, then no wonder the government and corporations do as they please. People like you are easy to fool.
You also seem hell-bent on the idea that all DRM is equally dangerous. This is not my claim. My claim is that DRM can do any number of harmful things (restricting you, making you insecure, etc.), but not necessarily all at once. All DRM is harmful in at least one way.
For the last smegging time, the "fire-theater" issue *is* about free speech rights, as your freedom of speech is being limited. How other people act in response to your speech is *on them*, and no one else. Saying it's about property rights doesn't mean it's not about free speech; it is.
Where private property comes in is the fact that the theater owner can kick you out if he/she so pleases. Government thugs shouldn't be involved in the business of punishing people because they screamed in a theater. Although, of the panicking people broke anything, they may need to pay up.
Man, you're retarded. The constitution is in plain English, and its purpose is abundantly clear. While you need to have high aptitude and understand to be a good engineer, reading the constitution requires no such thing, and it's more like understanding basic English in terms of difficulty.
Only an authoritarian asshole or someone who stands to gain would claim that everyone should mindlessly obey authority figures in matters like this. Your attitude is partly why we have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, free speech zones, etc.; blind trust of authority figures.
if that was really the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I don't support that thing, but I don't think what you said is necessarily true. Many people vote for the 'lesser' of two evils, based on a select few policies that the 'less evil' party has. Other policies get ignored in favor of keeping the Great Evil from winning.
So while it's true that this probably isn't a top issue for most people, the fact that we're in this situation doesn't mean 96% of the country isn't behind them. Though, I do doubt that statistic.
Well, you may wish to have a system where authority figures always know what's best (despite the fact that anyone can read the constitution), and are always right, but I don't want that kind of tyranny.
So don't play one, and don't pretend you know how the law works.
Want to know how it works? It doesn't. The government routinely violates the constitution, and your only defense of this is to attack me for not being a lawyer. How nice.
I've read numerous historical documents to get an understanding of the constitution, as well as the actual constitution itself; there is absolutely no reason that one needs to be a lawyer.
The problem with your position is that it relies on foolish trust of authority figures. History has shown that that's a bad idea. They'll promise a number of things (such as that the data will be anonymous), but later break those promises either in secret, or at a time when most people just won't care (much like with the NSA surveillance).
I wouldn't subject any child to this sort of abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
If you enjoy film and television, and previously music, then ignoring the content completely isn't an option.
If all you're able to enjoy is DRM-encumbered garbage, then you may have a problem on your hands. Seriously, stop being a "consumer"; it's just a waste of money, and an insulting term.
You cannot "consume" content; it'll be there afterwards. Just a propaganda term.
Sure, others live as hermits and luddites, and just turn away from every modern piece of technology
Erm... you're out of your fucking mind if you think that you have to live as a hermit or a luddite (You do know that luddites were people who opposed technology to save their jobs, right?) just because you don't use proprietary software or DRM.
so even he fails to hold true to his own faith.
What about your own stupid "faith" (Man, people don't even know how to use that term.), where everything is surrendered in the name of being a worthless "consumer"?
And that's probably just a misunderstanding on your part. Few people pay attention to what he actually says.
Besides, there's one final option if you really want to "consume" the content: Just download it.
Do people seriously use the word "consume" when they're talking about watching movies, or other such things? Really? I'd say only idiots do that.
Society today uses many synonyms that all work just fine in this context. God, Buddha, Allah, Nature, Random Chance, etc.
All of which is nonsense, though "random chance" will have to be explained further.
In other words, you have rights because you exist.
Rights are a human invention. People in general have rights because they banded together and decided to create governments that have certain limits on their powers, among other things.
Rights are not things that just magically exist, and that idea is superstitious nonsense.
And a history class would be very incorrect (at least in the US) to teach anything other than the fact that those who wrote the founding documents of the US believed anything other than that our rights were granted to us by our creator.
It would incorrect to say that some of the founding fathers did not believe such a thing, but it would also be incorrect (Or inappropriate for a history class, if you prefer.) to say that it's true. That is the difference.
Teaching what they believed is fine. Holding up those archaic beliefs as the truth is what would be troublesome.
But yes, let's do stop teaching actual historical facts in history class so we can further eliminate any hope of ever retaining and/or reserving any rights to ourselves.
Claiming that a creator granted you rights has never ensured that they'll be respected (And even if it did, that wouldn't make it true.), and never will. If the oppressors have more power than you, you're pretty much done for until such a time when that's no longer true, and people decide to act on their personal beliefs.
Besides, when you sarcastically said that we should stop teaching actual historical facts in history class, that seems to imply that we're doing it correctly now. I don't agree with that. And furthermore, even if we *were* doing it correctly now, then that just shows that that alone can't stop the rights violations; after all, we have things like the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, stop-and-frisk, and a number of other nasty things that violate people's rights.
The first amendment should apply wherever it says it applies; it's part of the highest law of the land.
Oh and BTW, no one thinks you search for kiddy porn. But if the first amendment applied in every situation, they could.
They could anyway, because as far as I know, the US doesn't have much in the way of laws against certain thoughts.
As for the actual speech... if other people believe it without actual evidence, and take actions that harm others based on that speech, whose fault is it really? If we're talking about the actual actions, then it's the fault of the people who decided to take those actions in response to the speech.
Your first mistake and probably the biggest mistake is in thinking the Constitution gives you rights.
A mistake many people make. It's basically a list of powers that the government has, and it can't do anything more than that.
Nothing in the US constitution gives you rights
It establishes a government with limited powers that enables certain rights to exist; rights that many people have deemed desirable.
you have rights bestowed upon you by your creator
My parents?
If you would have paid attention in your US history classes, you would know that instead of inventing whatever you think fits the bill when you decide you need to know something.
If US history classes are teaching *anything* about a creator granting rights, something is horribly wrong. Well, I know the education system is bad, but at the very least, they thankfully never mentioned such a thing when I was in school.
If it is helping them, you have no right to complain.
Actually, you have no right to complain either way.
Since when do we not have the right to free speech? You are aware, of course, that making your objections known, in addition to not buying the product, is pretty much the only way to change things? You need to let them know what's wrong, and it's well within your rights to do so.
If you don't want what someone offers or how they offer it, don't buy it.
There's another option that many people choose to take.
You can't force someone to sell you their wares in a form you want.
This is a straw man.
If anyone believes it without verifying anything, it's their fault. Our system is setup so that personal responsibility no longer exists, and those who do the real damage are never blamed.
I'll give you the right to be an asshole but in return I reserve the right to beat the shit out of you for it.
Well, you don't have that right, unless by "beat the shit out of you," you mean arguing with someone with words.
Yeah get out of your mom's basement and into the real world then. I suppose its ok to call in a fake bomb threat too?
Why don't you leave your mom's basement and come into the Real World? The "real world" is what people who disagree with you aren't in, even though everyone lives in the "real world" and have no choice to do anything else.
I suppose its ok to call in a fake bomb threat too?
Yeah, I do think we should stop overreacting to everything. Whenever someone jokes, swat teams come in. Whenever someone falsely accuses someone of something, swat teams bust in. It's ridiculous, and needs to stop. Use some intelligent investigation if it's even necessary, and stop overreacting to everything.
No the whole reason this issue exists is because in the real world that *doesnt* happen.
You do realize that this was just made up in a court room, right? This isn't an event that was actually a well-known problem at the time it would brought up.
Oh well if *you* havent seen it then it *cant* be true.
Then kindly link to a case where this happened. It wouldn't change my mind about free speech, but I would stop saying it hasn't happened.
Choosing not to implement something is also valid. You also have the right to choose a different browser, and so do I. Many people who refuse to use DRM or even support it will have to use another browser now, decreasing their number of choices.
And since we have the source, there are plenty of options. Still sad to see a major browser go this route.
He said "Those of you that live and work in the real world enabled the holocaust", a comparison of DRM indifferents to those who stood by when the Holocaust happened.
Which, again, could very well be referring to people who are more concerned about convenience and the "real world" to do anything to stop injustice, or they could even actively promote it.
Or it might just be that that person is an idiot. At this point, and since it was an AC, there's no way to tell.
Clearly the result of the former having the *choice* of whether to participate or not renders the analogy ridiculous and invalid.
Not unless that was the entire point of the analogy.
Only if it is a poor analogy.
Nah, there are plenty of people who don't even know what an analogy is, or how human language works.
Now, maybe this analogy was poor, but that isn't my point.
No I'm not saying it's not dangerous and harmful, I'm only saying it can be and there are also situations in where it is not and in those places where I can simply treat it as a black box and confine it then it is not dangerous and harmful at all.
I'm saying that the mere concept of DRM and proprietary software is, to me, harmful and dangerous to my freedoms. I'm not talking about 'practical' dangers or anything of the sort.
Then don't support it. You don't have any right to dictate their decisions.
I won't. And neither do you, so why do you insist I'm taking away choice, when really, no matter what happens, someone is taking away some choice from someone? I just don't understand the point.
Besides, I may not have the right to dictate their decisions, but I never claimed to have such a right. People are merely criticizing them for doing things that they don't like, and that's well within people's rights. Mozilla can ignore this if they feel like it, and they probably will.
The consequences of DRM are not at all similar to any part of the holocaust, therefore "collaborating" with DRM is not at all similar to collaborating with Nazis.
But they might be similar in at least one way. That's all it takes.
Whether the analogy amounts to anything useful is an entirely different matter.
He is literally saying that people who accept DRM in Firefox would allow the holocaust to happen and are also accepting the "fight against terrorism" line.
Human language isn't always literal. My interpretation might not be off. But unless clarified further, it very well could be.
Wrong, they give you 2 options, you do one of them instead of taking action to ensure the creation of a 3rd. Rosa Parks did not simply "not ride the bus".
I already listed numerous things that I do in my attempt to stop it. So again, how does the term "government boot-licker" apply to me? Your use of the term is so general and useless that it applies to anyone who uses a strategy that you don't like, not to mention the fact that it's completely different from the normal use of the term.
Wrong again, subjective opinions are not fact, that is a fact.
Look at the text you quoted again. I did not say that subjective opinions are fact.
I never said they don't exist, I said they potentially could exist but you insist on impugning the entire market out of your fear of a few bad apples, terrorism works on you.
It's far from a few bad apples; history is absolutely full of abuses of power.
If you don't exercise the options then it has no impact...seriously how daft are you to not realize that? Explain how it can have an impact if you don't exercise that option.
It seems you are stuck thinking that the only impacts are physical and personal. I do not think that way. Even though I never ride on planes and never did even before the TSA came around, I think the government thugs in the airports are impacting my freedoms.
Wrong, you are free to feel however you like, but you insist on imposing those on others.
If voicing your opinion is the same as imposing on others, then I'm 100% fine with imposing on others. And you seem to have no problem with it, either.
You don't want them to have choice, if you were ok with choice you would have no problem with DRM in firefox, but you don't want people to have that choice because you want to push your religious ideals on others.
You're seemingly pushing for your own "religious ideals," and they're that Firefox should absolutely allow people the choice to use DRM.
Wrong again, I clearly said be specific, you failed, try again.
Nope. I answered.
You're the one trying to eliminate choice, and you're the one losing so it's your problem.
You don't understand something. You're also eliminating my choice by implementing DRM in Firefox, because I refuse to use anything that supports 'features' like this that are specifically implemented for the purposes of DRM.
If you really wanted "choice," just use a different browser. It's about as valid as attacking me for supposedly taking away your choices, and it's just as self-imposed.
As for "losing," (Whatever that means in this context...) do you honestly think the person you're arguing with is going to agree with that? How pointless.
It's merely your point of view.
That's merely your point of view. That's a fact.
No I'm trying to get an example of your opposition to the specific scenario I laid out, which you failed time and time again to do, and you will fail again.
I will "fail" again because you're only looking for very specific answers. To me, lack of choice in computing is dangerous and harmful in and of itself. To you, that does not seem to be the case. But it is to me. Because of that, there's nothing I can say to convince you, unless I could somehow find an event that happened in the real world that demonstrates the dangers of proprietary software and DRM in the very specific situation that you laid out, which likely wouldn't happen. Since I can't be theoretical, all I could ever do is provide links to past events that satisfy your specific conditions.
if not you can admit that DRM is not bad in all situations, so here goes:
I feel DRM is always bad. I doubt you actively want DRM; just the content. I thought this was all about forsaking those ideals when it's convenient enough, not whether DRM is always bad.
Nobody said the analogy fails because they are not exactly the same but you keep thinking somebody does.
Perhaps not you, but S.O.B. above said this: "Anyone who equates someone who accepts DRM with someone who accepts the systematic slaughter of an entire people by the state needs to have their sense of proportion adjusted."
Then you must isolate that element and present it as analogous to the similarity in the situation being discussed. An analogy breaks down when you try to transfer the meaning of a cause-and-effect scenario from one context to another but can only retain the cause *or* the effect which is what has happened in this attempt.
An analogy breaks down when it's useless or irrelevant.
If I understand it, the point was that people accept all sorts of nonsense in their attempt to live in the "real world" and keep its convenience. Scared of the terrorist bogeyman? Let the government do as it pleases; you have mouths to feed, and it's much too cumbersome to do anything stop it. Something to that effect.
The key factor of *choice* has been lost in the analogy which is why it fails
If he said they were similar in that way, then you'd be right. But he didn't.
The problem with using such analogies isn't that they're always wrong, but that people will inevitably misinterpret you, making it a complete waste of time.
No it's that you let them dictate what you do and do not do, they can control you simply by putting in place a requirement that you won't comply with, you are just as easily manipulated as those who do comply with the requirement.
That still does not make someone a government boot-licker. You accuse me of stating my subjective views as a fact, yet here you are doing just that.
And what do you suggest I do as a form of protest? Go with the flow, and just accept it? If so, that's absolutely absurd. You seem to be suggesting that absolutely nothing should be done, because if anything is done, it's a sign that you're a government boot-licker, which, to you, is anyone who does anything in response to the government's actions, since doing something means they're controlling you.
Wrong, only a religious zealot presents his subjective point of view as fact.
Either you're a religious zealot who states his opinions as facts, or you're not and you don't. Nice false dichotomy.
And you seem to be presenting plenty of subjective viewpoints as facts.
They potentially could exist and if they did exist they could potentially have a real impact, but fear-mongering is your only argument.
With the whole NSA debacle, Sony rootkits, and the countless times that corporations and governments have taken advantage of their powers (Are you seriously going to make me list every act of corruption?), you'd be ignorant to think it's just fear-mongering. In fact, you are profoundly ignorant.
Again it potentially could and sometimes does but in many cases it does not.
No, it does have a real impact, because it restricts your options. That is just a fact, regardless of whether you decide to take advantage of them.
How do you expect to convince people that something is bad if you can't even identify any specific real impact?
How do you expect to not live in a police state if you don't take into account how certain government powers might be abused, even if they haven't been?
And I already did. The NSA is a great example.
You just can't accept that people don't have the devotion to the religious ideals that you have.
You seem to have your own devotion to religious ideals, and they come in the form of opposing me and accusing me of having religious ideals. That can easily be turned back upon you, insect.
It's just the specific question I asked but you are deflecting because you know you cannot answer it.
I already did answer it.
But with that said, you're merely opposing me so fervently because you know I'm right, and you just don't want to admit it. Wow, telling others what they think deep down in their heart of hearts sure is hard!
Your problem is your inability to make your argument in an objective manner
Funny... I'd say that's your problem.
you can state your point of view all you want and attempt to bully people who think differently by calling them "ignorant"
I 'bully' people that way because it's The Truth. You know this as well as I do, and that's why you feel the need to use much-abused terms like "deflecting," "religious zealot," "religious ideals," and "bully."
but that you need to resort to that means are unable to educate people on the virtues of your ideals
That you need to resort to saying that means you know that you're 100% incorrect.
either because they are not relevant or because they have to real impact - and that is your failure.
To be honest, you're not doing a very good job of arguing against me. I know this because I decided it myself, so it's true.
And again, you say you're not obsessed with the here-and-now, but it seems all you think about is the present, and neve
Stop being so desperate to defend the right to be an asshole.
People have always had that right in most cases. That's quite the draconian attitude you have.
Obviously if anybody is allowed to incite panic by sounding a fire alarm whenever they want then eventually people are not going to take such a thing seriously.
Then that's their fault. And I care far more about free speech than safety.
Now ideally we live in a world where people are not just assholes for the sake of it however that idealized world is not reality but if you can get us to the point where that is the case then the whole "fire-theater" issue goes away by itself
In practice, the idiot would just be laughed at and kicked out of the theater. I've never--not once--seen where this whole 'falsely screaming fire in a crowded theater' thing caused a panic.
If the theater owner doesn't like it, then kick the guy out. Asshole authoritarians don't understand this matter at all.
What's even more pathetic is that the court ruling this came from allowed war protestors to be convicted, and yet people feel it's a good idea to cite it as an example of what's right with the world. Good job, assholes.
Once again, using an analogy is not the same thing as saying two things are exactly alike. It could be that they share just one similarity. If you're going to call me ignorant, first make sure it's not you who is ignorant.
Look for the actual reason the person made the analogy to begin with, and if it doesn't hold up, attack the analogy with a logical rebuttal *for that reason*. Attacking it because the two situations are not exactly the same is just a straw man. Pointing out where the situations differ is equally pointless, unless you're pointing out that the similarities aren't so similar after all.
You let them dictate what you do.
What a strange definition of "government boot-licker." Here I thought it referred to those who practically worship the government and believe whatever it says. But no, it's anyone who is at all affected by the government's corruption; everyone.
You specifically said you were uncooperative with law enforcement and 'acting like corrupt thugs' is just a point of view.
In the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a point of view. With all the shit that they do, this is just a fact.
That's because most of the "dangers" of proprietary software do not have any real impact aside from the ad absurdum extrapolations of conspiracy theorists.
Backdoors or bugs that make one insecure that you have practically zero chance of catching and fixing do not have real impact? Being practically unable to get updates from anywhere other than the original developer (With FOSS, it can just be forked of the original developer screws up.) has no real impact? Not having any real control has no impact? Free software is not a be-all-end-all fix for everything, but letting people have the possibility to truly understand and control what the software is doing is an important step forward. The whole NSA affair shows this, as you're left even more vulnerable when an entity as large as the government is working with tons of corporations. Don't take this to mean that free software is immune from all of this, because again, it's not.
And I view lack of control as a very real impact in and of itself.
Like I said if I watch Netflix on an AppleTV that is a whole bunch of proprietary software and DRM but what are you suggesting is "dangerous" about that? Specifically, not perceived, not some extrapolated theory, the real, specific here-and-now danger?
If specific here-and-now danger is all you're worried about, then no wonder the government and corporations do as they please. People like you are easy to fool.
You also seem hell-bent on the idea that all DRM is equally dangerous. This is not my claim. My claim is that DRM can do any number of harmful things (restricting you, making you insecure, etc.), but not necessarily all at once. All DRM is harmful in at least one way.
Panicking people injure and kill? Indeed they do. You're absolutely right about that.
For the last smegging time, the "fire-theater" issue *is* about free speech rights, as your freedom of speech is being limited. How other people act in response to your speech is *on them*, and no one else. Saying it's about property rights doesn't mean it's not about free speech; it is.
Where private property comes in is the fact that the theater owner can kick you out if he/she so pleases. Government thugs shouldn't be involved in the business of punishing people because they screamed in a theater. Although, of the panicking people broke anything, they may need to pay up.
The best part of all these Nazi references is that they reveal people who are ignorant of what an analogy is.
Hint: It's not the same as saying "These things are exactly alike."
If you want the content, the choice is support the DRM or steal it.
Why steal it when you could just ask someone to voluntarily send you some data? Have to do things the hard way, do you?
And another option is to just ignore the content completely.
Man, you're retarded. The constitution is in plain English, and its purpose is abundantly clear. While you need to have high aptitude and understand to be a good engineer, reading the constitution requires no such thing, and it's more like understanding basic English in terms of difficulty.
Only an authoritarian asshole or someone who stands to gain would claim that everyone should mindlessly obey authority figures in matters like this. Your attitude is partly why we have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, free speech zones, etc.; blind trust of authority figures.
if that was really the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I don't support that thing, but I don't think what you said is necessarily true. Many people vote for the 'lesser' of two evils, based on a select few policies that the 'less evil' party has. Other policies get ignored in favor of keeping the Great Evil from winning.
So while it's true that this probably isn't a top issue for most people, the fact that we're in this situation doesn't mean 96% of the country isn't behind them. Though, I do doubt that statistic.
Well, you may wish to have a system where authority figures always know what's best (despite the fact that anyone can read the constitution), and are always right, but I don't want that kind of tyranny.
So don't play one, and don't pretend you know how the law works.
Want to know how it works? It doesn't. The government routinely violates the constitution, and your only defense of this is to attack me for not being a lawyer. How nice.
I've read numerous historical documents to get an understanding of the constitution, as well as the actual constitution itself; there is absolutely no reason that one needs to be a lawyer.
The problem with your position is that it relies on foolish trust of authority figures. History has shown that that's a bad idea. They'll promise a number of things (such as that the data will be anonymous), but later break those promises either in secret, or at a time when most people just won't care (much like with the NSA surveillance).
I wouldn't subject any child to this sort of abuse.