Right. My views are no more or less irrelevant than anyone else's, unless the actual topic of discussion is taken into consideration. If I say that 1 + 1 = 2, that's true regardless of whether some people consider me a "fundamentalist." In cases like this, where things are subjective, that some people say I'm a "fundamentalist" doesn't mean I'm objectively wrong.
When I say such things, I'm mainly expressing opposition to things like the TSA, anti-mask laws, the NSA's mass surveillance, and generally unconstitutional practices.
Fortunately, I am not proposing a utopia. But I would not expect someone who thinks ad hominems debunk someone's arguments to possibly understand what I believe, or where I draw lines. You say I am a fundamentalist, but you have your own fundamentalist tendencies... which alone doesn't make you wrong.
And you are demonstrably incorrect; many states without anti-mask laws exist.
One person's individual liberties very often impinge on another person's individual liberties.
Wearing a mask does no such thing.
I suppose not allowing the government to molest people at airports (the TSA) would infringe upon people's individual liberties? Certainly not liberties I would consider important.
Ironically that was the reason for the mask laws. To protect a minority from tyrannous KKK mobs.
I'm saying that the government should be restricted in such a way that it cannot violate certain individual liberties merely because the majority want it to be so, not that the government should provide 100% protection (from harm inflicted by criminals) to people. The latter results in people having fewer rights when the government infringes upon people's rights to provide the safety.
I don't know about an update, but if more companies were like id Software and eventually released the source code, problems like this wouldn't occur. Proprietary nonsense gets in the way of this happening, but that's all the more reason to blame the company.
I do not need some special "right" to host a game using my own equipment; that's absurd.
Besides, how is it theft? I doubt even our insane legal system considers it theft to host it yourself, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if I was wrong.
Well, guess what? It's not illegal to carry a gun around here either, but it IS very much illegal to use one for committing a crime.
So what?
Because wearing a mask while committing a crime should not result in larger punishments; it makes no sense, and is yet another way for our Tough On Crime government to send people off to prison for as long as possible.
Most of your comment makes little sense to me. Especially towards the end.
That goodness we all have our privacy. Time to wear armor and bullet proof vests when grocery shopping.
Once again, emotional appeals like that aren't going to work on me. In a country that truly aspires to be free, safety is less important than freedom. The idea that the government can prevent you from wearing certain articles of clothing is just ludicrous.
This is exactly what out forefathers were preventing when they drafted the constitution.
The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do. If the constitution does not explicitly say the government has a certain power, then it doesn't; the end. So, it's actually rather limiting.
A truly free country is not all about safety, but about freedom. But then again, people like you use similar arguments to those supporting the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, etc., and I really don't expect you to desire freedom or even comprehend it.
Do you have evidence for any of that, or is this one of those cases where people trot out vague nonsense?
And where I work, your ability to solve complex logical problems is far, far more important than being able to do something utterly inconsequential like typing 'fast'.
- When writing code, you are more likely to write comments, again because it takes less effort.
Rather, I write comments because they help clarify why certain code exists in the way it does, and in some cases, what it's doing. Have some mercy on the next guy who has to work on it.
Do you just have to say, "well he technically hasn't broken any laws, so we can't do anything".
Yes. I don't want thugs harassing people because they look 'suspicious'. It happens all the time, but it's wrong. We have given the government far too much power.
I'm someone who would wear a mask in public all the time, should it come to that.
Your logic is significantly more stupid. So let me get this straight... we should allow our government, which we pay for, to conduct mass public surveillance to track us wherever we go in public, just because some kids with a lot of money could do almost the same thing? Your brain must be broken.
The difference between the scenarios is obvious: Random kids don't have as much ability to ruin your life as governments, and the information collected by the government would be going to the government, which is comprised of individuals more than capable of ruining lives.
Are you going to make it illegal for anyone to record what they witness in public?
You're equating the act of recording what you witness with the government conducting mass surveillance. Try again, but this time, use your brain. The scale very much matters.
Just the government? Gee, I smell a big loophole there.
You could also ban the government from accepting such surveillance data from people without a warrant, and the data they could accept would be limited to specific targets.
Fear of public surveillance is just a little stupid IMO.
Hundreds of millions of people throughout history were abused and/or murdered by corrupt governments. Not a single person is some sort of perfect angel that can do no wrong or make no mistakes, and power corrupts. Even the US government has abused many people (slavery, discrimination, surveillance of people like MLK, the TSA, the NSA surveillance, the internment of Japanese citizens).
It is foolish to *not* be fearful. With these capabilities, the government can harass people that it considers its targets (people that did things it doesn't like), or find targets to harass. All this data merely allows it to better oppress the common person. Even if it isn't used that way in the beginning, it will be eventually, and to say otherwise means that you trust the current government and all future governments to never abuse their powers, which is unprecedented in the course of history.
Anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant of history, and ignorant of human nature. Education is the only answer.
Without fail, you people respond with ridiculous analogies, as if it justifies your anti-freedom nonsense. Well, it doesn't.
Well, by that "100%" logic we could wear suicide bomb vests.
Yes, and? That has less to do with what you wear and more to do with being in possession of something that's probably illegal.
A fake one would be fine by me.
It would be the same principle as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater; you would undoubtedly cause harm.
You do realize that that decision allowed war protestors to be put in prison, yes?
I am opposed to such violations of free speech, and think they are unconstitutional, no matter what judges say. Speech does not cause harm; other people who choose to react to the speech in ways that cause harm do, and in that case, they're at fault. The theater owner doesn't like it? Throw out the guy who screamed. Everyone seems to think they're not responsible for their own actions, but whether they acted on instinct or in ways that a 'reasonable' person would, they are responsible.
I would hate to have that cop tell me he couldn't do anything to protect that animal's 'freedom'.
So you're in favor of limiting innocent people's freedoms because of some supposed criminals? What a draconian mentality you have.
The correct response would be: Freedom is more important. Deal with it.
Ideally, this would be a reasonable law.
I'm saying there is no way for it to be reasonable, if you mean the anti-mask laws.
And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, many places with anti-mask laws only ban the act of wearing a mask while committing a crime; merely wearing one is not prohibited in those places. I don't think that's justified, but that's the reality.
In "the land of the free," banning something merely because criminals use it is unacceptable; period. It doesn't matter if the safety is real or it prevents deaths; freedom is more important.
Even if the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, protest permits, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, anti-mask laws, etc. did keep us safe, I would be 100% opposed to them all.
I am very anti-authoritarian and privacy-concerned
Nonsense. You would be 100% against having the government choose what you wear on your own body if that were the case.
It's amazing how willing people are to give up their liberties for safety, but I find it intolerable. On 9/11, I just knew the government would use it as an excuse to infringe upon our liberties, and many people begged them to do just that. It's baffling.
Popularity != good. Slavery was once accepted. Discrimination was once accepted. Don't try appealing to democracy; that's not how you obtain freedom. The minority needs to be protected from the tyrannical majority.
Justice systems in open societies rely on the ability to identify people in public places
Man, you authoritarians are mentally retarded. Why not just allow the government to break into people's houses for no reason? We might catch more criminals that way, which is what's important to you, since you obviously don't care about freedom.
Why do we have a constitution that is essentially a whitelist of things the government can do? Because, from the very beginning, even if it meant we're less 'safe', forcing the government to respect people's individual liberties was seen as desirable. We're supposed to be "the land of the free," not 'the land of the worthless cowards who sacrifice individual liberties to be able to catch Bad Guys.' As "the land of the free," we need to aspire to maximize our freedom, not minimize it like you want to do.
I've debunked posts like yours hundreds of times over, and it gets tiring.
Off to North Korea with you, little authoritarian. Man, I feel sorry for the North Korean people, though.
You can blame it on the Great Pumpkin and be just as wrong as blaming it "on the government and it's supporters".
Question: Who created the law? The government. Therefore, the government and those who supported it are at fault for the existence of the law. This is not difficult.
The grandparent is correct, the anti-mask laws go back decades and have nothing to do with the current conditions.
There's a wide variety of limits to our freedoms that are generally and widely agreed are a good idea
Many things were widely believed to be a good idea, but were horrendous. I do not care about popularity; I care about individual liberties.
(such as the (in)famous "the freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater")
I disagree with such a restriction, but that is neither here nor there. Wearing a mask does not itself do any harm, and shouldn't be banned merely because wearing a mask is something that a criminal might decide to do. This is not something that "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would do, but I can see you despise freedom, so it's not like you care.
If you want to catch more criminals, why not just allow the police to break into any house they please for any reason? You seem to have an absolute trust in the government to suggest that this would be for "the greater good" (an excuse to violate fundamental liberties).
Now, go get molested at an airport, and then fly off to North Korea, you scumbag. You might have trouble finding the right transportation, but I'm sure you'll find some authoritarian asshole who will be glad to take you.
Actually, it provides privacy from mass public surveillance. There are different kinds of privacy, and some (i.e. privacy from having people take upskirt pictures) exist even in public places.
And this is about the government, not random people looking at you.
You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.
Anyone who tries to say I shouldn't is an authoritarian scumbag.
This is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," so you can damn well bet I'm going to claim such a right.
No, the Klan did not create the law. I blame the government and its supporters.
Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?
I'm in favor of rolling back anti-Klan laws that make it illegal to wear masks in public places, regardless of what the mask looks like. Opposing the Klan is all well and good, but when you ban masks in public places, you're anti-freedom.
Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?
I think America is less free and less brave because we (i.e. authoritarian idiots like you) continually sacrifice freedom for security (both real and imaginary). I do not think innocent people should be harassed by government thugs merely for wearing masks, trying to get on a plane, participating in a protest (protest permits), trying to get their voices heard (free speech zones), etc.
It's always funny how you come when there is a topic about surveillance, and you're nearly always pro-surveillance and anti-privacy. I say "funny," but I don't really expect anything more from the likes of you. As I've suggested to you before, I really think North Korea would be more to your liking.
Come on. I shouldn't have to tell people in "the land of the free" that banning things like this merely because criminals could abuse them is disgusting. Even if the safety is real, it's not something any truly free country would do, just like we shouldn't have the TSA, the NSA mass surveillance, or any of the other nonsense that's happening right now.
What's with all these people who claim to want a free country, and yet support policies that take us in the opposite direction? It's just an eyesore.
Yep, things like this are just a temporary measure before the surveillance state gets too advanced. It's better to just limit the government's powers from the very beginning, but many people would rather have safety (or the illusion of safety) than have freedom.
In a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," banning something as simple as this merely because criminals could abuse them is cowardly, intolerable, and anti-freedom.
I am not a fan of the surveillance state either
From your post, that is clearly not the case. This is the sort of government cheerleading that leads to the loss of our freedoms.
No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded.
No person in their right mind--especially not one living in "the land of the free"--would stand by and do nothing while government thugs are tracking their location.
Isn't it funny (or sad) how the government is increasingly using mass surveillance in public places, and yet when you attempt to thwart their efforts at tracking you by doing something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?
The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. My views are no more or less irrelevant than anyone else's, unless the actual topic of discussion is taken into consideration. If I say that 1 + 1 = 2, that's true regardless of whether some people consider me a "fundamentalist." In cases like this, where things are subjective, that some people say I'm a "fundamentalist" doesn't mean I'm objectively wrong.
When I say such things, I'm mainly expressing opposition to things like the TSA, anti-mask laws, the NSA's mass surveillance, and generally unconstitutional practices.
Your Utopia cannot exist.
Fortunately, I am not proposing a utopia. But I would not expect someone who thinks ad hominems debunk someone's arguments to possibly understand what I believe, or where I draw lines. You say I am a fundamentalist, but you have your own fundamentalist tendencies... which alone doesn't make you wrong.
And you are demonstrably incorrect; many states without anti-mask laws exist.
One person's individual liberties very often impinge on another person's individual liberties.
Wearing a mask does no such thing.
I suppose not allowing the government to molest people at airports (the TSA) would infringe upon people's individual liberties? Certainly not liberties I would consider important.
Actually it's very significant.
Since the comparison itself was bad, nope.
It shows your true colours as a fundamentalist.
Your opinion about what labels apply to me is rather irrelevant.
Ironically that was the reason for the mask laws. To protect a minority from tyrannous KKK mobs.
I'm saying that the government should be restricted in such a way that it cannot violate certain individual liberties merely because the majority want it to be so, not that the government should provide 100% protection (from harm inflicted by criminals) to people. The latter results in people having fewer rights when the government infringes upon people's rights to provide the safety.
I don't know about an update, but if more companies were like id Software and eventually released the source code, problems like this wouldn't occur. Proprietary nonsense gets in the way of this happening, but that's all the more reason to blame the company.
Seriously? There's still an active Doom community. People play games because they're fun, and they don't become less fun just because they're old.
I do not need some special "right" to host a game using my own equipment; that's absurd.
Besides, how is it theft? I doubt even our insane legal system considers it theft to host it yourself, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if I was wrong.
Well, guess what? It's not illegal to carry a gun around here either, but it IS very much illegal to use one for committing a crime.
So what?
Because wearing a mask while committing a crime should not result in larger punishments; it makes no sense, and is yet another way for our Tough On Crime government to send people off to prison for as long as possible.
Most of your comment makes little sense to me. Especially towards the end.
That goodness we all have our privacy. Time to wear armor and bullet proof vests when grocery shopping.
Once again, emotional appeals like that aren't going to work on me. In a country that truly aspires to be free, safety is less important than freedom. The idea that the government can prevent you from wearing certain articles of clothing is just ludicrous.
This is exactly what out forefathers were preventing when they drafted the constitution.
The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do. If the constitution does not explicitly say the government has a certain power, then it doesn't; the end. So, it's actually rather limiting.
A truly free country is not all about safety, but about freedom. But then again, people like you use similar arguments to those supporting the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, etc., and I really don't expect you to desire freedom or even comprehend it.
Do you have evidence for any of that, or is this one of those cases where people trot out vague nonsense?
And where I work, your ability to solve complex logical problems is far, far more important than being able to do something utterly inconsequential like typing 'fast'.
- When writing code, you are more likely to write comments, again because it takes less effort.
Rather, I write comments because they help clarify why certain code exists in the way it does, and in some cases, what it's doing. Have some mercy on the next guy who has to work on it.
Do you just have to say, "well he technically hasn't broken any laws, so we can't do anything".
Yes. I don't want thugs harassing people because they look 'suspicious'. It happens all the time, but it's wrong. We have given the government far too much power.
I'm someone who would wear a mask in public all the time, should it come to that.
Your logic is significantly more stupid. So let me get this straight... we should allow our government, which we pay for, to conduct mass public surveillance to track us wherever we go in public, just because some kids with a lot of money could do almost the same thing? Your brain must be broken.
The difference between the scenarios is obvious: Random kids don't have as much ability to ruin your life as governments, and the information collected by the government would be going to the government, which is comprised of individuals more than capable of ruining lives.
Are you going to make it illegal for anyone to record what they witness in public?
You're equating the act of recording what you witness with the government conducting mass surveillance. Try again, but this time, use your brain. The scale very much matters.
Just the government? Gee, I smell a big loophole there.
You could also ban the government from accepting such surveillance data from people without a warrant, and the data they could accept would be limited to specific targets.
Fear of public surveillance is just a little stupid IMO.
Hundreds of millions of people throughout history were abused and/or murdered by corrupt governments. Not a single person is some sort of perfect angel that can do no wrong or make no mistakes, and power corrupts. Even the US government has abused many people (slavery, discrimination, surveillance of people like MLK, the TSA, the NSA surveillance, the internment of Japanese citizens).
It is foolish to *not* be fearful. With these capabilities, the government can harass people that it considers its targets (people that did things it doesn't like), or find targets to harass. All this data merely allows it to better oppress the common person. Even if it isn't used that way in the beginning, it will be eventually, and to say otherwise means that you trust the current government and all future governments to never abuse their powers, which is unprecedented in the course of history.
Anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant of history, and ignorant of human nature. Education is the only answer.
*sigh*
Without fail, you people respond with ridiculous analogies, as if it justifies your anti-freedom nonsense. Well, it doesn't.
Well, by that "100%" logic we could wear suicide bomb vests.
Yes, and? That has less to do with what you wear and more to do with being in possession of something that's probably illegal.
A fake one would be fine by me.
It would be the same principle as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater; you would undoubtedly cause harm.
You do realize that that decision allowed war protestors to be put in prison, yes?
I am opposed to such violations of free speech, and think they are unconstitutional, no matter what judges say. Speech does not cause harm; other people who choose to react to the speech in ways that cause harm do, and in that case, they're at fault. The theater owner doesn't like it? Throw out the guy who screamed. Everyone seems to think they're not responsible for their own actions, but whether they acted on instinct or in ways that a 'reasonable' person would, they are responsible.
I would hate to have that cop tell me he couldn't do anything to protect that animal's 'freedom'.
So you're in favor of limiting innocent people's freedoms because of some supposed criminals? What a draconian mentality you have.
The correct response would be: Freedom is more important. Deal with it.
Ideally, this would be a reasonable law.
I'm saying there is no way for it to be reasonable, if you mean the anti-mask laws.
And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, many places with anti-mask laws only ban the act of wearing a mask while committing a crime; merely wearing one is not prohibited in those places. I don't think that's justified, but that's the reality.
Not good enough.
In "the land of the free," banning something merely because criminals use it is unacceptable; period. It doesn't matter if the safety is real or it prevents deaths; freedom is more important.
Even if the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, protest permits, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, anti-mask laws, etc. did keep us safe, I would be 100% opposed to them all.
I am very anti-authoritarian and privacy-concerned
Nonsense. You would be 100% against having the government choose what you wear on your own body if that were the case.
It's amazing how willing people are to give up their liberties for safety, but I find it intolerable. On 9/11, I just knew the government would use it as an excuse to infringe upon our liberties, and many people begged them to do just that. It's baffling.
Popularity != good. Slavery was once accepted. Discrimination was once accepted. Don't try appealing to democracy; that's not how you obtain freedom. The minority needs to be protected from the tyrannical majority.
Justice systems in open societies rely on the ability to identify people in public places
Man, you authoritarians are mentally retarded. Why not just allow the government to break into people's houses for no reason? We might catch more criminals that way, which is what's important to you, since you obviously don't care about freedom.
Why do we have a constitution that is essentially a whitelist of things the government can do? Because, from the very beginning, even if it meant we're less 'safe', forcing the government to respect people's individual liberties was seen as desirable. We're supposed to be "the land of the free," not 'the land of the worthless cowards who sacrifice individual liberties to be able to catch Bad Guys.' As "the land of the free," we need to aspire to maximize our freedom, not minimize it like you want to do.
I've debunked posts like yours hundreds of times over, and it gets tiring.
Off to North Korea with you, little authoritarian. Man, I feel sorry for the North Korean people, though.
You can blame it on the Great Pumpkin and be just as wrong as blaming it "on the government and it's supporters".
Question: Who created the law? The government. Therefore, the government and those who supported it are at fault for the existence of the law. This is not difficult.
The grandparent is correct, the anti-mask laws go back decades and have nothing to do with the current conditions.
There's a wide variety of limits to our freedoms that are generally and widely agreed are a good idea
Many things were widely believed to be a good idea, but were horrendous. I do not care about popularity; I care about individual liberties.
(such as the (in)famous "the freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater")
I disagree with such a restriction, but that is neither here nor there. Wearing a mask does not itself do any harm, and shouldn't be banned merely because wearing a mask is something that a criminal might decide to do. This is not something that "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would do, but I can see you despise freedom, so it's not like you care.
If you want to catch more criminals, why not just allow the police to break into any house they please for any reason? You seem to have an absolute trust in the government to suggest that this would be for "the greater good" (an excuse to violate fundamental liberties).
Now, go get molested at an airport, and then fly off to North Korea, you scumbag. You might have trouble finding the right transportation, but I'm sure you'll find some authoritarian asshole who will be glad to take you.
Actually, it provides privacy from mass public surveillance. There are different kinds of privacy, and some (i.e. privacy from having people take upskirt pictures) exist even in public places.
And this is about the government, not random people looking at you.
You have no right whatsoever to anonymity in public.
Anyone who tries to say I shouldn't is an authoritarian scumbag.
This is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," so you can damn well bet I'm going to claim such a right.
You can thank the Klan for that in many places.
No, the Klan did not create the law. I blame the government and its supporters.
Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?
I'm in favor of rolling back anti-Klan laws that make it illegal to wear masks in public places, regardless of what the mask looks like. Opposing the Klan is all well and good, but when you ban masks in public places, you're anti-freedom.
Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?
I think America is less free and less brave because we (i.e. authoritarian idiots like you) continually sacrifice freedom for security (both real and imaginary). I do not think innocent people should be harassed by government thugs merely for wearing masks, trying to get on a plane, participating in a protest (protest permits), trying to get their voices heard (free speech zones), etc.
It's always funny how you come when there is a topic about surveillance, and you're nearly always pro-surveillance and anti-privacy. I say "funny," but I don't really expect anything more from the likes of you. As I've suggested to you before, I really think North Korea would be more to your liking.
First read my post. I did not state *why* it is illegal. I was aware that it has been illegal before any of this nonsense.
But regardless of the reason it's illegal, the fact remains that wearing masks in public is illegal in many places.
Since a few people interpreted it that way, it must be in the wording, but that is not how I intended it.
California has had a mask law on the books long before photo recognition, CCTV, etc.
When the laws were created is irrelevant to the reality that protecting your privacy is made impossible in many places by government thugs.
reasonably IMHO
Again?
Come on. I shouldn't have to tell people in "the land of the free" that banning things like this merely because criminals could abuse them is disgusting. Even if the safety is real, it's not something any truly free country would do, just like we shouldn't have the TSA, the NSA mass surveillance, or any of the other nonsense that's happening right now.
What's with all these people who claim to want a free country, and yet support policies that take us in the opposite direction? It's just an eyesore.
Yep, things like this are just a temporary measure before the surveillance state gets too advanced. It's better to just limit the government's powers from the very beginning, but many people would rather have safety (or the illusion of safety) than have freedom.
In a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," banning something as simple as this merely because criminals could abuse them is cowardly, intolerable, and anti-freedom.
I am not a fan of the surveillance state either
From your post, that is clearly not the case. This is the sort of government cheerleading that leads to the loss of our freedoms.
No person in their right mind would walk around with these things just to not be recorded.
No person in their right mind--especially not one living in "the land of the free"--would stand by and do nothing while government thugs are tracking their location.
Isn't it funny (or sad) how the government is increasingly using mass surveillance in public places, and yet when you attempt to thwart their efforts at tracking you by doing something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?
The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.