Almost invariably, the people who shit on IP are people incapable of creating anything of value.
Trying to poison the well with unfounded insults, are we?
If I spend time, development money and resources to develop something, whether $10 or $10 trillion, I'm not going to do it without a reasonable expectation of recouping my investment and a profit.
You have no idea what a world without copyright and such would look like, as you're not living in it. In reality, people would have to rely on alternate business strategies, with the most creative ones winning in the free market. That's how it's supposed to work.
You simply may not send MY data without my permission.
So you're saying that I can buy a disc which contains music, but I can't use my own equipment to send others the data on the disc that I just bought? And this doesn't infringe upon real private property rights and free speech rights? Absolute nonsense.
Otherwise, shitweasels like you should have your SSN and credit card numbers publicized on Google. I have a right to disseminate information.
You need to be able to distinguish between transferring around private information and information you released to the public.
Property is wrong. I should be able to use your car during the times you're not using it, as long as I put gas in.
Equating data on someone else's hard drive to using someone's car is absolutely absurd. It seems you lack the cognitive ability to understand what a copy is.
As for "scientific proof" that IP works, companies spend billions, produce things beneficial to humanity, and derive profit from doing so, when they recoup their expenses.
Do you really think that that qualifies as valid scientific proof that copyright and such work? No. You need to provide enough scientific proof to disprove the null hypothesis that it doesn't work. Merely saying that companies does not prove that they would not profit without copyright, patents, etc., and it equates correlation with causation.
My inventions or lack thereof have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. That you thought this debunked anything I said pretty much proves you're an irrational moron with no grasp of basic logical fallacies.
The US is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Violating everyone's privacy just for the purposes of 'safety' is *absolutely unreasonable*. The government has no such power. General warrants, for instance, are unconstitutional, so why would it suddenly be okay to search anything and everything? It makes absolutely no sense.
You may have morals, but they aren't derived from your lack of belief in a god, anymore than mine are defined by my failure to believe in the FSM or pink unicorns. Lack of belief in something doesn't define anything "moral", hence the term "amoral" (no morals)
I just didn't know what you meant.
Or... even shorter periods of time, like minutes or even seconds.
If you talk to various people in the group, probably. There are different kinds of atheism I suppose, but the common point is that all atheists lack a belief in a god. The same is true of other (even more ambiguous) terms like "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian," etc.
So, you're dismissive of anything that reflects badly upon Atheism and atheist in general, by ignoring actual concerns.
I generally don't think anything reflects badly on an entire group, since people are individuals. What atheists have in common is that they all lack a belief in a god, which is a perfectly rational position and a harmless belief.
Atheists who say those things, or me for reporting it as it happened?
The people who say those things.
I see, tossing "all" atheists into the same basket is not okay, but doing the same with "all" religions is!
It was not me, but speculation about what these people believe. You seem to be interpreting that as my own belief. Also, I never said anything about all religions.
Do you dismiss the idea of State Sponsored Atheism caused the state to persecute religions in the name of atheism? Or is it simply the case that that wasn't "true atheism"?
I think these things are more about control than about any religious beliefs or lack thereof.
for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes.
What?
Meaning there is nothing prohibited or commanded in the name of no-diety, therefore any time atheists say anything about atheism, it is subject to change based upon the whims of those that adhere to it.
Well, these words are always defined by humans, and all of them are subject to change (or, more accurately, new definitions will be added in addition to the old ones) over time, regardless of what religious beliefs people have.
If we went the exact opposite way and applied harsh consequences, without exception, for use or possession of small amounts of dope very few people would want to run the risk.
The problem with that is: 1) There's no scientific proof of that being true. It's just a garbage assumption. 2) It's anti-freedom.
I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".
That's pretty idiotic.
But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism".
You say "atheists" as if referring to all atheists.
So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and.. in the name of clearing the blight of religion from their societies... are not.
I have no idea what these people you're talking about actually think, but I would imagine, at least, that they take into account intent and how deeply religious beliefs played into those horrors. That probably would make a different to them.
Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make.
It's also something that many arguing against atheist are simply not willing to make.
Oh yeah, the 'logic' that 'justifies' the TSA is something along these lines: "It isn't 100% necessary to ride on an airplane, and by deciding to do so, people implicitly give the government permission to search them." You could apply this same logic to entire cities, or even the entire country, to create large areas where people have no rights. The idea that the government doesn't have to follow the constitution merely because you want to do something completely innocuous is absolutely absurd and should disgust anyone who loves freedom.
So, it's okay to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater because you have freedom of speech?
If the constitution doesn't give the government the power to do something, then it doesn't have the legitimate authority to do it. If anyone says otherwise, they're ignoring the constitution. Judges often do that.
Not everything is black and white, and I don't want this TSA BS anymore than you do. But, I'm going to disagree (as does SCOTUS) with your strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Piece of trash. My interpretation isn't even that black and white. This is a simple and clear violation of the fourth amendment, and has *nothing* to do with screaming fire in crowded theaters. This is the government searching everyone at airports, thereby violating their constitutional rights. Any judge who says otherwise is complicit in the crimes against the American people. The end.
It absolutely amazes me that some people in a country that's supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' disagree with me.
What nonsense do you speak of now? Are you coming out in support of policies and laws that violate the highest law of the land in the US and people's fundamental liberties? Furthermore, "what the grownups support" suggests you're saying that No True Grownup would ever disagree, which is just a no true Scotsman.
If you don't like it, no problem, as you are not all that special.
Actually, if you're part of an elite few that opposes all of the things I listed, then of course you'd be special in the sense that you're part of some small minority. You've done nothing to debunk that.
I have heard nobody actually applaud it other than the entities themselves and the people who profit from them.
Nobody!? Wow. You haven't paid any sort of attention at all. You've never seen someone support copyrights or patents? How about DUI checkpoints? People ignore the fact that these things violate people's fundamental liberties and/or the constitution because they think it will keep them safe from something, as if that's a justification in a country that's supposed to be 'the land of the free.'
So yeah, if you think that most people are not in support of any of that, I think you're absolutely incorrect.
FSM forbid people question what they read instead of just instantly believing these extraordinary claims. No one is saying it's bad to tinker or that no one should bother; just that if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you'd better provide some proof to back them up.
There is no way to not interpret something. But that doesn't mean that you can't tell if someone's given interpretation is right or wrong. You could look at historical documents and the countless cases throughout the history of the country for advice, for instance. Or you could realize that we should live up to the title of 'land of the free' and make decisions based on that. There really doesn't need to be a 100% literal and explicit definition of those things for you to see that things like the TSA and NSA spying are unconstitutional.
Incorrect. It doesn't matter how 'safe' this makes us; it's unconstitutional and wrong. There is no balance to be had, because we're supposed to be 'the land of the free,' and such a country wouldn't sacrifice such fundamental freedoms for safety. The TSA itself is unconstitutional.
Changing times and ambiguities in the original text say otherwise.
Then consult historical documents. It's a living document only in the sense that it can be amended.
Even in the case where we're explicitly saying "this is a dead document, follow it literally", the meanings of words change over time and the original meaning imparted by the text is lost.
Only true if the government intentionally ignores history.
The TSA cannot work for us, because their existence violates the highest law of the land. Slightly 'improving' the situation would never change that simple fact.
The TSA has been violating the constitution and people's fundamental liberties in broad daylight for more than a decade. 'Land of the free'? Not until we take care of serious problems like this.
It is the self-important nobodies like you that are special.
In a country where most people support the TSA, the NSA's surveillance, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, copyrights, patents, stop-and-frisk, unrestricted border searches, constitution-free zones, mass public surveillance conducted by the government, anti-gun laws, plea bargains, or some form of warrantless wiretapping in general, it is not difficult to be "special"; you just have to oppose all of those things.
Imagine if you were kidnapped, raped, while being videotaped. Should said video be allowed to circulate all in the name of anti-censorship?
Absolutely.
While I feel copyright reform needs to be dealt with, I don't believe it should be gotten rid of.
The problem is, there is no valid scientific proof that it's even effective to begin with. Furthermore, it violates free speech rights (to enforce it, censorship is often required) and private property rights (Can't have people sending certain non-private data using their own equipment!). I would oppose it outright solely because of the latter two reasons combined.
No fucking way. Child pornography is child molestation put on display
It's clear that you've already turned your brain off. Merely watching a video or looking at pictures does nothing. Then you call for murder, as is typical of the anti-freedom "for the children" crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost invariably, the people who shit on IP are people incapable of creating anything of value.
Trying to poison the well with unfounded insults, are we?
If I spend time, development money and resources to develop something, whether $10 or $10 trillion, I'm not going to do it without a reasonable expectation of recouping my investment and a profit.
You have no idea what a world without copyright and such would look like, as you're not living in it. In reality, people would have to rely on alternate business strategies, with the most creative ones winning in the free market. That's how it's supposed to work.
You simply may not send MY data without my permission.
So you're saying that I can buy a disc which contains music, but I can't use my own equipment to send others the data on the disc that I just bought? And this doesn't infringe upon real private property rights and free speech rights? Absolute nonsense.
Otherwise, shitweasels like you should have your SSN and credit card numbers publicized on Google. I have a right to disseminate information.
You need to be able to distinguish between transferring around private information and information you released to the public.
Property is wrong. I should be able to use your car during the times you're not using it, as long as I put gas in.
Equating data on someone else's hard drive to using someone's car is absolutely absurd. It seems you lack the cognitive ability to understand what a copy is.
As for "scientific proof" that IP works, companies spend billions, produce things beneficial to humanity, and derive profit from doing so, when they recoup their expenses.
Do you really think that that qualifies as valid scientific proof that copyright and such work? No. You need to provide enough scientific proof to disprove the null hypothesis that it doesn't work. Merely saying that companies does not prove that they would not profit without copyright, patents, etc., and it equates correlation with causation.
My inventions or lack thereof have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. That you thought this debunked anything I said pretty much proves you're an irrational moron with no grasp of basic logical fallacies.
The US is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Violating everyone's privacy just for the purposes of 'safety' is *absolutely unreasonable*. The government has no such power. General warrants, for instance, are unconstitutional, so why would it suddenly be okay to search anything and everything? It makes absolutely no sense.
You may have morals, but they aren't derived from your lack of belief in a god, anymore than mine are defined by my failure to believe in the FSM or pink unicorns. Lack of belief in something doesn't define anything "moral", hence the term "amoral" (no morals)
I just didn't know what you meant.
Or ... even shorter periods of time, like minutes or even seconds.
If you talk to various people in the group, probably. There are different kinds of atheism I suppose, but the common point is that all atheists lack a belief in a god. The same is true of other (even more ambiguous) terms like "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian," etc.
So, you're dismissive of anything that reflects badly upon Atheism and atheist in general, by ignoring actual concerns.
I generally don't think anything reflects badly on an entire group, since people are individuals. What atheists have in common is that they all lack a belief in a god, which is a perfectly rational position and a harmless belief.
Atheists who say those things, or me for reporting it as it happened?
The people who say those things.
I see, tossing "all" atheists into the same basket is not okay, but doing the same with "all" religions is!
It was not me, but speculation about what these people believe. You seem to be interpreting that as my own belief. Also, I never said anything about all religions.
Do you dismiss the idea of State Sponsored Atheism caused the state to persecute religions in the name of atheism? Or is it simply the case that that wasn't "true atheism"?
I think these things are more about control than about any religious beliefs or lack thereof.
for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes.
What?
Meaning there is nothing prohibited or commanded in the name of no-diety, therefore any time atheists say anything about atheism, it is subject to change based upon the whims of those that adhere to it.
Well, these words are always defined by humans, and all of them are subject to change (or, more accurately, new definitions will be added in addition to the old ones) over time, regardless of what religious beliefs people have.
Not if you have to have your rights violated to get there.
What do you mean?
If we went the exact opposite way and applied harsh consequences, without exception, for use or possession of small amounts of dope very few people would want to run the risk.
The problem with that is:
1) There's no scientific proof of that being true. It's just a garbage assumption.
2) It's anti-freedom.
I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".
That's pretty idiotic.
But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism".
You say "atheists" as if referring to all atheists.
So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and .. in the name of clearing the blight of religion from their societies ... are not.
I have no idea what these people you're talking about actually think, but I would imagine, at least, that they take into account intent and how deeply religious beliefs played into those horrors. That probably would make a different to them.
Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make.
It's also something that many arguing against atheist are simply not willing to make.
Oh yeah, the 'logic' that 'justifies' the TSA is something along these lines: "It isn't 100% necessary to ride on an airplane, and by deciding to do so, people implicitly give the government permission to search them." You could apply this same logic to entire cities, or even the entire country, to create large areas where people have no rights. The idea that the government doesn't have to follow the constitution merely because you want to do something completely innocuous is absolutely absurd and should disgust anyone who loves freedom.
So, it's okay to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater because you have freedom of speech?
If the constitution doesn't give the government the power to do something, then it doesn't have the legitimate authority to do it. If anyone says otherwise, they're ignoring the constitution. Judges often do that.
Not everything is black and white, and I don't want this TSA BS anymore than you do. But, I'm going to disagree (as does SCOTUS) with your strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Piece of trash. My interpretation isn't even that black and white. This is a simple and clear violation of the fourth amendment, and has *nothing* to do with screaming fire in crowded theaters. This is the government searching everyone at airports, thereby violating their constitutional rights. Any judge who says otherwise is complicit in the crimes against the American people. The end.
It absolutely amazes me that some people in a country that's supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' disagree with me.
What nonsense do you speak of now? Are you coming out in support of policies and laws that violate the highest law of the land in the US and people's fundamental liberties? Furthermore, "what the grownups support" suggests you're saying that No True Grownup would ever disagree, which is just a no true Scotsman.
If you don't like it, no problem, as you are not all that special.
Actually, if you're part of an elite few that opposes all of the things I listed, then of course you'd be special in the sense that you're part of some small minority. You've done nothing to debunk that.
I have heard nobody actually applaud it other than the entities themselves and the people who profit from them.
Nobody!? Wow. You haven't paid any sort of attention at all. You've never seen someone support copyrights or patents? How about DUI checkpoints? People ignore the fact that these things violate people's fundamental liberties and/or the constitution because they think it will keep them safe from something, as if that's a justification in a country that's supposed to be 'the land of the free.'
So yeah, if you think that most people are not in support of any of that, I think you're absolutely incorrect.
FSM forbid people question what they read instead of just instantly believing these extraordinary claims. No one is saying it's bad to tinker or that no one should bother; just that if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you'd better provide some proof to back them up.
As another poster stated, this is only on certain international flights originating from certain countries
What different does that make? It's still a blatant violation of the constitution and people's individual liberties.
There is no way to not interpret something. But that doesn't mean that you can't tell if someone's given interpretation is right or wrong. You could look at historical documents and the countless cases throughout the history of the country for advice, for instance. Or you could realize that we should live up to the title of 'land of the free' and make decisions based on that. There really doesn't need to be a 100% literal and explicit definition of those things for you to see that things like the TSA and NSA spying are unconstitutional.
Incorrect. It doesn't matter how 'safe' this makes us; it's unconstitutional and wrong. There is no balance to be had, because we're supposed to be 'the land of the free,' and such a country wouldn't sacrifice such fundamental freedoms for safety. The TSA itself is unconstitutional.
Changing times and ambiguities in the original text say otherwise.
Then consult historical documents. It's a living document only in the sense that it can be amended.
Even in the case where we're explicitly saying "this is a dead document, follow it literally", the meanings of words change over time and the original meaning imparted by the text is lost.
Only true if the government intentionally ignores history.
The TSA cannot work for us, because their existence violates the highest law of the land. Slightly 'improving' the situation would never change that simple fact.
The TSA has been violating the constitution and people's fundamental liberties in broad daylight for more than a decade. 'Land of the free'? Not until we take care of serious problems like this.
It is the self-important nobodies like you that are special.
In a country where most people support the TSA, the NSA's surveillance, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, copyrights, patents, stop-and-frisk, unrestricted border searches, constitution-free zones, mass public surveillance conducted by the government, anti-gun laws, plea bargains, or some form of warrantless wiretapping in general, it is not difficult to be "special"; you just have to oppose all of those things.
Imagine if you were kidnapped, raped, while being videotaped. Should said video be allowed to circulate all in the name of anti-censorship?
Absolutely.
While I feel copyright reform needs to be dealt with, I don't believe it should be gotten rid of.
The problem is, there is no valid scientific proof that it's even effective to begin with. Furthermore, it violates free speech rights (to enforce it, censorship is often required) and private property rights (Can't have people sending certain non-private data using their own equipment!). I would oppose it outright solely because of the latter two reasons combined.
No fucking way. Child pornography is child molestation put on display
It's clear that you've already turned your brain off. Merely watching a video or looking at pictures does nothing. Then you call for murder, as is typical of the anti-freedom "for the children" crowd.
He's anti-science for expecting someone to prove their extraordinary claims?
Every single country in the world treats its own citizens differently from how it treats foreign nations' citizens.
Yes, but it does not follow that we must spy on innocent foreigners. All we have to do to not do that is... stop it. That's all.