Someone's criticizing someone who I've arbitrarily declared to be 'too young.' Therefore, I will make unfounded remarks about how jealous they must be, as if that ad hominem will debunk any of their arguments.
We have a government that's collecting so-called "metadata" on nearly everyone in the country even though it is unconstitutional--one that has lied a myriad of times--and you have some reason to doubt this?
If the suspect is already under surveillance, I imagine that the innocent population would tolerate a loss of privacy simply because that person is a threat.
I can't believe I have to keep reminding people of this, but the US is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Free and brave people do not sacrifice such freedoms for safety. I'd rather risk death (though it's not so clear that any of this improves safety) than allow the TSA, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, protest permits, etc. to continue, and any person who wants to live in a free country would agree.
If it is the other way around, that is that information is gathered indiscriminately in order to search for possible suspects, then it is extremely dangerous.
It's already extremely dangerous to punish innocent people in the pursuit of alleged criminals and terrorists. It's not something that would happen if we were truly the land of the free.
DUI checkpoints are absolutely allowed and arguably saves a significant number of lives each year.
Fucking bullshit. In the 'land of the free,' freedom is preferred over safety. Randomly stopping people to check if they're breaking the law is definitely a constitutional violation, and it goes over the line.
Oh, some judges may have approved it, but that doesn't make it right or constitutional.
No, it isn't okay, but that won't stop people from 'justifying' it by saying "Everyone else is doing it, so it's okay!" or "It keeps us safe, so it's okay!" or "It's technically not illegal, so it's okay!"
Do you know anything? More specifically, do you know anything about the constitution, or freedom? If your idiotic mass surveillance scheme isn't being conducted with constitutional warrants and can't help but sap up a information on innocent people (millions in this case), then it's unconstitutional and evil. What is so hard to understand about that?
I don't really see your point. The fact is, the person doing the downloading likely didn't have anything at all to do with the uploading. There are an uncountable number of files available for download right now, and I'm willing to bet that you didn't have anything to do with a vast majority of them. Why would that suddenly change if you decide to download some of them? It wouldn't. The only way you'd be related is if you uploaded the file yourself, or helped someone else do so.
The hooker analogy is, as is usually the case with analogies put forth by you cretins, nonsensical. Why not respond to my actual argument rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by arguing by analogy?
Your argument is about as silly as that image.
Your argument is about as silly as... pretty much any copyright propaganda argument.
And we can regulate them however we want. What is your point? A company bullying ISPs around to try to punish users without any trial might not be very popular.
We wouldn't need laws against wiretapping if it were as clear as you think.
Just like we wouldn't need laws against the TSA, free speech zones, and protest permits if it were as clear as we think? No, it is *very* clear, but the government just ignores the constitution, and the ignorant masses put up with it.
The fact is, the spirit of the constitution is being violated. Had this technology been used against the founders, it's plainly obvious they would have taken steps to stop it in the constitution, just as what they did with many other evil practices.
What, you mean like the police whine about having to get warrants? Yeah, let's just get rid of the requirement for warrants because the party that doesn't want them wants to get rid of them...
Have you ever heard of "bias"? Why is the party directly involved supposed to be automatically right? Furthermore, why is someone wrong even if they did change their position? That has no relevance to the validity of their original beliefs. Lastly, how are you so sure he would suddenly change his position? That was your unfounded assumption, and it had no relevance to the validity of anything he said.
We (are supposed to) live in the land of the free. I would rather many 'guilty' people go free than allow DMCA take-down notices to exist. The ends don't justify the means.
I think there's a special kind of personality that has trouble accepting its own beliefs without convincing others first.
If someone said 1 + 1 = 3, I would probably try to correct them. Does that mean I lack confidence in my own conclusion that the answer is 2? No, that's absurd.
Like it or not, people generally feel the need to 'correct' others, and it's necessarily because they lack confidence in their own beliefs.
The legal process in the USA typically doesn't have the DMCA. It's not just negotiation; websites will lose their safe harbor status if they don't comply with DMCA takedowns. That's one of the real problems with the DMCA. The takedown nonsense simply shouldn't exist.
The main problem is that the legal system isn't very involved to begin with. If they want any information taken down at all, they should have to go to court from the very beginning. Nonsensical takedown notices should be ignored, but because of the DMCA, they'd lose their safe harbor status.
True atheists. True... Atheists. Wow, you really said that.
Did you ever consider that people talk about it because they're surrounded by people who talk about religion, and like it or not, religion is quite popular? Equating rational arguments against theism with religion is just silly. It makes complete sense that people would want to educate others, and this is seen as fine when it comes to plenty of other topics, but not to you for this specific topic, which you've arbitrarily declared to be off-limits.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone's criticizing someone who I've arbitrarily declared to be 'too young.' Therefore, I will make unfounded remarks about how jealous they must be, as if that ad hominem will debunk any of their arguments.
We have a government that's collecting so-called "metadata" on nearly everyone in the country even though it is unconstitutional--one that has lied a myriad of times--and you have some reason to doubt this?
If the suspect is already under surveillance, I imagine that the innocent population would tolerate a loss of privacy simply because that person is a threat.
I can't believe I have to keep reminding people of this, but the US is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Free and brave people do not sacrifice such freedoms for safety. I'd rather risk death (though it's not so clear that any of this improves safety) than allow the TSA, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, protest permits, etc. to continue, and any person who wants to live in a free country would agree.
If it is the other way around, that is that information is gathered indiscriminately in order to search for possible suspects, then it is extremely dangerous.
It's already extremely dangerous to punish innocent people in the pursuit of alleged criminals and terrorists. It's not something that would happen if we were truly the land of the free.
DUI checkpoints are absolutely allowed and arguably saves a significant number of lives each year.
Fucking bullshit. In the 'land of the free,' freedom is preferred over safety. Randomly stopping people to check if they're breaking the law is definitely a constitutional violation, and it goes over the line.
Oh, some judges may have approved it, but that doesn't make it right or constitutional.
We are talking about 0.003% which seems "somewhat reasonnable"
That's not even close to reasonable. It's an egregious violation of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties.
No, it isn't okay, but that won't stop people from 'justifying' it by saying "Everyone else is doing it, so it's okay!" or "It keeps us safe, so it's okay!" or "It's technically not illegal, so it's okay!"
Do you know anything? More specifically, do you know anything about the constitution, or freedom? If your idiotic mass surveillance scheme isn't being conducted with constitutional warrants and can't help but sap up a information on innocent people (millions in this case), then it's unconstitutional and evil. What is so hard to understand about that?
I don't really see your point. The fact is, the person doing the downloading likely didn't have anything at all to do with the uploading. There are an uncountable number of files available for download right now, and I'm willing to bet that you didn't have anything to do with a vast majority of them. Why would that suddenly change if you decide to download some of them? It wouldn't. The only way you'd be related is if you uploaded the file yourself, or helped someone else do so.
The hooker analogy is, as is usually the case with analogies put forth by you cretins, nonsensical. Why not respond to my actual argument rather than trying to obfuscate the issue by arguing by analogy?
Your argument is about as silly as that image.
Your argument is about as silly as... pretty much any copyright propaganda argument.
'extreme' is subjective, anyway. Reasonable and sane people care about freedom.
By default, but it can be configured to not do that. Or you might not use torrents at all.
You cannot download unless someone else is uploading.
Someone else did the uploading of their own volition. You are not "party to" that.
But I'd be genuinely surprised if downloading wasn't illegal in many countries. It seems like the copyright thugs wouldn't allow that to happen.
And we can regulate them however we want. What is your point? A company bullying ISPs around to try to punish users without any trial might not be very popular.
A reasonable, sane person would demand limiting a pirate's bandwidth; not disconnecting them completely.
A reasonable, sane person would demand that we do nothing, because this sort of draconian enforcement is disgusting.
We wouldn't need laws against wiretapping if it were as clear as you think.
Just like we wouldn't need laws against the TSA, free speech zones, and protest permits if it were as clear as we think? No, it is *very* clear, but the government just ignores the constitution, and the ignorant masses put up with it.
The fact is, the spirit of the constitution is being violated. Had this technology been used against the founders, it's plainly obvious they would have taken steps to stop it in the constitution, just as what they did with many other evil practices.
What, you mean like the police whine about having to get warrants? Yeah, let's just get rid of the requirement for warrants because the party that doesn't want them wants to get rid of them...
Have you ever heard of "bias"? Why is the party directly involved supposed to be automatically right? Furthermore, why is someone wrong even if they did change their position? That has no relevance to the validity of their original beliefs. Lastly, how are you so sure he would suddenly change his position? That was your unfounded assumption, and it had no relevance to the validity of anything he said.
We (are supposed to) live in the land of the free. I would rather many 'guilty' people go free than allow DMCA take-down notices to exist. The ends don't justify the means.
I think there's a special kind of personality that has trouble accepting its own beliefs without convincing others first.
If someone said 1 + 1 = 3, I would probably try to correct them. Does that mean I lack confidence in my own conclusion that the answer is 2? No, that's absurd.
Like it or not, people generally feel the need to 'correct' others, and it's necessarily because they lack confidence in their own beliefs.
The legal process in the USA typically doesn't have the DMCA. It's not just negotiation; websites will lose their safe harbor status if they don't comply with DMCA takedowns. That's one of the real problems with the DMCA. The takedown nonsense simply shouldn't exist.
This is how the legal system has always worked.
The main problem is that the legal system isn't very involved to begin with. If they want any information taken down at all, they should have to go to court from the very beginning. Nonsensical takedown notices should be ignored, but because of the DMCA, they'd lose their safe harbor status.
Capitalists are, in generally, fairly happy with the core of patent law, that it's a time limited monopoly.
There shouldn't be any monopoly at all.
IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism.
True atheists. True... Atheists. Wow, you really said that.
Did you ever consider that people talk about it because they're surrounded by people who talk about religion, and like it or not, religion is quite popular? Equating rational arguments against theism with religion is just silly. It makes complete sense that people would want to educate others, and this is seen as fine when it comes to plenty of other topics, but not to you for this specific topic, which you've arbitrarily declared to be off-limits.