Corporations will definitely be re-evaluating the option of open-source after these two issues.
Maybe they should also avoid proprietary software, for similar reasons. That leaves them with... nothing. Oh, well, they can always pretend that perfect software exists.
Right. You can tell exactly how informed and intelligent someone is when they suggest that things like the NSA's mass surveillance are alright. How could the government possibly abuse that?
Agreed. The hundreds of millions of people abused by corrupt governments throughout history never existed; it's all a myth. The governments of today are composed of perfect beings who can never make mistakes or do any wrong. That's why we never see or hear about them abusing anyone.
Power corrupts? Please. That's just nonsense spewed forth by those 'freedom' losers.
As the other person said, everyone is already subject to mass surveillance.
But even if what you said were true, the more people that use this, the more targets they have to selectively harass. We need more and more people to use this sort of thing in order to better thwart their mass surveillance efforts.
Isn't your argument, in fact, basically "Let a bunch of Americans die and call it an accident"?
I don't know about him, but my argument is that fundamental liberties are more important than safety. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' not 'the land of the unfree and the home of the coward.' As such, as shouldn't be sacrificing fundamental liberties or due process (in this case) for safety. If that means we're more at risk (which would be surprising, since terrorists are largely an imagined threat, especially in the US), then so be it. Living and having freedom means taking risks, and I'll gladly do so.
Well, it was supposed to be used as a weapon against our enemies in time of war. Now that the threat is no longer around, the legislation needs to sunset and everything needs to go back to how it was.
No. That is not acceptable, time of war or not. The government has no authority to violate the constitution or ignore people's liberties *ever*. The Unpatriotic Act was unacceptable from the very beginning.
You said: "It's great to after pedophiles[...]". You used the incorrect term, so I merely corrected you. Such misunderstandings lead to many innocent people being persecuted for no reason.
Your argument is lame since you could describe a pharmacist, nurse or doctor as drug dealer.
That makes no sense and has nothing to do with your incorrect usage of the term "pedophile."
I am not sure what finite point you are trying to make but I am sure that you understand the implicit meaning of what I am saying anyway.
There are so many people who think that "pedophile" = "child molester." In a society where you could very well be on the receiving end of an angry mob just for being accused of molesting a child, it's pretty damn important to use these terms correctly.
What if it was not illegal to have sex with children Chester? Would you still look and not touch?
Who are you talking to? Or have you assumed that because I corrected you, that means I am a pedophile? If someone used the word "mountain climber" when they really meant "drug dealer," I would try to correct them on that too. Does that automatically make me a mountain climber, merely because I corrected someone?
If you are violating an unjust law, then why would you want to hide the fact that you were standing up for your rights?
Because not everyone who violates unjust laws wants to be the leader of a movement or risk being destroyed. Some people just want to get on with their lives while occasionally ignoring ridiculous laws.
If it's just a piece of paper that they don't care about, why expend the effort and (small, if you're going for minimal) amount of money it takes? Personally, I wouldn't ever get married out of principle; I'm tired of so many people acting like it's a necessity for couples to get married eventually, or that marriage is some magical thing. Plus, even with prenuptial agreements, divorce is more annoying than just breaking up if you ever feel the need. There's just no point for some people to get married.
when you do civil disobedience you're supposed to *accept* the legal punishment, because you *did* break the law.
So you feel that Snowden should have faced trial and risked being destroyed by our unjustice system merely because he broke a law? I mean, you're speaking in general about civil disobedience, here.
I see no reason that civil disobedience automatically means you should be punished. There is no moral reason that you should be punished for breaking an unjust law. It might help sometimes, but don't apply some variation of a No True Scotsman and say that all civil disobedience must result in punishment; nothing is that black and white.
Yes, whether or not enforcing a law is bullying does depend entirely on the law. Some laws are unjust laws that were made to bully/oppress certain people (perhaps minorities). Whether that applies in this specific case is irrelevant.
People are referring to it as bullying because they would prefer to live in anarchy where the government doesn't regulate anything.
But if you want to be a busker in Brisbane city for example you need a license. There is absolutely no cost in getting that license but you have to do an audition. Basically it is the council deciding are your professional enough, and again no issue from me.
You like vague, subjective rules that could change from person to person, all so people can be allowed to play music? Keep that authoritarian garbage away from me.
No one knew that. +5 Insightful. People who talk about how the law should be clearly need to be told what the law is.
I don't see the problem in this case. Someone has their drivers license, they pay taxes, and all they're doing is using a car they already own to drive someone around in exchange for a bit of cash. They're not performing complex medical procedures on someone. Laws against alcohol and drugs are often complete nonsense.
Just because it is your property, it isn't always your rules.
Obviously. Hence, this story. How is this insightful? No one is really debating what the law is, but how it should be.
I guess you chose to ignore the rest of my post - that we don't know enough about Ebola to make reliable predictions.
Still no need to panic, especially if it's an unknown. I'm not going to quake in my boots about this.
Most people won't take any action unless they're panicked into it.
Get them panicked, and they'll take irrational, harmful courses of action. See: TSA, NSA surveillance, and the general erosion of our fundamental liberties in response to (mostly imaginary) terrorism. A rational, clear head that recognizes any danger this poses and knows how to take effective measures against it is what is necessary.
Then don't say just that without even a hint of meaning anything else. The problem with this "Read between the lines" crap is that you often end up reading things that simply are not there.
But people should be afraid of this.
Contrary to what the other person said, you don't need to be afraid of something to take rational measures to stop it. There is no need to be afraid nor panic. That just leads to the loss of civil liberties and rational solutions.
Nobody alive has seen anything like this. This WILL be serious.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations will definitely be re-evaluating the option of open-source after these two issues.
Maybe they should also avoid proprietary software, for similar reasons. That leaves them with... nothing. Oh, well, they can always pretend that perfect software exists.
Oh, but America somehow fails to live up to an imaginary ideal that NOBODY IN THE WORLD does
Well, American is supposed to be the best (according to lots of people here), so I expect more.
Right. You can tell exactly how informed and intelligent someone is when they suggest that things like the NSA's mass surveillance are alright. How could the government possibly abuse that?
They ban something nobody uses but criminals.
You pulled that out of your ass. Their logic that this would make the job of police easier is irrelevant and unwanted.
Agreed. The hundreds of millions of people abused by corrupt governments throughout history never existed; it's all a myth. The governments of today are composed of perfect beings who can never make mistakes or do any wrong. That's why we never see or hear about them abusing anyone.
Power corrupts? Please. That's just nonsense spewed forth by those 'freedom' losers.
That would do nothing to ensure anonymity, which is another huge advantage of cash.
As the other person said, everyone is already subject to mass surveillance.
But even if what you said were true, the more people that use this, the more targets they have to selectively harass. We need more and more people to use this sort of thing in order to better thwart their mass surveillance efforts.
I know the two things are entirely unrelated
If you know that, then what's the point of your comment?
The TSA simply needs to be destroyed. They're traitors to the constitution and the very concept of individual liberty.
Isn't your argument, in fact, basically "Let a bunch of Americans die and call it an accident"?
I don't know about him, but my argument is that fundamental liberties are more important than safety. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' not 'the land of the unfree and the home of the coward.' As such, as shouldn't be sacrificing fundamental liberties or due process (in this case) for safety. If that means we're more at risk (which would be surprising, since terrorists are largely an imagined threat, especially in the US), then so be it. Living and having freedom means taking risks, and I'll gladly do so.
Well, it was supposed to be used as a weapon against our enemies in time of war. Now that the threat is no longer around, the legislation needs to sunset and everything needs to go back to how it was.
No. That is not acceptable, time of war or not. The government has no authority to violate the constitution or ignore people's liberties *ever*. The Unpatriotic Act was unacceptable from the very beginning.
Can they even define "professional" in a objective, scientific way, or is it just solely up to them?
Sorry to tickle your sensibilities Chester.
You said: "It's great to after pedophiles[...]". You used the incorrect term, so I merely corrected you. Such misunderstandings lead to many innocent people being persecuted for no reason.
Your argument is lame since you could describe a pharmacist, nurse or doctor as drug dealer.
That makes no sense and has nothing to do with your incorrect usage of the term "pedophile."
I am not sure what finite point you are trying to make but I am sure that you understand the implicit meaning of what I am saying anyway.
There are so many people who think that "pedophile" = "child molester." In a society where you could very well be on the receiving end of an angry mob just for being accused of molesting a child, it's pretty damn important to use these terms correctly.
What if it was not illegal to have sex with children Chester? Would you still look and not touch?
Who are you talking to? Or have you assumed that because I corrected you, that means I am a pedophile? If someone used the word "mountain climber" when they really meant "drug dealer," I would try to correct them on that too. Does that automatically make me a mountain climber, merely because I corrected someone?
If you are violating an unjust law, then why would you want to hide the fact that you were standing up for your rights?
Because not everyone who violates unjust laws wants to be the leader of a movement or risk being destroyed. Some people just want to get on with their lives while occasionally ignoring ridiculous laws.
Theres never one thing that causes society to collapse. Its an array of factors, and the breakdown of law and order is one of them.
Well, good thing no one's suggesting complete anarchy, then. You have nothing to worry about.
but you're acting as a tumor on society when you do break those laws.
Depends entirely on the law.
and another illustration that you cannot trust sources that offer you new for free.
I don't really trust any news, free or not.
If it's just a piece of paper that they don't care about, why expend the effort and (small, if you're going for minimal) amount of money it takes? Personally, I wouldn't ever get married out of principle; I'm tired of so many people acting like it's a necessity for couples to get married eventually, or that marriage is some magical thing. Plus, even with prenuptial agreements, divorce is more annoying than just breaking up if you ever feel the need. There's just no point for some people to get married.
when you do civil disobedience you're supposed to *accept* the legal punishment, because you *did* break the law.
So you feel that Snowden should have faced trial and risked being destroyed by our unjustice system merely because he broke a law? I mean, you're speaking in general about civil disobedience, here.
I see no reason that civil disobedience automatically means you should be punished. There is no moral reason that you should be punished for breaking an unjust law. It might help sometimes, but don't apply some variation of a No True Scotsman and say that all civil disobedience must result in punishment; nothing is that black and white.
No, it doesn't
Yes, whether or not enforcing a law is bullying does depend entirely on the law. Some laws are unjust laws that were made to bully/oppress certain people (perhaps minorities). Whether that applies in this specific case is irrelevant.
People are referring to it as bullying because they would prefer to live in anarchy where the government doesn't regulate anything.
Straw man.
But if you want to be a busker in Brisbane city for example you need a license. There is absolutely no cost in getting that license but you have to do an audition. Basically it is the council deciding are your professional enough, and again no issue from me.
You like vague, subjective rules that could change from person to person, all so people can be allowed to play music? Keep that authoritarian garbage away from me.
Liberty requires a functioning society and the rule of law to protect it.
I guarantee that this will not cause society to collapse. I also guarantee that blindly enforcing the law usually doesn't lead to good results.
Completely different situation from driving a car. But hey, tell all those doctors that their jobs are as easy as driving a car.
Because of laws.
No one knew that. +5 Insightful. People who talk about how the law should be clearly need to be told what the law is.
I don't see the problem in this case. Someone has their drivers license, they pay taxes, and all they're doing is using a car they already own to drive someone around in exchange for a bit of cash. They're not performing complex medical procedures on someone. Laws against alcohol and drugs are often complete nonsense.
Just because it is your property, it isn't always your rules.
Obviously. Hence, this story. How is this insightful? No one is really debating what the law is, but how it should be.
I guess you chose to ignore the rest of my post - that we don't know enough about Ebola to make reliable predictions.
Still no need to panic, especially if it's an unknown. I'm not going to quake in my boots about this.
Most people won't take any action unless they're panicked into it.
Get them panicked, and they'll take irrational, harmful courses of action. See: TSA, NSA surveillance, and the general erosion of our fundamental liberties in response to (mostly imaginary) terrorism. A rational, clear head that recognizes any danger this poses and knows how to take effective measures against it is what is necessary.
No shit??? It is not meant literally, moron.
Then don't say just that without even a hint of meaning anything else. The problem with this "Read between the lines" crap is that you often end up reading things that simply are not there.
But people should be afraid of this.
Contrary to what the other person said, you don't need to be afraid of something to take rational measures to stop it. There is no need to be afraid nor panic. That just leads to the loss of civil liberties and rational solutions.
Nobody alive has seen anything like this. This WILL be serious.
*yawn* I doubt it.