if you threaten real world violence, free speech laws have always made provisions for you to be punished for that. libel as well
and this is correct. go ahead and say all the nasty things you want online, but when you cross the line into proposing real world violence: fuck you, throw your stupid ass in jail. you've crossed a line that free speech laws do not protect, never did, and never will. and this status quo is 100% correct
this is not new post 9/11, this is not giving into fears of terrorism, this is simple common sense: threaten real world violence, forfeit your freedom
as it has been for a long time, as it will be forever. grow up slashdot, deal with simple common sense and longstanding, well-established law that the majority supports and logic and reason support as well
this story is a nonstory, unless you are a spastic twit who doesn't understand EVERYTHING in life has limits, including free speech: when your words pass into the realm of threatening real world violence, which is threatening other people's freedom, their freedom to life and limb, you should and will be punished. as it should be. as it has been for a long time, as it always will be
when you threaten real world violence, you are, indeed, terrorizing people into altering their behavior out of fear. this is freedom destroying, this deserves to be punished
grow up slashdot. you can be a fundamentalist nitwit on many concepts, not just religion. and being a free speech fundamentalist, who believes no speech should be punished, is a form ignorant fundamentalist nonsense. everything, EVERY CONCEPT has limits: when they enter the realm of limiting other people's freedom. spreading fear with threats of real world violence is such an example
that's not sounding scary. that's a specific threat. that is actionable. threats of violence and libel have always been exempt from free speech provisions, always will be, and this is the way it should be
in other words, the cops have a reason to act on these threats, as this actually happens, and is not in the realm of absurdity, but reality
i know, the slashdot zeitgeist is to whine and moan about this
but i'm sorry, if you are going around threatening to kill people online, i'm glad the cops go after you
freedom? safety? blah blah blah: what the fuck are you doing threatening to kill people online?! you forfeit all free speech protections when you do that
c'mon stop with the bullshit slashdot
libel and threats of real world violence are exempt from free speech and subject to arrest and prosecution. as it should be. free speech has always had, and will always have, these exempt provisions
and this is the correct status quo!
grow up slashdot. seriously
enough with the hysteric, spastic, melodramatic ben franklin quotes about freedom and safety IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSHOLES WHO THREATEN REAL WORLD VIOLENCE
if you threaten real world violence, fuck you, throw your ignorant dumb ass in jail: 100% correct. really
i'm not here to win over someone to a point of view. IPv4 name space is running out. IPv6 has to be mandated to fix the problem. there's nothing to win over or convince someone of. you either understand the fucking obvious or you are a fucking moron
you don't appreciate or acknowledge the cost of a balkanized, NATted, hacky internet address space?
you are so allergic to a mandated switch you don't appreciate the benefits?
why do we have to deal with spastic hysterics like you on commonsense questions?
we're talking about a prudent obvious solution to a real problem, and you have to start WHARGARBBBLing about raids and detention like a paranoid schizophrenic moron
no, i'm not happy, because you go to absurd thoughts. think about the switch from analog TV to HDTV. it was mandated, forced, on industry and individuals, to great expense, and led to a much better standard. and it was accomplished without concentration camps or secret police or whatever other absurd analogy you want to make, dumbass
what is lacking is the existence of an authority to force the obvious change to happen. because centralized force is the only way to save us from bedlam and a hacky address space and NAT everywhere (not just within organizations, but across the internet address space, turning it into fiefdoms)
the problem some minds have with problems like this is they see only costs on one side of the equation, and in the shorterm
the costs of mandating the change: sudden, large, and then gone forever the costs of doing nothing: small, accumulative, accelerating forever to a permanent hobbling tax on the network's functions
first lesson: no choice has zero cost. so the choice is not between cost and no cost, but between the quality and quantity of cost. some minds don't grasps this, and only balk at the idea of any sort of cost
second lesson: looking at the problem shortterm and longterm. shortterm, the obvious answer is to do nothing. longterm, the obvious answer is to mandate the switch. there are many many examples from real life and politics, where the shortterm thinking dominates the longterm thinking and we all suffer for that. it's called kicking the can down the road. let someone else deal with the problem, even as the problem grows
"It is their hallmark to maintain control of the whole stack similar to the business models pioneered by Apple."
This statement is so absurd.
Why not compare to the Apollo space program or the DeBeers diamond monopoly... these comparisons just as absurd. Or, here's a fun analogy: the Soviet Union.
We get it, how the hackers work. You can get really fun with the analogies by getting political: say their organization methods resemble the organization methods of Al Qaeda or FARC or Wikileaks or Anonymous. See how the absurd analogy is formed from, and can be used to form, silly prejudices and bias?
Reaching for the absurd sort of analogy, like with Apple, tells us more about the author's hangups and obsessions or agenda: comparing and contrasting things and finding parallels in things which are superficial and uninformative.
Maybe the mandate can be sold to manufacturers first as an economic stimulus: think of all the new equipment that will be need to be built and all the old computers grandma still uses that will be replaced because they can't figure out how to run the windows update that force retires IPv4 and requires a trip into the control panel.
1. Governments mandate the switch to IPv6. 2. There is no #2. 3. It's that easy.
Unfortunately we live in a world where the words government and regulation are automatically evil amongst a certain loud and ignorant section of humanity. Companies will also howl and complain about the expense: yes, there is an expense you will take on, in the interest of the Internet still having address space to grow into. Grow up and deal with it, just like the networks did when we went to digital and 16:9, also mandated so there wouldn't be bedlam and babylon.
Imagine that: individuals (which means corporations to some people) FORCED (I said forced, yes) by government (yes, this is ok, you free market fundamentalist freaks) to sacrifice for the benefit of society.
*GASP* Horribbble evil! WHARAGARRBBBL....
Or we can keep dragging our heels and we will be talking about horrible kludges like NAT and an inelegant, hacky Internet address space for 5-10 years. I'm really sick of these stories on Slashdot. I'm not blaming Slashdot, I am sick of the existence of these stories in a community that isn't FORCED to do the brain dead obvious. Because no authority mandates the obvious.
1. there are laws in china that are odious and disgusting in terms of privacy invasion and censorship. such that an american company operating there, by submitting to that law, breaks it's fidelity with the principles of its home country in ways that stink. but google has, in fact, stood up to china in some ways, such as with censorship, and lost market share in china due to that and pissed off the chinese government. go google!
what a company like this deserves is to be shut down, kicked out, and have their business actively destroyed in righteous indignation of operating from the west while grossly violating important beliefs of the west and in support of evil regimes
2. however, there are also local laws that, while you can find more abstract objections with them, it makes prudent sense to just comply with the local laws to continue doing business there, and also be in a position to effect long term liberty improving change in that country by remaining a force there
such as, for example, with this stupid video: while speech should be free all over the world, it isn't in some places. and going crazy and not cooperating, for example, with germany for not allowing nazi imagery or indonesia for not allowing mohammad imagery, doesn't convince anyone of anything and you just piss off that country and lose market share
so it's better to just comply with local law on this issue. but on other issues, it's better to stick up your middle finger at oppressive governments. each case is different
shrewd governance, of countries or companies, is a matter of finesse
Slashdot Mirror
if you threaten real world violence, free speech laws have always made provisions for you to be punished for that. libel as well
and this is correct. go ahead and say all the nasty things you want online, but when you cross the line into proposing real world violence: fuck you, throw your stupid ass in jail. you've crossed a line that free speech laws do not protect, never did, and never will. and this status quo is 100% correct
this is not new post 9/11, this is not giving into fears of terrorism, this is simple common sense: threaten real world violence, forfeit your freedom
as it has been for a long time, as it will be forever. grow up slashdot, deal with simple common sense and longstanding, well-established law that the majority supports and logic and reason support as well
this story is a nonstory, unless you are a spastic twit who doesn't understand EVERYTHING in life has limits, including free speech: when your words pass into the realm of threatening real world violence, which is threatening other people's freedom, their freedom to life and limb, you should and will be punished. as it should be. as it has been for a long time, as it always will be
when you threaten real world violence, you are, indeed, terrorizing people into altering their behavior out of fear. this is freedom destroying, this deserves to be punished
grow up slashdot. you can be a fundamentalist nitwit on many concepts, not just religion. and being a free speech fundamentalist, who believes no speech should be punished, is a form ignorant fundamentalist nonsense. everything, EVERY CONCEPT has limits: when they enter the realm of limiting other people's freedom. spreading fear with threats of real world violence is such an example
grow a brain. understand. move on
the guy made a specific threat to murder people
that's not sounding scary. that's a specific threat. that is actionable. threats of violence and libel have always been exempt from free speech provisions, always will be, and this is the way it should be
grow up
a kid was killed waiting in line to buy nike sneakers here in NY, 3 weeks ago:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120911/NEWS01/309110036/homicide-arrest-Gates-sneaker-store-robbery
in other words, the cops have a reason to act on these threats, as this actually happens, and is not in the realm of absurdity, but reality
i know, the slashdot zeitgeist is to whine and moan about this
but i'm sorry, if you are going around threatening to kill people online, i'm glad the cops go after you
freedom? safety? blah blah blah: what the fuck are you doing threatening to kill people online?! you forfeit all free speech protections when you do that
c'mon stop with the bullshit slashdot
libel and threats of real world violence are exempt from free speech and subject to arrest and prosecution. as it should be. free speech has always had, and will always have, these exempt provisions
and this is the correct status quo!
grow up slashdot. seriously
enough with the hysteric, spastic, melodramatic ben franklin quotes about freedom and safety IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSHOLES WHO THREATEN REAL WORLD VIOLENCE
if you threaten real world violence, fuck you, throw your ignorant dumb ass in jail: 100% correct. really
I know what they say about smart people doing stupid things, but this is ridiculous.
so it would go something like this then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_detention_of_American_hikers_by_Iran
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary bacon... mmm... bacon. Sorry, what was I saying?"
I have a friend named Chili who lives in Chilliwack
completely 100% true
sorry, I had to share
He's going to try this in Israel.
Then Iran.
Now that would be comedy.
i'm not here to win over someone to a point of view. IPv4 name space is running out. IPv6 has to be mandated to fix the problem. there's nothing to win over or convince someone of. you either understand the fucking obvious or you are a fucking moron
but i did join in 1999 or 2000. really!
is there an objective chart somewhere to correlate year of join and uid?
the pipe won't be transparent, idiot, if it's NATted to high hell and balkanized because the name space is clogged out
and i'm a little general because i recognize the only way forward is to mandate the change
such fucking idiots on this site
i visit at least weekly, if not daily, since then
thanks slashdot!
you don't appreciate or acknowledge the cost of a balkanized, NATted, hacky internet address space?
you are so allergic to a mandated switch you don't appreciate the benefits?
why do we have to deal with spastic hysterics like you on commonsense questions?
we're talking about a prudent obvious solution to a real problem, and you have to start WHARGARBBBLing about raids and detention like a paranoid schizophrenic moron
I said author, I didn't say submitter.
Apple is not the best analogy, it is ridiculous and absurd, it speak's of the authors obsessions, not a useful analogy.
no, i'm not happy, because you go to absurd thoughts. think about the switch from analog TV to HDTV. it was mandated, forced, on industry and individuals, to great expense, and led to a much better standard. and it was accomplished without concentration camps or secret police or whatever other absurd analogy you want to make, dumbass
if you don't understand why running out of IPv4 address space is a real and genuine problem, you shouldn't be posting on this particular website
familiar with^W^W obsessed with
if the idea of centralized control is something you can only appreciate from the business practices of Apple, you have problems
it is obvious
what is lacking is the existence of an authority to force the obvious change to happen. because centralized force is the only way to save us from bedlam and a hacky address space and NAT everywhere (not just within organizations, but across the internet address space, turning it into fiefdoms)
the problem some minds have with problems like this is they see only costs on one side of the equation, and in the shorterm
the costs of mandating the change: sudden, large, and then gone forever
the costs of doing nothing: small, accumulative, accelerating forever to a permanent hobbling tax on the network's functions
first lesson: no choice has zero cost. so the choice is not between cost and no cost, but between the quality and quantity of cost. some minds don't grasps this, and only balk at the idea of any sort of cost
second lesson: looking at the problem shortterm and longterm. shortterm, the obvious answer is to do nothing. longterm, the obvious answer is to mandate the switch. there are many many examples from real life and politics, where the shortterm thinking dominates the longterm thinking and we all suffer for that. it's called kicking the can down the road. let someone else deal with the problem, even as the problem grows
or: the television networks switching over to HDTV from analog.
grow up.
"It is their hallmark to maintain control of the whole stack similar to the business models pioneered by Apple."
This statement is so absurd.
Why not compare to the Apollo space program or the DeBeers diamond monopoly... these comparisons just as absurd. Or, here's a fun analogy: the Soviet Union.
We get it, how the hackers work. You can get really fun with the analogies by getting political: say their organization methods resemble the organization methods of Al Qaeda or FARC or Wikileaks or Anonymous. See how the absurd analogy is formed from, and can be used to form, silly prejudices and bias?
Reaching for the absurd sort of analogy, like with Apple, tells us more about the author's hangups and obsessions or agenda: comparing and contrasting things and finding parallels in things which are superficial and uninformative.
it's the only way to solve this problem.
Maybe the mandate can be sold to manufacturers first as an economic stimulus: think of all the new equipment that will be need to be built and all the old computers grandma still uses that will be replaced because they can't figure out how to run the windows update that force retires IPv4 and requires a trip into the control panel.
This is how it works in the grown up real world:
1. Governments mandate the switch to IPv6.
2. There is no #2.
3. It's that easy.
Unfortunately we live in a world where the words government and regulation are automatically evil amongst a certain loud and ignorant section of humanity. Companies will also howl and complain about the expense: yes, there is an expense you will take on, in the interest of the Internet still having address space to grow into. Grow up and deal with it, just like the networks did when we went to digital and 16:9, also mandated so there wouldn't be bedlam and babylon.
Imagine that: individuals (which means corporations to some people) FORCED (I said forced, yes) by government (yes, this is ok, you free market fundamentalist freaks) to sacrifice for the benefit of society.
*GASP* Horribbble evil! WHARAGARRBBBL....
Or we can keep dragging our heels and we will be talking about horrible kludges like NAT and an inelegant, hacky Internet address space for 5-10 years. I'm really sick of these stories on Slashdot. I'm not blaming Slashdot, I am sick of the existence of these stories in a community that isn't FORCED to do the brain dead obvious. Because no authority mandates the obvious.
Yes
"Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"
usually precedes
"Warp factor 9, engage"
or
"Make it so"
shhh...
microsoft microsoft microsoft
hush now
apple apple apple
there now, calm down
microsoft apple microsoft apple microsoft apple...
it's a tough call
1. there are laws in china that are odious and disgusting in terms of privacy invasion and censorship. such that an american company operating there, by submitting to that law, breaks it's fidelity with the principles of its home country in ways that stink. but google has, in fact, stood up to china in some ways, such as with censorship, and lost market share in china due to that and pissed off the chinese government. go google!
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/01/1450204/google-highlights-censored-search-terms-in-china
other western companies, for example, will do business with oppressive regimes in ways that support those oppressive regimes in evil and odious ways:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/31/1434229/finspy-commercial-spyware-abused-by-governments
what a company like this deserves is to be shut down, kicked out, and have their business actively destroyed in righteous indignation of operating from the west while grossly violating important beliefs of the west and in support of evil regimes
2. however, there are also local laws that, while you can find more abstract objections with them, it makes prudent sense to just comply with the local laws to continue doing business there, and also be in a position to effect long term liberty improving change in that country by remaining a force there
such as, for example, with this stupid video: while speech should be free all over the world, it isn't in some places. and going crazy and not cooperating, for example, with germany for not allowing nazi imagery or indonesia for not allowing mohammad imagery, doesn't convince anyone of anything and you just piss off that country and lose market share
so it's better to just comply with local law on this issue. but on other issues, it's better to stick up your middle finger at oppressive governments. each case is different
shrewd governance, of countries or companies, is a matter of finesse