Perhaps this (and the widespread lack of privacy in cloud-based services generally) will drive more users to privacy-preserving data sharing options, such as OneSwarm.
People ahve someone how got the twisted notion the innocence should be proven. This is wrong. it's to be defended.
In a criminal court, that's true; but copyright infringement is a civil matter, which means that yes, you have to prove your innocence.
Civil court was originally meant to solve things like contract disputes and other such matters. Nowadays it's being used as a de facto criminal court without the presumption of innocence, to help the powerful extort and crush the weak. That's the twisted part.
It's a sad day when the legal system, which was meant to curtail the law of the jungle, is being used as the very fist of the hundred-pound gorillas.
Because of that little theory called "evolution." Natural selection should kill you off if you are too stupid to obtain food, or too stupid to follow the heard, or too stupid to cultivate crops. I doubt we would have a food shortage if all you evil bastards stopped donating to starving kids in Africa charities.
Cool troll, bro.
You're wrong, of course: evolution isn't about the weak dying, it's about traits that help you get kids becoming more widespread in population over time. One of these traits is empathy, a side effect of which is why people donate to starving kids in Africa.
Look people, they had their chance just like ever single other lineage. They grew incapable of sustaining their own lives, the burden is not on us to keep them alive, and THAT is what is causing a food shortage. If they are incapable of obtaining food (through hunting, gathering, or you know, CROP CULTIVATION) they should all starve to death so the rest of us have more resources.
Who's this "us" you are talking about? It seems to me that you, with your presumably superior genetics, are a greater threat/competition to me than these inferior people; consequently, the most rational strategy for me would be to ally with them against you.
That's why empathy is an evolutionary advantage, BTW: it short-circuits this kind of cold rationality and keeps people from betraying each other even when it's in their own personal best interests, which in turn allows socities to form and grow.
It's disgusting to see people actual donate to the starving kids in Africa funds because it allows those specific Africans to continue living off handouts in disease infested squalor, rather than migrating to an area capable of sustaining their very own lives. Shame on you charity corporations for preserving and perpetuating human suffering.
Most inhabited areas of Africa are more than capable of supporting their populations, actually. The problem is cultural; Africa was still at the stage of tribalism when it was conquered by Europe. Those areas that have been able to leave it behind, and not fallen into hands of more or less insane dictators, are doing quite well; the rest have a bunch of warlords burning the crops or killing farmers.
In order to work, the spacecraft needs a radius of rotation of at least tens of meters, otherwise the term "vomit comet" gets a whole new meaning. You also need some way to keep the thing balanced as people move around. Finally, all that rotation induces stress on the structure, so it needs to be thicker and heavier to withstand it.
See I'm poor and I'm already strong, spending time out int he streets actually doing things tends to do that to a person.
You're apparently rich enough to hang on Slashdot.
See, all that increased muscle mass means jack shit if you haven't trained it. While you're showing off, I'm breaking you down and showing you what REAL power is.
That's pretty hostile of you. Are you sure you haven't taken any "performance enhancers" to help build those muscles?
The second you go to lift somethign heavy your tendons and sinew will RIP and you get what you deserve for takign a shortcut.
Apart from the fact that blocking myostatin doesn't simply make giant muscles appear overnight, but simply starts them growing, I'd like to point out that the whole point of intelligence is "taking shortcuts". Our bodies haven't caught up with our current lifestyle yet - arguably they haven't really caught up to even agriculture yet - so why not use our brains to adjust their chemistry to overcome the resulting problems?
the main result is that we hope if you get hijacked you'll do your patriotic duty to stop the hijackers
Which would be a lot easier if they weren't the only ones with knives and guns.
I'm usually against guns as a solution to crime (because I think they're pretty useless, the criminal having the element of surprise, but feel free to carry anyway if you want to), but heck, if they're that scared of the plane being hijacked, just loan each passenger a gun at the airport and anyone trying will most likely be dead within seconds.
Sure, bring him before a military tribunal. They're won't be a show and he'll get his deserved punishment. Instead, we're going to get a show trial and the possibility of a not guilty verdict.
You do realize that "not guilty" verdict not being possible strongly implies a "show trial", right? That's kind of the whole point of having trials in the first place: to determine if the accused is guilty, and if yes, to what degree. Actual sentencing tends to be a pretty simple affair after it's clear what it's being given for.
The planet doesn't need anything, it's a big ball of mostly-molten rock. Stop anthromorphising nature.
Heck, life on this planet will most likely be better off because of us: either we evolve into star-faring people, removing the hard time limit of biopshere dying due to Sun dying, or die off and new species and genus will evolve to fill the hole we've left.
We'll all be better off with fewer of us.
Feel free to die anytime, then. Just stop expecting the rest of us to allow ourselves to, if we have the means to stop it.
And we wouldn't even need another war, we'd accomplish it in much more enjoyable ways.
I don't think that getting old and weak would be particularly enjoyable, but to each his own.
But hell yes, Mr 23-Year-Old-I-Know-It-All thinks we should all "live forever". Wait till you've experience an elderly releative with Alzheimers who gets confused and frustrated because they can't remember what they were doing 5 minutes ago... or takes an hour to get up because every joint is locked in pain.
Infinite lifespan does not imply eternal life. You'll still die from an accident sooner or later, you'll simply stay healthy and strong until then. So, you know, you can skip the whole "Alzheimer and locked joints" -stage.
Do try and remember economic leaders are human beings.
Actually, doesn't research show that economic leaders - corporate CEOs, specifically, but judging by their behavior many large investors should be included too - have a very high incidence rate of psychopathy? A psychopath is missing what's usually termed "humanity"; consequently, I must question your assertion.
But it is doubtful they'd conspire against us, especially when it would mean shortening their own lifespans and their children's.
A psychopath is someone completely lacking empathy, and thus care for his children or anyone else. And even perfectly ordinary humans have a truly wonderful capacity for doing horrible things. So no, I don't think that it's at all certain that they wouldn't conspire against others.
Once the cat isout of the bag they have no reasonable means of keeping it too expensive.
In the long run, yes; but in the short, human enchancement technology will almost certainly increase existing class divisions, especially considering the current unfortunate trend of ultra-liberal economic policy.
It's also a rather inaccurate troll, since the protests and government reaction show that the Iranian government doesn't have such strong support, or at least fears that it doesn't.
The sex offender registry should constitute as cruel and unusual punishment. It's nothing more than the Scarlet A of pedophiles. Perhaps the tool should be diluted and made less effective because it's a violation of Human rights?
Well, the more people enter the Sex Offender Registry the more diluted it becomes. For example, I wouldn't consider it evidence of anything.
However, cruel punishments will always stay with us because people love cruelty. Romans liked watching criminals get crucified or torn open by lions, medieval people liked watching witches burn, Wild West folks got their entertainment from hangings and Slashdotters laugh at "Bubba" prison rape jokes.
Humans love evil, especially if we can silence our conscience by saying "he deserves it". It's just the way we are.
I don't think it matters how dangerous he is. Enemy combatants whose only connection to our country is the desire to destroy it are not entitled to access to our civilian justice system. It's patently absurd in my mind to treat these people as common criminals.
Indeed. Why, if declaring someone "enemy combatant" wouldn't put them outside the normal legal system, and able to be hold prisoner for as long as his captors desired, then how would the powerful get rid of their enemies? Why, the very thought that "everyone is equal before law" might lead someo to question the divine right of the king and the status of the aristocracy!
Kudos for Khalid, thought; he might be a freedom-hating murdering bastard, but not many people can have freedom die a little bit just by having their name mentioned on an Internet forum.
They are war criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.
Very well, then bring them before a court. You did know that war criminals get sentenced or released on those, didn't you?
Oh and yes there are big dollars in favor of global warming
And there are big dollars against it too. That's why this belongs in the politics section; it's impossible to have a discussion without astroturfers interfering, which feeds everyone else's paranoia, which removes any chances of debating about science rather than politics. After all, you can always find justification for suspecting the other side of conspiracy.
- like GE (owner of NBC, USA, Syfy, NBC Europe, NBC Asia, and so on). They would lose billions of dollars they've invested in green technology.
Even if it turned out that carbon dioxide magically loses its ability to confine heat once released to atmosphere, and all the measurements of rising temperatures were just a giant cospiracy all along, green technology still has a prosperous future ahead of it as China's standard of living increases. Those cities need green cars.
The right to do something does not grant immunity from other laws in any way, even if the lack of such immunity means that for all practical purposes the right cannot be exercised without violating some other law.
The right to do something directly conflicts with all laws that forbid you from doing it. Otherwise having that right is meaningless, since it can never affect your ability or lack of it to do something, or the consequences.
IANAL, but Jesus, this isn't rocket science.
Well, what's a small step to some is a giant leap to others./p>
I have the right to travel anywhere I want in the united states, but I don't have the right to drive my car 200 mph on the highway to do so. Even if driving 200 mph were the only possible way of traveling across state borders, that doesn't mean my right to travel grants me immunity to traffic laws.
Actually, it would. Your right to travel would directly conflict with any law that prevented you from doing 200 mph near state borders, and would likely override it.
Look, if it makes this easier to understand, consider a city ordnance that forbade publishing anything about the mayor of that city within city limits. Would the local newspapers be bound by that ordnance and punishable for breaking it, or would the First Amendment overrule it?
The US Navy gets involved when US flagged ships are captured which is what should happen.
The US Navy will get involved when enough and big enough US companies get hurt that they'll lobby the Congress to deal with it. Flags are not important.
Yeah, but that was BS. Fact is, collisions of higher energies occur in the upper atmosphere with a much higher frequency than they will in the LHC, and have been for billions of years. The LHC iself is only expected to operate for a few tens of years by comparison.
Do they? Do we know (as in, have observed) that they occur, or do we simply conclude that they must, since cosmic rays bombard the atmosphere? Is it possible that the exact same phenomenom that the linked article says prevents LHC from working also prevents high-energy collisions from occurring in the upper atmosphere?
At what point does it become acceptable to punish the entire population for the crimes of a few pirates? Also, would this apply equally to other countries? There is a lots of debate in my country about whether the invasion of Iraq was legal under international law, should some random country who are effected by this (ie - Iran, Syria) be entitled to kill me if this is found to be illegal?
You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting the final solution - which is what this is, let's not dance around that bush - nor am I condoning it. I'm simply pointing out that the longer Somalia remains a thorn on the side of pretty much everyone, the higher the chances that someone loses their temper and stops caring about such details as collateral damage and innocent victims.
Why, it's simple: it lets butthurt atheists to put two snipes about religion into a single unit, therefore being twice as effective in making themselves feel superior.
My point is that Indians ARE capable of dealing with free speech, and that is what they are doing.
No, your point was that human rights don't apply to Indians, and that we are being oppressive when we insist that they do. Or that's the way you came across, anyway.
You are trying to impose an absolutist view of free speech into a context where absolute free speech is not workable AS A PRACTICAL MATTER.
Bullshit. You responded to a post pointing out the likely practical consequences - it won't stop the criminals - of the measure being discussed, and equated cricisim of Indian government with "cultural imperialism", with some ad hominems added for good measure. Your post had nothing to do with practical mattesr, it was pure appeal to "white man's guilt".
You state: "The only socio-political context where lack of free speech can be justified is one where it's okay for the elite to dominate over the rest." That's a wonderful aspirational idea that will work very well just as soon as human beings eliminate need, greed, and violence.
The whole point of free speech is that it keeps the powerful in check. It's precisely because we haven't eliminated need, greed and violence why free speech is so vitalyl important to society. Remove it, and the first corrupt ruler to come around brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.
Slashdot Mirror
It already is. For example, a quick search for "Sims" on Pirate Bay turned up multiple Sims DLC torrents.
Just use iron. It's not like the wiring is all that long.
Or Freenet.
In a criminal court, that's true; but copyright infringement is a civil matter, which means that yes, you have to prove your innocence.
Civil court was originally meant to solve things like contract disputes and other such matters. Nowadays it's being used as a de facto criminal court without the presumption of innocence, to help the powerful extort and crush the weak. That's the twisted part.
It's a sad day when the legal system, which was meant to curtail the law of the jungle, is being used as the very fist of the hundred-pound gorillas.
Yes, it certainly is a frightening thought that someone might disagree with you and still not be stupid.
Cool troll, bro.
You're wrong, of course: evolution isn't about the weak dying, it's about traits that help you get kids becoming more widespread in population over time. One of these traits is empathy, a side effect of which is why people donate to starving kids in Africa.
Who's this "us" you are talking about? It seems to me that you, with your presumably superior genetics, are a greater threat/competition to me than these inferior people; consequently, the most rational strategy for me would be to ally with them against you.
That's why empathy is an evolutionary advantage, BTW: it short-circuits this kind of cold rationality and keeps people from betraying each other even when it's in their own personal best interests, which in turn allows socities to form and grow.
Most inhabited areas of Africa are more than capable of supporting their populations, actually. The problem is cultural; Africa was still at the stage of tribalism when it was conquered by Europe. Those areas that have been able to leave it behind, and not fallen into hands of more or less insane dictators, are doing quite well; the rest have a bunch of warlords burning the crops or killing farmers.
In order to work, the spacecraft needs a radius of rotation of at least tens of meters, otherwise the term "vomit comet" gets a whole new meaning. You also need some way to keep the thing balanced as people move around. Finally, all that rotation induces stress on the structure, so it needs to be thicker and heavier to withstand it.
In other words: not anytime soon.
You're apparently rich enough to hang on Slashdot.
That's pretty hostile of you. Are you sure you haven't taken any "performance enhancers" to help build those muscles?
Apart from the fact that blocking myostatin doesn't simply make giant muscles appear overnight, but simply starts them growing, I'd like to point out that the whole point of intelligence is "taking shortcuts". Our bodies haven't caught up with our current lifestyle yet - arguably they haven't really caught up to even agriculture yet - so why not use our brains to adjust their chemistry to overcome the resulting problems?
Which would be a lot easier if they weren't the only ones with knives and guns.
I'm usually against guns as a solution to crime (because I think they're pretty useless, the criminal having the element of surprise, but feel free to carry anyway if you want to), but heck, if they're that scared of the plane being hijacked, just loan each passenger a gun at the airport and anyone trying will most likely be dead within seconds.
No, the problem is that the "people" negotiating are not human beings, but rather politicians and copyright holders.
You do realize that "not guilty" verdict not being possible strongly implies a "show trial", right? That's kind of the whole point of having trials in the first place: to determine if the accused is guilty, and if yes, to what degree. Actual sentencing tends to be a pretty simple affair after it's clear what it's being given for.
The planet doesn't need anything, it's a big ball of mostly-molten rock. Stop anthromorphising nature.
Heck, life on this planet will most likely be better off because of us: either we evolve into star-faring people, removing the hard time limit of biopshere dying due to Sun dying, or die off and new species and genus will evolve to fill the hole we've left.
Feel free to die anytime, then. Just stop expecting the rest of us to allow ourselves to, if we have the means to stop it.
I don't think that getting old and weak would be particularly enjoyable, but to each his own.
Infinite lifespan does not imply eternal life. You'll still die from an accident sooner or later, you'll simply stay healthy and strong until then. So, you know, you can skip the whole "Alzheimer and locked joints" -stage.
Actually, doesn't research show that economic leaders - corporate CEOs, specifically, but judging by their behavior many large investors should be included too - have a very high incidence rate of psychopathy? A psychopath is missing what's usually termed "humanity"; consequently, I must question your assertion.
A psychopath is someone completely lacking empathy, and thus care for his children or anyone else. And even perfectly ordinary humans have a truly wonderful capacity for doing horrible things. So no, I don't think that it's at all certain that they wouldn't conspire against others.
In the long run, yes; but in the short, human enchancement technology will almost certainly increase existing class divisions, especially considering the current unfortunate trend of ultra-liberal economic policy.
No one's forcing you to take said drug, you know.
It's also a rather inaccurate troll, since the protests and government reaction show that the Iranian government doesn't have such strong support, or at least fears that it doesn't.
Well, the more people enter the Sex Offender Registry the more diluted it becomes. For example, I wouldn't consider it evidence of anything.
However, cruel punishments will always stay with us because people love cruelty. Romans liked watching criminals get crucified or torn open by lions, medieval people liked watching witches burn, Wild West folks got their entertainment from hangings and Slashdotters laugh at "Bubba" prison rape jokes.
Humans love evil, especially if we can silence our conscience by saying "he deserves it". It's just the way we are.
Indeed. Why, if declaring someone "enemy combatant" wouldn't put them outside the normal legal system, and able to be hold prisoner for as long as his captors desired, then how would the powerful get rid of their enemies? Why, the very thought that "everyone is equal before law" might lead someo to question the divine right of the king and the status of the aristocracy!
Kudos for Khalid, thought; he might be a freedom-hating murdering bastard, but not many people can have freedom die a little bit just by having their name mentioned on an Internet forum.
Very well, then bring them before a court. You did know that war criminals get sentenced or released on those, didn't you?
And there are big dollars against it too. That's why this belongs in the politics section; it's impossible to have a discussion without astroturfers interfering, which feeds everyone else's paranoia, which removes any chances of debating about science rather than politics. After all, you can always find justification for suspecting the other side of conspiracy.
Even if it turned out that carbon dioxide magically loses its ability to confine heat once released to atmosphere, and all the measurements of rising temperatures were just a giant cospiracy all along, green technology still has a prosperous future ahead of it as China's standard of living increases. Those cities need green cars.
The right to do something directly conflicts with all laws that forbid you from doing it. Otherwise having that right is meaningless, since it can never affect your ability or lack of it to do something, or the consequences.
Well, what's a small step to some is a giant leap to others./p>
Actually, it would. Your right to travel would directly conflict with any law that prevented you from doing 200 mph near state borders, and would likely override it.
Look, if it makes this easier to understand, consider a city ordnance that forbade publishing anything about the mayor of that city within city limits. Would the local newspapers be bound by that ordnance and punishable for breaking it, or would the First Amendment overrule it?
The US Navy will get involved when enough and big enough US companies get hurt that they'll lobby the Congress to deal with it. Flags are not important.
Do they? Do we know (as in, have observed) that they occur, or do we simply conclude that they must, since cosmic rays bombard the atmosphere? Is it possible that the exact same phenomenom that the linked article says prevents LHC from working also prevents high-energy collisions from occurring in the upper atmosphere?
You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting the final solution - which is what this is, let's not dance around that bush - nor am I condoning it. I'm simply pointing out that the longer Somalia remains a thorn on the side of pretty much everyone, the higher the chances that someone loses their temper and stops caring about such details as collateral damage and innocent victims.
Why, it's simple: it lets butthurt atheists to put two snipes about religion into a single unit, therefore being twice as effective in making themselves feel superior.
No, your point was that human rights don't apply to Indians, and that we are being oppressive when we insist that they do. Or that's the way you came across, anyway.
Bullshit. You responded to a post pointing out the likely practical consequences - it won't stop the criminals - of the measure being discussed, and equated cricisim of Indian government with "cultural imperialism", with some ad hominems added for good measure. Your post had nothing to do with practical mattesr, it was pure appeal to "white man's guilt".
The whole point of free speech is that it keeps the powerful in check. It's precisely because we haven't eliminated need, greed and violence why free speech is so vitalyl important to society. Remove it, and the first corrupt ruler to come around brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.