If someone is serious about obfuscating their writing, they will be able to. Especially once they get access to the software that would be used to examine it.
However, most people are not going to even bother attempting to obfuscate.
Taking the extreme and obvious counter, do you support no censorship of child pornography?
Do you support jailing minors who take pictures of themselves (ie, jailing producers of child pornography)? Do you support jailing minors who send pictures of themselves (ie, jailing distributors of child pornography)? Do you support jailing minors who own pictures of themselves (ie, jailing owners of child pornography)? How about their parents, if they own eg baby pictures? Do you have any evidence that an adult looking at naughty pictures of minors is likely to result in said adult abusing minors, as opposed to serving as a (mostly) victimless outlet for their urges? As a comparison, if you eliminate a normal person's access to porn, are they more or less likely to have sex? Do you support the government using child pornography as an excuse to violate people's rights to privacy? We must spy on all your attachments, because the children. Do you support the government deciding which ones and zeros people aren't allowed to produce, own, or share?
The first rule of TOR is that you don't sign in to Facebook or any other similar thing, else you link your account to your identity. This especially matters for Facebook because they have those little scripts all over the web to track what websites you visit, all those sign in/comment with Facebook widgits will know who you are.
You seem to have misunderstood what they are calling for. It's not for search engines to refuse to index them. It's for them to be banned from the sort of websites that search engines index. For example, if someone posted a pro-ISIS message on Slashdot, they're asking for that message to be deleted, because Slashdot is the sort of website that gets indexed by search engines.
But if we build in censorship as a fundamental part of the web to stop ISIS, that doesn't sound so bad. What's the worst that could happen? I'll bet the politicians are even willing to swear that they'll never abuse it.
That's why it's important to have the option to be anonymous. You can respond to massive criticism of your anonymous speech just as well -- and in fact better -- than if it weren't anonymous, because doing so anonymously means you are under no threat.
Now, you make a distinction between "violent" consequences and "non-violent" consequences for a man's speech. Trouble is, there is no clear distinction. "Massive criticism" can get a man evicted from his home, lose his job, denied loans, put on a watchlist of mild to severe inconvenience, and even -- should he live in the wrong country -- starved to death, but in any country ruined for life. Because, after all, who would want to have dealings with an unpopular man? And how can you be part of society if no one will deal with you? Now, you can pretend there's a distinction violence and criticism, but you can't pretend that under such threat anyone is free to speak openly.
Of course, there is a partial remedy to this problem by having society in general disapprove of these sorts of non-violent attacks, there could be a stigma against asking an employer to fire his employee because he said something unwanted. However, it is impossible to prevent the use of freedom of non-association to punish a man who says unwanted things, and the only true solution is anonymity.
The only way to have truly free speech is to speak anonymously. Otherwise, you have "free speech" but there will be "consequences". Like how in Soviet Russia you were "free" to say anything you liked, but there might be "consequences" like getting sent to Siberia.
Look inside everyone's mail. If there's anything suspicious, there's your probable cause. If there's nothing suspicious, no harm done -- but best to keep the info in case it contained a coded message. This message brought to you by the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
Specifically, if cars are shared, then the whole several cars per family (1 car per adult) will come to an end. Then you only need enough cars to transport everyone during rush hour, and there will be even more pressure to kill off rush hour.
I have no idea why people use Schmeiser as a poster boy for Monsanto abuse. He's a poster boy for exactly the sort of thing IP protection exists to prevent, not an innocent victim. He intentionally isolated the small percentage of hybrids he found on his property and created his own unlicensed field of Roundup Ready crops.
Well, if we had a time machine we could go ask the Founding Fathers whether when they allowed for copyright and patent monopolies they intended such to be used to prevent a man from growing seeds on his land.
Now, now, just because companies gleefully pillage the public domain, doesn't mean you have the right to infringe on their government-granted monopolies.
Technically, everything about the universe is fundamentally unknowable. Sure, we can be pretty certain that eg the sun will rise tomorrow, that the laws of physics will be tomorrow what they were today. But never absolutely sure. If you want certainty, try mathematics of philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing "motivated" with "smart".
If someone is serious about obfuscating their writing, they will be able to. Especially once they get access to the software that would be used to examine it.
However, most people are not going to even bother attempting to obfuscate.
Taking the extreme and obvious counter, do you support no censorship of child pornography?
Do you support jailing minors who take pictures of themselves (ie, jailing producers of child pornography)?
Do you support jailing minors who send pictures of themselves (ie, jailing distributors of child pornography)?
Do you support jailing minors who own pictures of themselves (ie, jailing owners of child pornography)? How about their parents, if they own eg baby pictures?
Do you have any evidence that an adult looking at naughty pictures of minors is likely to result in said adult abusing minors, as opposed to serving as a (mostly) victimless outlet for their urges? As a comparison, if you eliminate a normal person's access to porn, are they more or less likely to have sex?
Do you support the government using child pornography as an excuse to violate people's rights to privacy? We must spy on all your attachments, because the children.
Do you support the government deciding which ones and zeros people aren't allowed to produce, own, or share?
I knew it, my password is the top of the list! Only the best for me.
The first rule of TOR is that you don't sign in to Facebook or any other similar thing, else you link your account to your identity. This especially matters for Facebook because they have those little scripts all over the web to track what websites you visit, all those sign in/comment with Facebook widgits will know who you are.
Would it have featured the ability to focus all the light onto a dissident-sized area?
If you believe the Russians are particularly concerned about global warming, I got some prime Siberian real estate to sell you.
You seem to have misunderstood what they are calling for. It's not for search engines to refuse to index them. It's for them to be banned from the sort of websites that search engines index. For example, if someone posted a pro-ISIS message on Slashdot, they're asking for that message to be deleted, because Slashdot is the sort of website that gets indexed by search engines.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
But if we build in censorship as a fundamental part of the web to stop ISIS, that doesn't sound so bad. What's the worst that could happen? I'll bet the politicians are even willing to swear that they'll never abuse it.
The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.
That's why it's important to have the option to be anonymous. You can respond to massive criticism of your anonymous speech just as well -- and in fact better -- than if it weren't anonymous, because doing so anonymously means you are under no threat.
Now, you make a distinction between "violent" consequences and "non-violent" consequences for a man's speech. Trouble is, there is no clear distinction. "Massive criticism" can get a man evicted from his home, lose his job, denied loans, put on a watchlist of mild to severe inconvenience, and even -- should he live in the wrong country -- starved to death, but in any country ruined for life. Because, after all, who would want to have dealings with an unpopular man? And how can you be part of society if no one will deal with you? Now, you can pretend there's a distinction violence and criticism, but you can't pretend that under such threat anyone is free to speak openly.
Of course, there is a partial remedy to this problem by having society in general disapprove of these sorts of non-violent attacks, there could be a stigma against asking an employer to fire his employee because he said something unwanted. However, it is impossible to prevent the use of freedom of non-association to punish a man who says unwanted things, and the only true solution is anonymity.
The only way to have truly free speech is to speak anonymously. Otherwise, you have "free speech" but there will be "consequences". Like how in Soviet Russia you were "free" to say anything you liked, but there might be "consequences" like getting sent to Siberia.
Look inside everyone's mail. If there's anything suspicious, there's your probable cause. If there's nothing suspicious, no harm done -- but best to keep the info in case it contained a coded message. This message brought to you by the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
Specifically, if cars are shared, then the whole several cars per family (1 car per adult) will come to an end. Then you only need enough cars to transport everyone during rush hour, and there will be even more pressure to kill off rush hour.
What makes you think this AC is a he? When we're talking about someone who missed their period, it's usually a she.
I have no idea why people use Schmeiser as a poster boy for Monsanto abuse. He's a poster boy for exactly the sort of thing IP protection exists to prevent, not an innocent victim. He intentionally isolated the small percentage of hybrids he found on his property and created his own unlicensed field of Roundup Ready crops.
Well, if we had a time machine we could go ask the Founding Fathers whether when they allowed for copyright and patent monopolies they intended such to be used to prevent a man from growing seeds on his land.
Exactly! I buy based on price and quality, not some bullshit branding (and yes, "Made in USA" is branding).
You do not speak for everyone.
He meant, everyone except cable company executives.
The Nielsen ratings have never rally been without major sampling error, methodology and fallacy.
Yet probably still better than trusting a cable company to self-report how much ad revenue they should be getting.
Now, now, just because companies gleefully pillage the public domain, doesn't mean you have the right to infringe on their government-granted monopolies.
Technically, everything about the universe is fundamentally unknowable. Sure, we can be pretty certain that eg the sun will rise tomorrow, that the laws of physics will be tomorrow what they were today. But never absolutely sure. If you want certainty, try mathematics of philosophy.
What's the big deal? Those pictures look like they were taken by some monkey with a camera.
$36,000? What did they do, print the video, one frame per page?
"Author's lifetime plus 70 years"