But I'm not aware of any law that would authorize a judge to issue a court order forcing anyone to commit a crime of theft and breaking encryption technology by stealing private keys from your computer.
It wouldn't be stealing, would it, if they just copied it?
That is why they are trying to use the law to ban certain technology and suppress certain companies from becoming profitable such as the case with Kim Dot Com.
And what, precisely, is wrong with stopping people like Kim Dotcom making money off copyright infringement?
You can make all the high-minded "information wants to be free" arguments you like, but the fact remains that Kim Dotcom is a parasite who can only make money because of the existence of copyright and the willingness of people to pay him to get round it.
No amount of money is going to change this. Even if the child was adopted at birth into a middle income family made up of a mother that is an english professor and a father that is a math professor at an Ivy league school.
Unless the child has actual foetal alcohol or drug syndrome, this isn't true. Emotional problems arise when the child is growing up, if they're literally adopted at birth this isn't an issue.
In the UK, most kids don't get adopted until their parents have had a few years to work their magic on them, hence the large number with serious emotional problems. It's mainly the environment between 0 and 2 to 3 years that determines how well adjusted a kid will be.
I grew up with more occupants than bedrooms, and mostly ate fast food. I'm a 3.9 average student in college. I have no need to work in college. My parents didn't pay for my schooling. No student loans of any kind either, in fact my scholarships have yielded me a very large cash surplus.
I mainly have a cash surplus because I am accustomed to not spending much
Yes, and because Barack Obama is President there is no racism in the US. And because Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State, there is no sexism. And because Jodie Foster can come out as a lesbian there is no homophobia.
Any rule has its exceptions. One off events don't prove anything. My grandfather smoked like a trooper and drank whisky almost like it was beer, but he lived to be 90. So what?
Making it a pure skills-based game is only fun for the one with the best skill, assuming fun should have anything to do with games.
Only if you equate "fun" with "winning."
In a game with winners and losers, it is always more fun if you win. Otherwise you're missing the point of the game. That doesn't mean you can't have fun and still lose.
A classic example of Poe's Law, I'd say, as it is NOT clear whether he's serious or not, and if he is attempting a parody it's come out as no more unreasonable sounding than many pro-gun posts here recently.
The fact that someone posted an over-the-top pro-gun statement does not, on slashdot or most US-based forums, mean that they are trolling. There are plenty of Americans who sincerely believe that if , for instance, the government has heavy machine guns, rocket launchers or attack helicopters, so should private citizens.
Whether or not you think this is insane is not relevant to the question of their sincerity, and thus whether or not they are trolling, i.e. being outrageous merely to provoke a reaction.
Speaking of logic and reason, fuck the gun-grabbers. I'm going to join the NRA and buy a Bushmaster AR-15 with 2 100-round drums of ammo to show my support for our second amendment. Shit happens. You keep calm and carry on, or you flail your arms like a pussy and ask big brother to ban everything you don't agree with -- which is what happens when America's once proud youth are raised as politically-correct pussies.
-- Ethanol-fueled
I was going to say be careful you don't shoot your cock and balls off, but they're so small you're probably not that good a shot.
If it doesn't suit your sense of humor, then don't pay any attention.
I'll never understand people who post to a topic on Slashdot complaining that the topic bores them. The internet is a big thing, if you aren't interested in what you read here, then go somewhere else.
Oh, come on. If slashdot started posting loads of anti-Linux stories, or daily posts about the NFL or Kim Kardashian, everyone would (quite rightly) be in an uproar.
People come to slashdot, or any other website, in large part because of what it doesn't post.
If I want poetry criticism or local traffic news, I go to the relevant websites.
Having said that, there are bound to be some stories you're not interested in on any site. Unfortunately, anything to do with Star Wars seems to be (a) acceptable as slashdot-fodder and (b) beyond criticism.
As with any revolution, it depends on the MASS of people involved, at which point it doesn't really matter what they're armed with, since as you say the army can't shoot everyone.
If you look at the Arab Spring, it was (a) largely non-violent (certainly not on the scale of Syria, which is an odd-one-out) (b) a mass popular movement and (c) it ended up with the Army turning on the tyrant/government.
I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.
The purpose of the second amendment is not for sporting, hunting, or even home defense. It is there to prevent the government from disarming the people and instituting tyranny and/or fascism. We have the second amendment to preserve our natural right to shoot tyrants and fascists should our system of checks and balances fail and they come into power.
If you need to get rid of tyrants and fascists through armed revolution, laws stopping you from legally owning weapons don''t make any difference. I doubt Lenin had a firearms licence from the Russian government.
if it happens on a greater scale the outcome will be civil war with hardware on both sides
If you have an actual civil war, the choice of weapons is irrelevant, as both sides will get hold of more or less the same amount of whatever they can, including helicopter gunships, heavy machine guns, tanks, cruise missiles and H-bombs (even assuming that the military split evenly into pro- and anti-government, and don't just keep all the good stuff for the government side, which is unlikely).
Whether or not you have a legally owned rifle or handgun at home will be irrelevant.
Makes me wonder how it would impact these events if we just allowed assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide is about terminally ill people in pain and distress who want to be allowed to die when life becomes unbearable but have become physically incapable of killing themselves.
Someone with a depressive mental illness would never be given help to kill themselves by a doctor: they require treatment.
There aren't any real numbers on successful defenses with firearms. There's way too much liability to actually defending yourself in a proper manner with a firearm to report it.
I don't believe that for a second. If you have prevented a crime with your firearm, you should report it to the police as an attempted robbery/rape or whatever just to cover yourself. Do you seriously think that if they catch the would-be criminal, you're going to be in trouble for it?
An incident that happened to me a couple years ago. It was a hot muggy July day and I was sitting in city traffic. I had the windows rolled down as my car was old and starting to overheat so I wasn't running A/C. Some guy opened my car door, got in, and started to tell me where to drive until he looked over and saw the barrel of the revolver I had on me at the time. His eyes got large and he promptly got out of my car and walked off. To this day I have no idea why he got in my car. Did he mean me harm? I don't know. All I know is that I didn't know him, he wasn't supposed to be there, and my revolver ended the situation and no shots were fired.
He probably was a bit drunk and mistook you for a taxi.
And if he was a car hijacker, what if he'd jumped in with a drawn weapon of his own? I assume you don't drive with your revolver in one hand all the time.
we have more gun-related deaths, but we also have significantly less violent crimes overall.
Less than where?
Say you choose the UK, where I live. Americans love to say that we have more violent crime than in the US. But "violent crime" includes things like low level drunken punch ups where someone gets a couple of bruises or cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if we had more incidents like this, my impression is that a lot more people get drunk in Britain on a regular basis than in the US (without getting all Daily Faily about binge drinking).
But at least these drunken punch ups don't often end up with one or more people being shot dead. Knife crime is an issue here, but you're still more likely to survive someone pulling out a knife and stabbing you than someone pulling out a gun and emptying a few rounds into you.
When the Army sets fire to your home because your neighbor is printing magazine clips from a 3D printer, you have the right to start calling it tyranny.
You'll have to pry my 3D printer from my hot, crispy fingers.
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
Luckily, you won't need to. The US military is somewhat more powerful than a rag bag collection of paranoid survivalists and neo-fascists.
Now, if the US military decide to get rid of the government, there's a whole new ballgame. I'd love to see which side the gun-fanboys would be on then.
No, he'll join up to the democratically accountable military or law enforcement arms of the government, and get a few weekends target practice with proper weapons against neo-nazi scum who want to establish gun law so they can fulfill their fantasies of returning to a pure white American golden age.
And where is the most murder in the US? In the places with the most gun control, like Chicago.
But wouldn't the murder rate be even higher in Chicago if there were more guns around?
No one is saying that guns cause crime, the gun-control argument is that guns make crime, and the overall effects of crime, far worse.
If two people have a fight over something, it's far more likely to end in a death if one or both of them have a gun. An armed society is NOT a polite society. It just lets any arsehole with a gun think he's invincible.
Slashdot Mirror
But I'm not aware of any law that would authorize a judge to issue a court order forcing anyone to commit a crime of theft and breaking encryption technology by stealing private keys from your computer.
It wouldn't be stealing, would it, if they just copied it?
That is why they are trying to use the law to ban certain technology and suppress certain companies from becoming profitable such as the case with Kim Dot Com.
And what, precisely, is wrong with stopping people like Kim Dotcom making money off copyright infringement?
You can make all the high-minded "information wants to be free" arguments you like, but the fact remains that Kim Dotcom is a parasite who can only make money because of the existence of copyright and the willingness of people to pay him to get round it.
Why would MEGA know your encryption keys? Why would you give them to anyone?
Oblig xkcd.
This is not a problem that can be fixed in the schools alone, regardless of the amount of money we throw at education.
I agree. We need to throw money at jobs, health and housing too.
No amount of money is going to change this. Even if the child was adopted at birth into a middle income family made up of a mother that is an english professor and a father that is a math professor at an Ivy league school.
Unless the child has actual foetal alcohol or drug syndrome, this isn't true. Emotional problems arise when the child is growing up, if they're literally adopted at birth this isn't an issue.
In the UK, most kids don't get adopted until their parents have had a few years to work their magic on them, hence the large number with serious emotional problems. It's mainly the environment between 0 and 2 to 3 years that determines how well adjusted a kid will be.
Some half of those with an inheritance say money causes more problems than it solves.
Well they can always give it to me if they're that fucking burdened by it.
I grew up with more occupants than bedrooms, and mostly ate fast food. I'm a 3.9 average student in college. I have no need to work in college. My parents didn't pay for my schooling. No student loans of any kind either, in fact my scholarships have yielded me a very large cash surplus.
I mainly have a cash surplus because I am accustomed to not spending much
Yes, and because Barack Obama is President there is no racism in the US. And because Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State, there is no sexism. And because Jodie Foster can come out as a lesbian there is no homophobia.
Any rule has its exceptions. One off events don't prove anything. My grandfather smoked like a trooper and drank whisky almost like it was beer, but he lived to be 90. So what?
Damn kids theses days. Back in my day we had 20 people shareing a Mc Donalds hamburger, because we couldn't afford fancy things like cheeze.
We couldn't afford the hamburger. We just had the bun. If we were lucky.
Making it a pure skills-based game is only fun for the one with the best skill, assuming fun should have anything to do with games.
Only if you equate "fun" with "winning."
In a game with winners and losers, it is always more fun if you win. Otherwise you're missing the point of the game. That doesn't mean you can't have fun and still lose.
The guy is clearly making fun of people pro gun.
A classic example of Poe's Law, I'd say, as it is NOT clear whether he's serious or not, and if he is attempting a parody it's come out as no more unreasonable sounding than many pro-gun posts here recently.
E-F trolled your bitch ass real good !
* high-5s E-F*
The fact that someone posted an over-the-top pro-gun statement does not, on slashdot or most US-based forums, mean that they are trolling. There are plenty of Americans who sincerely believe that if , for instance, the government has heavy machine guns, rocket launchers or attack helicopters, so should private citizens.
Whether or not you think this is insane is not relevant to the question of their sincerity, and thus whether or not they are trolling, i.e. being outrageous merely to provoke a reaction.
Speaking of logic and reason, fuck the gun-grabbers. I'm going to join the NRA and buy a Bushmaster AR-15 with 2 100-round drums of ammo to show my support for our second amendment. Shit happens. You keep calm and carry on, or you flail your arms like a pussy and ask big brother to ban everything you don't agree with -- which is what happens when America's once proud youth are raised as politically-correct pussies.
-- Ethanol-fueled
I was going to say be careful you don't shoot your cock and balls off, but they're so small you're probably not that good a shot.
most of us know that this really isn't an official response from the Empire, since the Empire is a fictional organization
That's like posting on a Moshi Monsters site that Santa Claus isn't real.
If it doesn't suit your sense of humor, then don't pay any attention. I'll never understand people who post to a topic on Slashdot complaining that the topic bores them. The internet is a big thing, if you aren't interested in what you read here, then go somewhere else.
Oh, come on. If slashdot started posting loads of anti-Linux stories, or daily posts about the NFL or Kim Kardashian, everyone would (quite rightly) be in an uproar.
People come to slashdot, or any other website, in large part because of what it doesn't post.
If I want poetry criticism or local traffic news, I go to the relevant websites.
Having said that, there are bound to be some stories you're not interested in on any site. Unfortunately, anything to do with Star Wars seems to be (a) acceptable as slashdot-fodder and (b) beyond criticism.
If you look at the Arab Spring, it was (a) largely non-violent (certainly not on the scale of Syria, which is an odd-one-out) (b) a mass popular movement and (c) it ended up with the Army turning on the tyrant/government.
The purpose of the second amendment is not for sporting, hunting, or even home defense. It is there to prevent the government from disarming the people and instituting tyranny and/or fascism. We have the second amendment to preserve our natural right to shoot tyrants and fascists should our system of checks and balances fail and they come into power.
If you need to get rid of tyrants and fascists through armed revolution, laws stopping you from legally owning weapons don''t make any difference. I doubt Lenin had a firearms licence from the Russian government.
if it happens on a greater scale the outcome will be civil war with hardware on both sides
If you have an actual civil war, the choice of weapons is irrelevant, as both sides will get hold of more or less the same amount of whatever they can, including helicopter gunships, heavy machine guns, tanks, cruise missiles and H-bombs (even assuming that the military split evenly into pro- and anti-government, and don't just keep all the good stuff for the government side, which is unlikely).
Whether or not you have a legally owned rifle or handgun at home will be irrelevant.
Makes me wonder how it would impact these events if we just allowed assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide is about terminally ill people in pain and distress who want to be allowed to die when life becomes unbearable but have become physically incapable of killing themselves.
Someone with a depressive mental illness would never be given help to kill themselves by a doctor: they require treatment.
There aren't any real numbers on successful defenses with firearms. There's way too much liability to actually defending yourself in a proper manner with a firearm to report it.
I don't believe that for a second. If you have prevented a crime with your firearm, you should report it to the police as an attempted robbery/rape or whatever just to cover yourself. Do you seriously think that if they catch the would-be criminal, you're going to be in trouble for it?
An incident that happened to me a couple years ago. It was a hot muggy July day and I was sitting in city traffic. I had the windows rolled down as my car was old and starting to overheat so I wasn't running A/C. Some guy opened my car door, got in, and started to tell me where to drive until he looked over and saw the barrel of the revolver I had on me at the time. His eyes got large and he promptly got out of my car and walked off. To this day I have no idea why he got in my car. Did he mean me harm? I don't know. All I know is that I didn't know him, he wasn't supposed to be there, and my revolver ended the situation and no shots were fired.
He probably was a bit drunk and mistook you for a taxi.
And if he was a car hijacker, what if he'd jumped in with a drawn weapon of his own? I assume you don't drive with your revolver in one hand all the time.
we have more gun-related deaths, but we also have significantly less violent crimes overall.
Less than where?
Say you choose the UK, where I live. Americans love to say that we have more violent crime than in the US. But "violent crime" includes things like low level drunken punch ups where someone gets a couple of bruises or cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if we had more incidents like this, my impression is that a lot more people get drunk in Britain on a regular basis than in the US (without getting all Daily Faily about binge drinking).
But at least these drunken punch ups don't often end up with one or more people being shot dead. Knife crime is an issue here, but you're still more likely to survive someone pulling out a knife and stabbing you than someone pulling out a gun and emptying a few rounds into you.
When the Army sets fire to your home because your neighbor is printing magazine clips from a 3D printer, you have the right to start calling it tyranny.
You'll have to pry my 3D printer from my hot, crispy fingers.
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
Luckily, you won't need to. The US military is somewhat more powerful than a rag bag collection of paranoid survivalists and neo-fascists.
Now, if the US military decide to get rid of the government, there's a whole new ballgame. I'd love to see which side the gun-fanboys would be on then.
No, he'll join up to the democratically accountable military or law enforcement arms of the government, and get a few weekends target practice with proper weapons against neo-nazi scum who want to establish gun law so they can fulfill their fantasies of returning to a pure white American golden age.
And where is the most murder in the US? In the places with the most gun control, like Chicago.
But wouldn't the murder rate be even higher in Chicago if there were more guns around?
No one is saying that guns cause crime, the gun-control argument is that guns make crime, and the overall effects of crime, far worse.
If two people have a fight over something, it's far more likely to end in a death if one or both of them have a gun. An armed society is NOT a polite society. It just lets any arsehole with a gun think he's invincible.