Having to screen everybody equally somehow means what we have now is automatically effective? What logic you have. If an agent thought a magic rock worked in detecting terrorists by simply waving it in front of passengers, and everybody was subjected to it, it would be equal, but not efficient.
Hmmm, either this is meant to be tongue in cheek, or you're so firmly planted up the TSA's ass that you can't make any original arguments, other than the debunked tripe that has been pasted here over and over.
Your comparison of using digital goods to eating farmer's crops, using cars, etc still fails majorly to grasp the difference that makes such simplifications overly simplified and, IMO of course, erroneous.
I HATE that people teach that plagiarism is stealing, when it is in fact a fraud, deception [which, while it can lead to stealing/theft is not theft in of itself] - it logically drove me nuts because I KNEW that the labeling neither fit the act, nor actually emphasizes the problem with plagiarism properly - a job that fraud does much better. Glad to think I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
That fails. Privacy is not sharing == form of concealment == something humans desire, exercise regularly both consciously and subconsciously. Any little bit of concealment == "hiding something" regardless of intent. You are human, therefore this all bodes true, therefore you can NOT have "nothing to hide" Period.
That fails. Privacy is not sharing == form of concealment == something humans desire, exercise regularly conscious, you're human, therefore you use / believe in privacy regularly, and thus can literally have nothing to hide.
Nevermind that your generalized rambling ignores the difference between copying and actual theft, ignores that stealing is based on permission to take [and not payment or lack thereof -> that is just a vice for getting permission], and that music/games/etc legally exist for free, and it isn't a breakdown of pay for all, or get nothing/get free == always criminal. In short, your argument fails on the basis that it takes out too many legitimate contingencies that contradict your premises.
If he doesn't flaunt the erection, none of my business - and why are you watching that part of him while he walks to begin with? [you kinda walked yourself into that one]\\
Funny, since the argument first off usually regards the CHECKPOINTS not the gates, and 2. ignores that these methods must stand up to scrutiny - and are not legal JUST BECAUSE they are implemented [and of course acknowledge that challenges do occur in direction of the TSA and their practices, but that they take time.
There is no time limit set in stone - anything you see, from what I get, is purely arbitrary and seems to be more the task by various institutions to find those boundaries.
You can't illegally copy a copyrighted work without depriving the creator (owner) of income that could otherwise be derived from that work.
I'm having trouble seeing how that makes sense. First off, remember this is POTENTIAL income -> the absence of piracy does not mean it will happen anyways due to a myriad of other reasons. You act like by wanting it the money is already theirs - think of the paradox that creates... I pirated a song, somehow that deprived them of some money - others believe I stole that money, but that money was never spend in the first place and still belongs to me.
Copyright was never meant to be a revenue stream in of itself - a tool that can be used to create one yes, but I think these arguments distort the issue, and the intent of copyright in the first place.
FYI This post is nothing but a gross generalization that is based on nothing. Nothing, that is, except for baseless presumption. Come on, you coward, post non-AC so we can argue [and those who argue with argument and logic can kick your ass debate wise]
Though, as I mentioned, ultimately those goals matter not since it isn't about what a OC can already do, it's about what the hardware you're modifying can't do yet, but you want to make it do - or in some cases, what it can do, but is locked down. In my opinion, those who seriously argue the points you listed [and not out of devil's advocate] miss that ultimately the fact that a PC can already do it is utterly irrelevant, since the goal was about making something else do those things, a system that is either locked down preventing it from doing it, or something that lacks some of the capability of doing it.
"problems that dont actually exist in a demonstrable reality"? Really? At most you can prove how unlikely or likely it is that they exist, any demonstrable reality dictates that its likeliness or lack thereof is not directly attached to its possibility or impossibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Having to screen everybody equally somehow means what we have now is automatically effective? What logic you have. If an agent thought a magic rock worked in detecting terrorists by simply waving it in front of passengers, and everybody was subjected to it, it would be equal, but not efficient.
Hmmm, either this is meant to be tongue in cheek, or you're so firmly planted up the TSA's ass that you can't make any original arguments, other than the debunked tripe that has been pasted here over and over.
Your comparison of using digital goods to eating farmer's crops, using cars, etc still fails majorly to grasp the difference that makes such simplifications overly simplified and, IMO of course, erroneous.
I HATE that people teach that plagiarism is stealing, when it is in fact a fraud, deception [which, while it can lead to stealing/theft is not theft in of itself] - it logically drove me nuts because I KNEW that the labeling neither fit the act, nor actually emphasizes the problem with plagiarism properly - a job that fraud does much better. Glad to think I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Actually, it still is - just censorship they chose to invoke on their own.
Who the FUCK is saying anything about forcefully making you release your work? Really? It seems like you don't understand the half of it.
That fails. Privacy is not sharing == form of concealment == something humans desire, exercise regularly both consciously and subconsciously. Any little bit of concealment == "hiding something" regardless of intent. You are human, therefore this all bodes true, therefore you can NOT have "nothing to hide" Period.
WHOOPS, CAN NOT have nothing to hide, I meant
That fails. Privacy is not sharing == form of concealment == something humans desire, exercise regularly conscious, you're human, therefore you use / believe in privacy regularly, and thus can literally have nothing to hide.
Nevermind that your generalized rambling ignores the difference between copying and actual theft, ignores that stealing is based on permission to take [and not payment or lack thereof -> that is just a vice for getting permission], and that music/games/etc legally exist for free, and it isn't a breakdown of pay for all, or get nothing/get free == always criminal. In short, your argument fails on the basis that it takes out too many legitimate contingencies that contradict your premises.
"Yes, it's stealing"
You do know the difference between an opinion, and a fact, right?
If he doesn't flaunt the erection, none of my business - and why are you watching that part of him while he walks to begin with? [you kinda walked yourself into that one]\\
Why not make an analogy that, I dunno, makes sense?
Funny, since the argument first off usually regards the CHECKPOINTS not the gates, and 2. ignores that these methods must stand up to scrutiny - and are not legal JUST BECAUSE they are implemented [and of course acknowledge that challenges do occur in direction of the TSA and their practices, but that they take time.
And it is outright stupid to think that this is "THE" dichotomy present, IMO.
There is no time limit set in stone - anything you see, from what I get, is purely arbitrary and seems to be more the task by various institutions to find those boundaries.
You can't illegally copy a copyrighted work without depriving the creator (owner) of income that could otherwise be derived from that work.
I'm having trouble seeing how that makes sense. First off, remember this is POTENTIAL income -> the absence of piracy does not mean it will happen anyways due to a myriad of other reasons. You act like by wanting it the money is already theirs - think of the paradox that creates... I pirated a song, somehow that deprived them of some money - others believe I stole that money, but that money was never spend in the first place and still belongs to me.
Copyright was never meant to be a revenue stream in of itself - a tool that can be used to create one yes, but I think these arguments distort the issue, and the intent of copyright in the first place.
FYI This post is nothing but a gross generalization that is based on nothing. Nothing, that is, except for baseless presumption. Come on, you coward, post non-AC so we can argue [and those who argue with argument and logic can kick your ass debate wise]
Both extremes suck royally.
... do you even know what the pirate party is about, or just assume based on the title?
*PC, fuck my typos.
Though, as I mentioned, ultimately those goals matter not since it isn't about what a OC can already do, it's about what the hardware you're modifying can't do yet, but you want to make it do - or in some cases, what it can do, but is locked down. In my opinion, those who seriously argue the points you listed [and not out of devil's advocate] miss that ultimately the fact that a PC can already do it is utterly irrelevant, since the goal was about making something else do those things, a system that is either locked down preventing it from doing it, or something that lacks some of the capability of doing it.
#ifndef nothing_h #define nothing_h
PROTIP: Not doing what you want, or not doing what you want YET =/= doing nothing.
"problems that dont actually exist in a demonstrable reality"? Really? At most you can prove how unlikely or likely it is that they exist, any demonstrable reality dictates that its likeliness or lack thereof is not directly attached to its possibility or impossibility.
Funny, he never gave indication of anything related to him that could be used to gather potential irony like that.