You're the fucking moron - there is case law to back up that while an ISP, or any company, has a wide array of rights, there are still things they can't do. Your analogy doesn't, IMO, make sense since - well, we're talking about something completely different, that is, the termination of service based on accusation alone.
Yes, like everybody who stays out past midnight is doing this, and people opposed to curfews support those who do that..... what a bloody retarded presumption.
" It's businesses like that which ruin it for the rest of us."
HORESHIT. It is people who think that because these businesses exist that everybody is like that who ruin it.
And it is people with your mentality that perpetuates the ass-backwards ideologies surrounding these matters.
Why not learn what bitching is, asshat. Saying " think the policy is misguided because of XYZ," or "I disagree because of blah" is called STATING AN OPINION, you blithering idiot.
It is in fact true that any computer, any system can be hacked, infected, etc, it is also true that malware that rages hell on the average Windows O/S *seems* to be bit easier to clean up on a mac OS - in my opinion probably from the design inherited from its Unix core. Something a hardware vulnerability that could exist for ANY O/S, computer system with this kind of tech.
Arbitrarily shifting the boundaries of the debate a bit aren't we? There are legitimate objections even if, hypothetically, they were as you say "100% effective"
... give me a break - a metal detector and x-ray for bags is nothing like this.
You say this like you can't have airport security without the overt intrusions - better yet, why don't YOU tell me why we should use the invasive pat downs, scanners, and the like - instead of other alternatives that exits, and also tell me why you can't have security without such absurd over-the-top intrusions.
How about an understanding of computer system architecture? That alone proves the "unable to store or transmit images in any way" thing is a crock of shit.
Calling them shoplifters is really an insult to REAL shoplifters, don't you think? Not to mention your post begs a lot of questions: Factually speaking, where are you coming from? Pirate is the CORRECT term, shoplifter is not since, *derp,* no shoplifting is occurring.
I dunno, usually the term "internet tough guy" and "internet vigilante" referrs to people claiming to want to do X, Y, Z, not necessarily feeling that thing X should be done to person Y for his/her act Z.
So... quality decline == shut down instead of, I dunno, making sure higher standards are made/maintained? Backwards thinking - a problem saturating anything is not automatic grounds for outright disposal.
Slashdot Mirror
... and what if there are issues so far as people on the other side actually responding? If they are unresponsive, if those lines were cut, etc?
t's stupid fucktards like you that give responsible gun owners like me a bad rap.
Partially wrong: It is people like that, and the idiots who lump them with people like you.
Image is a multi-piece thing: Perpetuation of a false image doesn't just come from the few examples that spawn the stereotype you know.
Nevermind that you're comparing a collective set of opinions with the opinion of one. Derp much?
... how the fuck does that statement you quoted translate into a "therefore we should stop all screening" type of statement? Really?
The rest being ... the co-pilot? Long gone are the days of 3 or 4 - man flight crews. :P
Just because an ISP may add X provision[s] to the TOS doesn't make them legal.
You're the fucking moron - there is case law to back up that while an ISP, or any company, has a wide array of rights, there are still things they can't do. Your analogy doesn't, IMO, make sense since - well, we're talking about something completely different, that is, the termination of service based on accusation alone.
Yes, like everybody who stays out past midnight is doing this, and people opposed to curfews support those who do that..... what a bloody retarded presumption.
... give me a fucking break.
" It's businesses like that which ruin it for the rest of us."
HORESHIT. It is people who think that because these businesses exist that everybody is like that who ruin it.
And it is people with your mentality that perpetuates the ass-backwards ideologies surrounding these matters.
Why not learn what bitching is, asshat. Saying " think the policy is misguided because of XYZ," or "I disagree because of blah" is called STATING AN OPINION, you blithering idiot.
Who the fuck thought this was even slightly insightful?
You can't copyright a phrase, dipshit. Trademark is correct.
* can not completely negate AT ALL.
*/. cut off my sentence >,_,
It is in fact true that any computer, any system can be hacked, infected, etc, it is also true that malware that rages hell on the average Windows O/S *seems* to be bit easier to clean up on a mac OS - in my opinion probably from the design inherited from its Unix core. Something a hardware vulnerability that could exist for ANY O/S, computer system with this kind of tech.
Arbitrarily shifting the boundaries of the debate a bit aren't we? There are legitimate objections even if, hypothetically, they were as you say "100% effective"
... give me a break - a metal detector and x-ray for bags is nothing like this.
You say this like you can't have airport security without the overt intrusions - better yet, why don't YOU tell me why we should use the invasive pat downs, scanners, and the like - instead of other alternatives that exits, and also tell me why you can't have security without such absurd over-the-top intrusions.
How about an understanding of computer system architecture? That alone proves the "unable to store or transmit images in any way" thing is a crock of shit.
...horse diarrhea?
Calling them shoplifters is really an insult to REAL shoplifters, don't you think? Not to mention your post begs a lot of questions: Factually speaking, where are you coming from? Pirate is the CORRECT term, shoplifter is not since, *derp,* no shoplifting is occurring.
Since when was downloading a single move illegally a criminal act, as opposed to something with repercussions in a CIVIL court?
There being a lot of different companies in the media industry makes a bad analogy OK?
I dunno, usually the term "internet tough guy" and "internet vigilante" referrs to people claiming to want to do X, Y, Z, not necessarily feeling that thing X should be done to person Y for his/her act Z.
So... quality decline == shut down instead of, I dunno, making sure higher standards are made/maintained? Backwards thinking - a problem saturating anything is not automatic grounds for outright disposal.
Or better yet, if there are laws about / against this practice, how about the company... follow them NOT DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?