Again...
If it was just about copyright infringement and not about control, why not just use the laws that exist instead of tacking on new stuff?
?
How do you know people aren't being responsible, or that you aren't miscategorizing people [especially by assuming that opposing RIAA == supporting piracy, erroneous on many levels]?
How is it possibvle that trhis isn't a troll at worst, flamebait at best?
But of course first you need to define safe - safe with regards to legality or illegality, and/or likelihood of getting caught, or safe with regards to malware, etc? You gotta admit, "what is safe"? in of itself with nothing else is quite an ambiguous question.
Privacy on any level is about concealment, whether necessary or un-necessary, for good or bad. Youi can't have something and nothing to hide at once, shit, given human nature - and the nature of privacy, nothing to hide is impossible to begin with, but the idea of having something to hide and nothing to hide simultaneously, making P ^ ~P = true when logically impossible, makes my brain explode.
You do know the logical error in that statement right? Privacy = concealment, regardless of it being for good, or bad reasons, necessary or un-necessary. Therefore, if you have something to hide, which is anybody who believes in or uses privacy, you can't have nothing to hide. P ^ ~P = F no matter what bullshit you try to throw into the syste,.
No, its not stolen because you never had that money to begin with, as in you logically can't have money taken from you that you didn't have to begin with. Potential profit is still money you don't have and are not guaranteed to make, remember?
If I recall, piracy killed the Dreamcast not a PS2 announcement.
Well, your history is rusty. It isn't A MERE ANNOUNCEMENT that is being cited but the timing with the PS2 in general and that, IMO of course, is a much larger cause of the Dreamcast's death.
Uh... no, you can say your pencil is worth whatever you feel like it, but you didn't have that money stolen from you - you didn't even have it to begin with. Hard to lose money you didn't have to begin with, isn't it?
Against policies =/= against the law in the U.S at least.
they'd have one hell of a time perverting the intent/design of copyright and/or the DMCA to fit such a premise.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think consent trumps the constitution, or case law built around it per-se.
It IS censorship, whether or not it is JUSTIFIABLE censorship is another matter entirely.
Speak for yourself.
Binary hillarity.
Again...
If it was just about copyright infringement and not about control, why not just use the laws that exist instead of tacking on new stuff?
? How do you know people aren't being responsible, or that you aren't miscategorizing people [especially by assuming that opposing RIAA == supporting piracy, erroneous on many levels]?
How is it possibvle that trhis isn't a troll at worst, flamebait at best?
But of course first you need to define safe - safe with regards to legality or illegality, and/or likelihood of getting caught, or safe with regards to malware, etc? You gotta admit, "what is safe"? in of itself with nothing else is quite an ambiguous question.
Disliking the TSA IS NOT THE SAME AS NOT LIKING America, you fucking moron, please fuck off.
46DCEAD317FE45D80923EB97E4956410D4CDB2C2 [base 16]
= 16471181235629961000 [base 10]
= 01000110110111001110101011010011000101111111111 00100010111011000000010010010001111101011100101 11111001001001010101100100000100001101010011001 10110101100100000100001101010011001101101100101 1000010 [base 2]
= 20 bytes
= 10 words
= 5 dwords
= 2 qwords and 1dword
Privacy on any level is about concealment, whether necessary or un-necessary, for good or bad. Youi can't have something and nothing to hide at once, shit, given human nature - and the nature of privacy, nothing to hide is impossible to begin with, but the idea of having something to hide and nothing to hide simultaneously, making P ^ ~P = true when logically impossible, makes my brain explode.
If you have a Facebook account, you've already failed my job interview. You can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions with data,
Obviously you can't be trusted to use your brain,. jackass.
Why should employers be able to get the password to people's non-work related accounts [like Yahoo, Facebook, etc]?
Either this is a well played tongue-in-cheek statement, or you're retarded.
/s?
You do know the logical error in that statement right? Privacy = concealment, regardless of it being for good, or bad reasons, necessary or un-necessary. Therefore, if you have something to hide, which is anybody who believes in or uses privacy, you can't have nothing to hide. P ^ ~P = F no matter what bullshit you try to throw into the syste,.
No, its not stolen because you never had that money to begin with, as in you logically can't have money taken from you that you didn't have to begin with. Potential profit is still money you don't have and are not guaranteed to make, remember?
I know this is difficult, but ability to patronize another facility =/= no right to remark about the perceived stupidity of such a decision.
This is either sarcasm/funny, misinformed, or a complete moron. I'm placing my bets on 1 and 3.
I just LOVE your gross generalizations about pirates, as if they were ALL one type, cut from the same cloth always.
If I recall, piracy killed the Dreamcast not a PS2 announcement.
Well, your history is rusty. It isn't A MERE ANNOUNCEMENT that is being cited but the timing with the PS2 in general and that, IMO of course, is a much larger cause of the Dreamcast's death.
Of course, just because it is better than what occurs in another country doesn't make it ok by proxy.
Uh... no, you can say your pencil is worth whatever you feel like it, but you didn't have that money stolen from you - you didn't even have it to begin with. Hard to lose money you didn't have to begin with, isn't it?
Against policies =/= against the law in the U.S at least. they'd have one hell of a time perverting the intent/design of copyright and/or the DMCA to fit such a premise.
actually, they can put whatever they want in the EULA and it is contractually binding..
Not entirely true at all.
Yeah, I'm sure the unreasonable/cruel/unusual punishments bit would thwart your good-intentions-but-way-overbearing idea.
They're not censoring anything, they're just filtering...
Uh... that part [editing it out so autocomplete doesn't have said term] sounds like it treads on the basic definition of censorship to me.
They aren't censoring the search, they're just removing it from the autocomplete queue
Uh... isn't editing or removal a part of the basic definition of censorship?