Well, TFA says that a poll taken in July when the law was passed, shows that the Russian people support the blacklist 62% to 16%. The Russian government seems to have the support of the people on this issue.
Of course.
The Russian people is known to be very active in their support for their government. In fact, in the last parliamentary elections, the voter turnout was up to 146%.
But then also LMAO at people who think they can bathe half the globe in a radio signal and then decide who is allowed to decode it.
Seems to me that the people that are wealthy/powerful/influential enough to actually decide what you are allowed to do with the signal, should be the ones laughing their asses off at you.
That's why you should have immigrated to Canada, the last bastion of freedom, where the government would never dream of passing Bill 31 that would criminalize all DRM circumvention regardless of cause and intent.
And is the warm feeling of standing up for your principles when you know, at the current moment, it's a doomed effort worth increasing the chance the 'greater evil' will win?
Consider a purely hypothetical situation.
Imagine that there are no "greater" evil nor "lesser" evils. Instead, there are two factions which are *equally* evil, differing only in details. Say, for example, one boils kittens while the other fries puppies. What if those factions discovered a sweet setup, wherein they can get the people to consider any of them to be a "lesser" evil based on personal preferences and ensure their support by playing on fears of a "greater" evil winning? If a Knight in Shiny Armour would arise, promising to deliver the poor pets from their fate, he will get no traction. The dog-loving people would be afraid to support him, lest it leads to a victory of the puppy fryers; and, similarly, the cat-loving people's concern would be that the kitten boilers may prevail. All it would take is talking loudly about "splitting your vote", "throwing your vote away", etc. in the media, to doom all present and future KiShAs to irrelevancy.
Now let us add some "special interest" groups to the equation. E.g., the Kill All Baby Pets corporation, that can secure some benefits (legal or otherwise) when either "evil" faction is in power, Such groups will also strive to perpetuate the notion that your only options is to support the "lesser evil" -- for their own benefit, of course.
After concluding our little thought experiment, let me ask you this: Should, entropy forbid, the people in power get wind of this idea and put it into practice, what will you do? Come to think of it, what if the game is already on? Politics is a tough game and most top-level players are pretty smart and devious.
Countries allow this sort of abuse because the right people (or entities) have been bribed.
Not necessarily. Another explanation is that those countries' governments completely agree with the actions but would rather not perform them themselves for fear of voter backlash.
What happens if the police do actual damage to important infrastructure. Either civic or private? Or if police introduce a vulnerability that allows the above?
The same things that usually happens when the police fucks up. They falsify a report, investigate themselves and continue as if nothing happened.
If we ignore for a moment the particulars of the case, it does raise an interesting question: Why is it that chemistry (for example) is on the mandatory curricular and creative writing and music (for example) are not?
In other words: what is, or rather - what should be, the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of subjects in the mandatory curriculum?
Disclaimer: When I went to highschool (a long time ago, in a country far far away), all my subjects were compulsory.
[the maiming and killing must be ok with them] but speech that triggers violent behaviour in religious whackjobs must be curtailed!
You fail to understand. Please pay attention.
The speech that has to be curtailed is dissenting speech. Unfortunately, there's this pesky "free speech" thingie that interferes with quashing dissent. Therefore, free speech rights must be weakened to the point of ineffectiveness. However, there must be a semi-plausible excuse for doing it, as the truth is somewhat politically inconvenient. Enter "speech that triggers violent behaviour in religious whackjobs" as the candidate.
"Maiming and killing", on the other hand is perfectly OK, since it very rarely directed toward people in power (when it does, it is usually preceded by other sorts of dissent, the solution to which was outlined in the paragraph above). No, "maiming and killing" is mostly employed by the powers against dissenters, and therefore should be legitimized.
When you have the bigger guns but your opponent has the bigger megaphones, what threat should you try to neutralize first?
The real problem is that due to his role in history, he became a role model for Muslims. According to Islam, as the prophet and the seal of the prophets, pretty much nothing he said or did could be wrong (except where he explicitly changed his position on something later), and his life is something that should be emulated in all respects.
Devil's advocate: So if he were alive today, is it feasible that he would have "explicitly changed his position on [child marriage] later"?
And the guy was certainly not a hippie, and there's no way to re-interpret him as such, like many Christians today do with Jesus. Aside from that whole story with Aisha, he led raiding parties on "unbelievers", forcing them into submission. He also ordered to execute his political opponents for mocking his faith or himself personally. And so on, and so forth...
You'll get no argument from me, so there is no need to tack on extra trumped-up charges where the existing ones will suffice.
This is going off topic, but it's OK with me, since the new topic is also worth discussing.
Mass warrantless surveillance in supposedly free democratic countries was not normal in the past.
The main reason for this is probably that during most of the past, there was a lack both of surveillance technology and of supposedly free democratic countries.
So you are saying that a "free democratic countr[y]" which is free of mass survailance is not a normal state of affairs but a temporary aberration?
Slavery was normal in the past. Women without rights was normal in the past. Little boys "serving" soldiers was normal in the past. Killing someone for allowing herself to be raped was normal in the past.
Trolling much?
Please read the following carefully:
Firstly, if you (or another AC, I have no means to differentiate among you) are going to deride Mohammad for acting in ways considered normal at the time, you should deride EVERYBODY that adhered to, or even tacitly supported, those customs. Singling out a single person just because he happened to get famous is disingenuous.
Secondly, while I agree that, on the aggregate, things are much improved nowadays, some things are getting worse. Mass warrantless surveillance in supposedly free democratic countries was not normal in the past. Neither were the criminalization of sexting, or "harming of virtual children". Getting irradiated or fondled in airports was not normal in the past. And don't get me started about extra-judicial killings and "renditions", Gitmo, Goldman-Sachs, etc.
Thirdly, there is no reason to assume that morals and ethics have reached their pinnacle and will not continue to change in the future. So, in several hundred years, should you be considered the scum of the earth just because during your lifetime you have acted according to the prevailing norms?
Now, in light of these three statements, would you care to clarify what exactly is your point?
Why do you and how can you think it was normal in any way? That's just a cheap excuse. A child is a child. The End.
My 8 years old son sometimes displays displays similar debating prowess when arguing. When that happens, I usually chide him for acting too childish for his age.
When I tried writing to my (Canadian) MP, Costas Menegakis, expressing concerns about the digital locks provisions in bill C-11 and the fact that they trump *all* consumer rights, the result was an exercise in frustration. The reply that I received, was a generic blurb extolling the virtues of the bill. There was no mention of digital locks whatsoever. I then wrote him again, expressing my disappointment that my original message was apparently not read at all, reiterated my concerns and asked him again to address them. The reply that I received that time was a propaganda piece to the effect that digital locks are the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. A lot of unsupported statements, zero facts. None of the points that I raised was addressed. I wrote the third time, quoting his propaganda piece and (politely) poked holes in each of the arguments. The reply to that message was... the same generic blurb that I got the first time.
That's when I blew a gasket.
After I calmed a little, I wrote another message, telling him that I believe that, as a representative of the riding, it is his duty to represent the residents, and I strongly feel that if he is not willing to at least listen to their concerns, not to mention actually addressing them, he is not doing his job. It took me several hours to compose this message because I had to redact all the statements that could hint at my true feelings toward that useless waste of space. I only sent it when I was satisfied that the result was fit for public consumption.
The reply? A generic message thanking me for my support...
The whole affair took a long time because apparently it took his office about a month to compose each useless reply.
Maybe it's because he's Conservative, but when the Liberal representative (Bryon Wilfert) was also less than helpful when I wrote him about pending legislation. However, he seemed to at least read my concerns, although he dismissed them out of hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, TFA says that a poll taken in July when the law was passed, shows that the Russian people support the blacklist 62% to 16%. The Russian government seems to have the support of the people on this issue.
Of course.
The Russian people is known to be very active in their support for their government.
In fact, in the last parliamentary elections, the voter turnout was up to 146%.
You cannot argue with such numbers.
LMAO at people who pirate television.
Agreed.
But then also LMAO at people who think they can bathe half the globe in a radio signal and then decide who is allowed to decode it.
Seems to me that the people that are wealthy/powerful/influential enough to actually decide what you are allowed to do with the signal, should be the ones laughing their asses off at you.
What's the Canadian equivalent of the ACLU?
Because we really need one.
That's why you should have immigrated to Canada, the last bastion of freedom, where the government would never dream of passing Bill 31 that would criminalize all DRM circumvention regardless of cause and intent.
Oh, wait... Never mind.
Thank you, Harper.
And is the warm feeling of standing up for your principles when you know, at the current moment, it's a doomed effort worth increasing the chance the 'greater evil' will win?
Consider a purely hypothetical situation.
Imagine that there are no "greater" evil nor "lesser" evils. Instead, there are two factions which are *equally* evil, differing only in details. Say, for example, one boils kittens while the other fries puppies. What if those factions discovered a sweet setup, wherein they can get the people to consider any of them to be a "lesser" evil based on personal preferences and ensure their support by playing on fears of a "greater" evil winning? If a Knight in Shiny Armour would arise, promising to deliver the poor pets from their fate, he will get no traction. The dog-loving people would be afraid to support him, lest it leads to a victory of the puppy fryers; and, similarly, the cat-loving people's concern would be that the kitten boilers may prevail. All it would take is talking loudly about "splitting your vote", "throwing your vote away", etc. in the media, to doom all present and future KiShAs to irrelevancy.
Now let us add some "special interest" groups to the equation. E.g., the Kill All Baby Pets corporation, that can secure some benefits (legal or otherwise) when either "evil" faction is in power, Such groups will also strive to perpetuate the notion that your only options is to support the "lesser evil" -- for their own benefit, of course.
After concluding our little thought experiment, let me ask you this:
Should, entropy forbid, the people in power get wind of this idea and put it into practice, what will you do?
Come to think of it, what if the game is already on? Politics is a tough game and most top-level players are pretty smart and devious.
Still want to vote for the "lesser evil"?
These people might never have seen a Gramma phone or a modern light bulb.
Compare and contrast:
A "Gramma" phone.
A gramophone.
Police can do whatever the fuck they want and they have zero accoutability.
I am genuinely curious: in what countries the police is held accountable for their actions?
If I lived in the USA, I would probably vote for Obama as smaller of two evils...
And when the reckoning comes, you will be remembered as one who chose to support one of the evils rather to oppose both of them.
Countries allow this sort of abuse because the right people (or entities) have been bribed.
Not necessarily.
Another explanation is that those countries' governments completely agree with the actions but would rather not perform them themselves for fear of voter backlash.
If you find a single biped not abusing sweeping privileges, please check for a pulse...
My wife gave me Sweeping Privileges, but I declined.
As he clearly said "a single biped", you do not qualify.
What happens if the police do actual damage to important infrastructure. Either civic or private?
Or if police introduce a vulnerability that allows the above?
The same things that usually happens when the police fucks up.
They falsify a report, investigate themselves and continue as if nothing happened.
Did you expect otherwise?
If we ignore for a moment the particulars of the case, it does raise an interesting question:
Why is it that chemistry (for example) is on the mandatory curricular and creative writing and music (for example) are not?
In other words: what is, or rather - what should be, the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of subjects in the mandatory curriculum?
Disclaimer:
When I went to highschool (a long time ago, in a country far far away), all my subjects were compulsory.
Nothing ever changes.
Even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day.
Still living in the analog era, I see.
[the maiming and killing must be ok with them] but speech that triggers violent behaviour in religious whackjobs must be curtailed!
You fail to understand. Please pay attention.
The speech that has to be curtailed is dissenting speech.
Unfortunately, there's this pesky "free speech" thingie that interferes with quashing dissent.
Therefore, free speech rights must be weakened to the point of ineffectiveness.
However, there must be a semi-plausible excuse for doing it, as the truth is somewhat politically inconvenient.
Enter "speech that triggers violent behaviour in religious whackjobs" as the candidate.
"Maiming and killing", on the other hand is perfectly OK, since it very rarely directed toward people in power (when it does, it is usually preceded by other sorts of dissent, the solution to which was outlined in the paragraph above).
No, "maiming and killing" is mostly employed by the powers against dissenters, and therefore should be legitimized.
When you have the bigger guns but your opponent has the bigger megaphones, what threat should you try to neutralize first?
Devil's advocate: So if he were alive today, is it feasible that he would have "explicitly changed his position on [child marriage] later"?
If he was born and raised in a modern culture, probably yes (I obviously don't believe him to be a Prophet and his behavior to be divinely guided).
Then we are in agreement.
There's no need to deride Muhammad for it.
The real problem is that due to his role in history, he became a role model for Muslims. According to Islam, as the prophet and the seal of the prophets, pretty much nothing he said or did could be wrong (except where he explicitly changed his position on something later), and his life is something that should be emulated in all respects.
Devil's advocate: So if he were alive today, is it feasible that he would have "explicitly changed his position on [child marriage] later"?
And the guy was certainly not a hippie, and there's no way to re-interpret him as such, like many Christians today do with Jesus. Aside from that whole story with Aisha, he led raiding parties on "unbelievers", forcing them into submission. He also ordered to execute his political opponents for mocking his faith or himself personally. And so on, and so forth...
You'll get no argument from me, so there is no need to tack on extra trumped-up charges where the existing ones will suffice.
This is going off topic, but it's OK with me, since the new topic is also worth discussing.
The main reason for this is probably that during most of the past, there was a lack both of surveillance technology and of supposedly free democratic countries.
So you are saying that a "free democratic countr[y]" which is free of mass survailance is not a normal state of affairs but a temporary aberration?
Slavery was normal in the past. Women without rights was normal in the past. Little boys "serving" soldiers was normal in the past. Killing someone for allowing herself to be raped was normal in the past.
Trolling much?
Please read the following carefully:
Firstly, if you (or another AC, I have no means to differentiate among you) are going to deride Mohammad for acting in ways considered normal at the time, you should deride EVERYBODY that adhered to, or even tacitly supported, those customs. Singling out a single person just because he happened to get famous is disingenuous.
Secondly, while I agree that, on the aggregate, things are much improved nowadays, some things are getting worse.
Mass warrantless surveillance in supposedly free democratic countries was not normal in the past. Neither were the criminalization of sexting, or "harming of virtual children". Getting irradiated or fondled in airports was not normal in the past. And don't get me started about extra-judicial killings and "renditions", Gitmo, Goldman-Sachs, etc.
Thirdly, there is no reason to assume that morals and ethics have reached their pinnacle and will not continue to change in the future. So, in several hundred years, should you be considered the scum of the earth just because during your lifetime you have acted according to the prevailing norms?
Now, in light of these three statements, would you care to clarify what exactly is your point?
Why do you and how can you think it was normal in any way? That's just a cheap excuse. A child is a child. The End.
My 8 years old son sometimes displays displays similar debating prowess when arguing.
When that happens, I usually chide him for acting too childish for his age.
If you are not aware that the definition of a "child" has changed throughout the ages, I suggest you do some research before you post.
A good place to start is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#History_and_social_attitudes
Any vote by the US Senate to ratify such UN action would be a direct violation of the Constitution which they swore to uphold.
So?
When I tried writing to my (Canadian) MP, Costas Menegakis, expressing concerns about the digital locks provisions in bill C-11 and the fact that they trump *all* consumer rights, the result was an exercise in frustration.
The reply that I received, was a generic blurb extolling the virtues of the bill. There was no mention of digital locks whatsoever.
I then wrote him again, expressing my disappointment that my original message was apparently not read at all, reiterated my concerns and asked him again to address them.
The reply that I received that time was a propaganda piece to the effect that digital locks are the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. A lot of unsupported statements, zero facts. None of the points that I raised was addressed.
I wrote the third time, quoting his propaganda piece and (politely) poked holes in each of the arguments.
The reply to that message was... the same generic blurb that I got the first time.
That's when I blew a gasket.
After I calmed a little, I wrote another message, telling him that I believe that, as a representative of the riding, it is his duty to represent the residents, and I strongly feel that if he is not willing to at least listen to their concerns, not to mention actually addressing them, he is not doing his job. It took me several hours to compose this message because I had to redact all the statements that could hint at my true feelings toward that useless waste of space. I only sent it when I was satisfied that the result was fit for public consumption.
The reply? A generic message thanking me for my support...
The whole affair took a long time because apparently it took his office about a month to compose each useless reply.
Maybe it's because he's Conservative, but when the Liberal representative (Bryon Wilfert) was also less than helpful when I wrote him about pending legislation. However, he seemed to at least read my concerns, although he dismissed them out of hand.
tl;dr: you're lucky to have a responsive MP.
What is the reason for this distinction?
Personally, I'm willing to give the NDP a chance.
But you can vote Green if you're inclined to.
I'd really like to hear what those who upvoted those two linked posts would say about this.
The /. moderation system makes this difficult.