In the US there's this thing called freedom of the press. We have it because we decided long ago that the government should always be scrutinized. We've sort of proven that there is no slippery slope to the press invading and exposing peoples' private lives en masse.
And most people seem perfectly content to allow the contents of their lives to be copied and published online.
Probably redundant at this point but- what world are you living in? None of what you say is true. Wikileaks goes after Russia and China too, as well as lots of other governments. You are just basing your opinion on what you passively hear through the US media. Do some basic research. Go to wikileaks.org. You should have done that before you said anything in the first place. Secondly, are having your finances illegally blocked and being persecuted on trumped up rape charges to the point of being confined to the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid being shipped off to the US your idea of "safe"? The record of illegal and blatant US-led persecution of Wikileaks and Assange is pretty extensive.
No shit it's a dumb place. The least they could have done was turn the camera away from the chopper. It's so incredibly annoying and such a waste that when I should have been enjoying the wonderful panorama of four simultaneously erupting volcanoes I instead spent all that time listening to helicopter blades and staring at the helicoptor, trying to figure out how the camera was mounted. Why?
We had long ago decided on lots of things, but government and society changes their minds. The principles upheld in the Nuremberg Trials are one of those things that time and again it's been demonstrated that we as a society have changed our minds about. We have become the enemy.
I've been reading through here and waiting for someone to make this point. So Ortiz thought Swartz was mentally ill. Doesn't that make Ortiz even more culpable for his death through her actions?
I wonder if, on that basis, one could argue that any retroactive copyright extension is unconstitutional. It does nothing to encourage new works to extend the copyright on existing works by few years every few years. One might even make the argument that it discourages new works by allowing content management entities to continue to profit off of existing works.
Also also point out that the FAA allows plenty of things on planes absent any proof of their safety, such as books, and they allow plenty of proven unsafe things on planes, such as passengers.
Why hold consumer electronics to a different standard?
And do you have any evidence that proves it wasn't gremlins, or aliens, or your own latent psychic (and homicidal) subconscious abilities? That's why the "prove a negative" standard is so ridiculous, and no one outside the FAA uses it.
Yet with everything they check at the gate and won't let me board the plane with, they let me take any normal-looking electronic device on board. I can't take a bottle of water or fingernail clippers, but I can take a jammer disguised as an iPad.
I'm not making myself very clear. The problem is seed contamination. There have been several reports on/. of farmers whose crops were contaminated with GM genes through natural processes like pollination, from their neighbors' crops, even though they never intended to touch GM seed, and Monsanto sued them even though they had no contract with Monsanto. Because this problem stems from licensed genes that cannot be guaranteed to not propagate into the wild, this should already be within the FDA's purview, and they should be investigating it as a problem.
I don't have a problem with GM, it's the corporate licensing restriction and the threat that poses to our food supply and our freedom to manage it ourselves, a la Monsanto lawsuits against farmers whose crops were contaminated with their licensed GM.
So every time someone points out why an idea is bad, it's FUD?
The article states the FDA can't find anything harmful about the fish. We can very easily think of something harmful. Monsanto-like licensing restrictions and lawsuits when the GM fish eventually enters the general population will be very harmful.
Their answers are as farcical as the tax cut fundamentalists whose solution to every economic problem is more tax cuts. Their answer to gun violence is always more guns.
I was going to say something snarky and demand you give us a reason why, then I realized it was easier to simply do it.
Codename Lawful is the codename given to one of the participants in a Harvard behavioural experiment in the 60s that involved at one point humiliating the subjects and breaking them down to impotent rage. Lawful later became the Unabomber, presumably because that humiliating experienced caused him to believe society as evil.
But this situation doesn't really resemble that experiment, only marginally. Parent probably thinks the experience of being arrested and treated like a criminal will be so humiliating for the student that he will come to believe society as evil. I doubt that, it takes a lot more than an arrest to turn someone in to another Unabomber.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US there's this thing called freedom of the press. We have it because we decided long ago that the government should always be scrutinized. We've sort of proven that there is no slippery slope to the press invading and exposing peoples' private lives en masse.
And most people seem perfectly content to allow the contents of their lives to be copied and published online.
Probably redundant at this point but- what world are you living in? None of what you say is true. Wikileaks goes after Russia and China too, as well as lots of other governments. You are just basing your opinion on what you passively hear through the US media. Do some basic research. Go to wikileaks.org. You should have done that before you said anything in the first place. Secondly, are having your finances illegally blocked and being persecuted on trumped up rape charges to the point of being confined to the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid being shipped off to the US your idea of "safe"? The record of illegal and blatant US-led persecution of Wikileaks and Assange is pretty extensive.
No shit it's a dumb place. The least they could have done was turn the camera away from the chopper. It's so incredibly annoying and such a waste that when I should have been enjoying the wonderful panorama of four simultaneously erupting volcanoes I instead spent all that time listening to helicopter blades and staring at the helicoptor, trying to figure out how the camera was mounted. Why?
So were they just trying to make themselves feel better?
We had long ago decided on lots of things, but government and society changes their minds. The principles upheld in the Nuremberg Trials are one of those things that time and again it's been demonstrated that we as a society have changed our minds about. We have become the enemy.
I've been reading through here and waiting for someone to make this point. So Ortiz thought Swartz was mentally ill. Doesn't that make Ortiz even more culpable for his death through her actions?
She's a true Toys 'R' Us kid.
And a poutine finder.
Oh I wish I hadn't commented so I could have modded you up!
Can someone explain the reference to me? I tried visiting the link but it keeps redirecting me to some random uninteresting landing page.
Who will argue against it that has any kind of lobbying clout? Google?
I wonder if, on that basis, one could argue that any retroactive copyright extension is unconstitutional. It does nothing to encourage new works to extend the copyright on existing works by few years every few years. One might even make the argument that it discourages new works by allowing content management entities to continue to profit off of existing works.
This might have been reasonable more than 20 years ago, but it surely is not now. Or are you still blocking all traffic on port 80?
Also also point out that the FAA allows plenty of things on planes absent any proof of their safety, such as books, and they allow plenty of proven unsafe things on planes, such as passengers.
Why hold consumer electronics to a different standard?
Thirded. One example of bad regulation does is not an argument against effective regulation.
And do you have any evidence that proves it wasn't gremlins, or aliens, or your own latent psychic (and homicidal) subconscious abilities? That's why the "prove a negative" standard is so ridiculous, and no one outside the FAA uses it.
Also, not even the FAA attempted this bs convoluted argument. Why are you shilling for them?
Yet with everything they check at the gate and won't let me board the plane with, they let me take any normal-looking electronic device on board. I can't take a bottle of water or fingernail clippers, but I can take a jammer disguised as an iPad.
I'm not making myself very clear. The problem is seed contamination. There have been several reports on /. of farmers whose crops were contaminated with GM genes through natural processes like pollination, from their neighbors' crops, even though they never intended to touch GM seed, and Monsanto sued them even though they had no contract with Monsanto. Because this problem stems from licensed genes that cannot be guaranteed to not propagate into the wild, this should already be within the FDA's purview, and they should be investigating it as a problem.
I don't have a problem with GM, it's the corporate licensing restriction and the threat that poses to our food supply and our freedom to manage it ourselves, a la Monsanto lawsuits against farmers whose crops were contaminated with their licensed GM.
So every time someone points out why an idea is bad, it's FUD?
The article states the FDA can't find anything harmful about the fish. We can very easily think of something harmful. Monsanto-like licensing restrictions and lawsuits when the GM fish eventually enters the general population will be very harmful.
Their answers are as farcical as the tax cut fundamentalists whose solution to every economic problem is more tax cuts. Their answer to gun violence is always more guns.
I was going to say something snarky and demand you give us a reason why, then I realized it was easier to simply do it.
Codename Lawful is the codename given to one of the participants in a Harvard behavioural experiment in the 60s that involved at one point humiliating the subjects and breaking them down to impotent rage. Lawful later became the Unabomber, presumably because that humiliating experienced caused him to believe society as evil.
But this situation doesn't really resemble that experiment, only marginally. Parent probably thinks the experience of being arrested and treated like a criminal will be so humiliating for the student that he will come to believe society as evil. I doubt that, it takes a lot more than an arrest to turn someone in to another Unabomber.
Brilliant idea! Let's just wait for the gun violence tragedies to stop. THEN we'll do something about it.
Maybe the real problem is moralizing! God hates moralizers and punishes those lands that harbor them with violence and death.