In that case we should get rid of all the weapons in the world, right?
Because we should just depend on the goodwill of the world, the goodwill of the government, because the government protects the people, am I right? I'm sorry, but I am not foolish enough to believe that weapons will never be necessary. There will always be a reason for people to have to have power to protect themselves, I just feel safer with that gun in my hand, then in someone else's.
We don't have this problem. Then again, in Texas people usually ask before trespassing. When someone can legally use lethal force to defend their property you don't take that risk as often.
"For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet. This clause would also negatively affect transparency and primary source journalism sites such as Wikileaks. "
Could this be used as a form of censure, because it makes criminal exchange of information which is not authorized. Basically any information the government doesn't want to get around, or say even corporations and businesses like the Church of Scientology or Microsoft. No more information about the exploits in the new windows, no more information about the underhanded tactics of powerful corporations. Maybe I am being extreme but this portion seems to be in violation of our rights, and if it is worded as you have put it could be fought in courts as unconstitutional, in the United States.
You know, you are right, can a company charge you for something then go out of its way to make that something happen?
I can't think of any ready examples of this in other corporate areas, but this can't really be entirely legal. If your service is metered and you pay for a certain amount then unless you sign a contract stating otherwise the ISP is responsible for the added bandwidth costs which they send you advertisements with. It wouldn't make sense for YOU to pay to be spammed with advertisements. That would be like paying for free TV.
The key thing to determine is which of these natural toxins and chemicals are body can continually clean our body of for the majority of our lifespan, but in the end, who really wants to live forever?
Obviously you've never been the victim of the waiting lines which afflict the Canadian health care system, where you with a degenerative condition finally get bumped up enough to some medical attention.
OK, in hindsight I hadn't heard of the matter in USSR and Africa. I do not have specific stories except for the basic derogatory attitude I see everyday even something like the Great Flying Spaghetti monster is a jab at religion.
What I meant by my above statement was in comparison on a larger scale. Things like the Crusades, and organized church controlling an entire country, as in The Church of England. Programs in Russia and other countries of persecution of Jews. I wasn't entirely pointing at religious persecution of science but a more general trend of religion taming itself down, something I consider good. The truth is religion is in a tough spot right now, and any strikes they actually make toward science are flawed as it only makes religion look bad. Science on the other hand is based on logic and experimentation something very solid that requires only a basic faith in a personal belief for you to make a new hypothesis. Religion on the other hand is a hypothesis for why we are here what we need to do with our lives, which doesn't exclude scientific pursuits.
I'm sorry I rambled off.. Basically I concede this argument to you as I cannot recall a story to give you, but I also make amend based on the fact that I was noticing an empowerment of science and a reduction of religion belief among modern Americans.
I made note of a changing view, obviously you haven't been following trends in history or else you would know that religion as a whole has become much more tame than it was at one time.
While science has become more persecutory of religious beliefs.
I am not saying that religion trying to undermine the truth doesn't happen, I am just noticing a general trend towards a different way of thinking. Your bias against religion shouldn't cloud your perspective that the world is slowly leaning towards a more tame religious belief and a more dominant scientific basis as a whole. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, what isn't necessary though is for scientists to try and correct the basic man in his beliefs based on religion.
You call me out on a sob story and yet you spew me one yourself.
Seems to me like he told them about the exploits waited a bit of time, and then started seeding this as a means of putting the heat on for them to get this fixed. If they hadn't started banning anyone who downloaded it, then this certainly would have pushed for a huge inrush of exploiters, forcing them to fix the problems.... Instead they found a loophole.
Unfortunately for you, you fail to understand why religion is important, of course that will be resolved soon by brain science.
What I meant though is, Science tells us the how, Religion is for the why. They don't need to conflict.
Not necessarily true, anonymous is also based strongly on anonymity. In fact anonymous describes people who try and draw attention to themselves in a very negative light, the only defense againt criticism from anonymous is to be anonymous. Thus why there are Anonymous and anonymous and those they call 'newfags'.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case we should get rid of all the weapons in the world, right?
Because we should just depend on the goodwill of the world, the goodwill of the government, because the government protects the people, am I right? I'm sorry, but I am not foolish enough to believe that weapons will never be necessary. There will always be a reason for people to have to have power to protect themselves, I just feel safer with that gun in my hand, then in someone else's.
We don't have this problem. Then again, in Texas people usually ask before trespassing. When someone can legally use lethal force to defend their property you don't take that risk as often.
unless they paid me money.
To start rigging my case with an explosive booby trap, oh wait lethals traps are illegal.
So what ARE my options then, because hell if I am going to stop downloading things on P2P.
Could this be used as a form of censure, because it makes criminal exchange of information which is not authorized. Basically any information the government doesn't want to get around, or say even corporations and businesses like the Church of Scientology or Microsoft. No more information about the exploits in the new windows, no more information about the underhanded tactics of powerful corporations. Maybe I am being extreme but this portion seems to be in violation of our rights, and if it is worded as you have put it could be fought in courts as unconstitutional, in the United States.
You know, you are right, can a company charge you for something then go out of its way to make that something happen?
I can't think of any ready examples of this in other corporate areas, but this can't really be entirely legal. If your service is metered and you pay for a certain amount then unless you sign a contract stating otherwise the ISP is responsible for the added bandwidth costs which they send you advertisements with. It wouldn't make sense for YOU to pay to be spammed with advertisements. That would be like paying for free TV.
You know the sad thing, this is the first funny moderated thread that I actually laughed out loud to, there is no hope for me now.
The key thing to determine is which of these natural toxins and chemicals are body can continually clean our body of for the majority of our lifespan, but in the end, who really wants to live forever?
Perhaps an all-power, omnipotent being can travel faster the speed of light.
Naaaaah, that's crazy talk!
Yeah, I am an organ donor and nothing wrong with that. I also have a nice life insurance policy.
We all start driving motorcycles, seriously you can't hear anything even if you have a headset, there is no way you can do anything besides drive!
First of all what wizardbooth said. "The definition of censorship doesn't depend on who is doing it."
Second of all we live in a capitalist society Companies are our government.
What is this Queer Eye for a Tech Guy? Since when do techies care about work decor?
Any news on those body suits that nullify the taser charge?
Pleeease. if the US was so anti-oppresive Regime we would be at China's doorstep right now.
Obviously you've never been the victim of the waiting lines which afflict the Canadian health care system, where you with a degenerative condition finally get bumped up enough to some medical attention.
OK, in hindsight I hadn't heard of the matter in USSR and Africa. I do not have specific stories except for the basic derogatory attitude I see everyday even something like the Great Flying Spaghetti monster is a jab at religion.
What I meant by my above statement was in comparison on a larger scale. Things like the Crusades, and organized church controlling an entire country, as in The Church of England. Programs in Russia and other countries of persecution of Jews. I wasn't entirely pointing at religious persecution of science but a more general trend of religion taming itself down, something I consider good. The truth is religion is in a tough spot right now, and any strikes they actually make toward science are flawed as it only makes religion look bad. Science on the other hand is based on logic and experimentation something very solid that requires only a basic faith in a personal belief for you to make a new hypothesis. Religion on the other hand is a hypothesis for why we are here what we need to do with our lives, which doesn't exclude scientific pursuits.
I'm sorry I rambled off.. Basically I concede this argument to you as I cannot recall a story to give you, but I also make amend based on the fact that I was noticing an empowerment of science and a reduction of religion belief among modern Americans.
I made note of a changing view, obviously you haven't been following trends in history or else you would know that religion as a whole has become much more tame than it was at one time. While science has become more persecutory of religious beliefs. I am not saying that religion trying to undermine the truth doesn't happen, I am just noticing a general trend towards a different way of thinking. Your bias against religion shouldn't cloud your perspective that the world is slowly leaning towards a more tame religious belief and a more dominant scientific basis as a whole. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, what isn't necessary though is for scientists to try and correct the basic man in his beliefs based on religion. You call me out on a sob story and yet you spew me one yourself.
Seems more and more like we have to worry less about Religion's intolerance of Science and more about Scientist's intolerance of religion.
Seems to me like he told them about the exploits waited a bit of time, and then started seeding this as a means of putting the heat on for them to get this fixed. If they hadn't started banning anyone who downloaded it, then this certainly would have pushed for a huge inrush of exploiters, forcing them to fix the problems.... Instead they found a loophole.
In America, Corporations ARE... erh own the government.
Unfortunately for you, you fail to understand why religion is important, of course that will be resolved soon by brain science. What I meant though is, Science tells us the how, Religion is for the why. They don't need to conflict.
Not necessarily true, anonymous is also based strongly on anonymity. In fact anonymous describes people who try and draw attention to themselves in a very negative light, the only defense againt criticism from anonymous is to be anonymous. Thus why there are Anonymous and anonymous and those they call 'newfags'.
That the 5 worst scientist drink a lot, I would drink a lot too if I was that kind of failure.