AFAIK, they're not Jewish Commie Crab people, but they're definitely lawyers.
OK, fair enough. But, I'm sure that at least one of their party is Jewish, but I don't see any accusations (except racist trolls, but they conflated Jews with rich people anyway) that they pass any Jew-favouring laws. You see, it doesn't follow that just because the party has x percentage of y minority, that y minority runs the party. That's because they're professional politicians, capable, on the whole, of putting their personal preferences aside in order to ensure their re-election.
The Democrat party protects a lot of the really degenerate behavior you see from our modern legal system, because... they're a party of lawyers. Simple enough explanation, isn't it? No conspiracy theory needed.
So they do it out of the kindness hearts? There's no collusion between them and lawyers to scratch each others backs? They are willing to alienate voters in order to pay unsolicited and unreciprocated favours to their ex-profession?
I assumed conspiracy theory, because the theory without the conspiracy makes no sense, despite its consummate simplicity.
Lawyers ARE the tyrants these days. We basically live in a lawyerocracy; look how many corrupt lawyers there are in congress, the white house, etc...
Jews ARE the tyrants these days. We basically live in a jewocracy; look how many corrupt jews there are in congress, the white house, etc...
Commies ARE the tyrants these days. We basically live in a commiocracy; look how many corrupt communist pinkos there are in congress, the white house, etc...
Crab People ARE the tyrants these days. We basically live in a crabocracy; look how many corrupt Crab People there are in congress, the white house, etc...
Spot the difference between the seemingly identical statements!
A lawyer's job is very similar to a politician's job. They both basically debate for a living. The transition of lawyer to politician is extremely natural. It, in no way, follows that because there are a lot of ex-lawyers in politics, that lawyers have formed some kind of conspiracy to rule the world. Or maybe that's their mind-control ray telling me to say that.
it's gotten to the point where the few honest lawyers will actually tell you that NOBODY KNOWS how many possible federal crimes there are - you can't go two steps without theoretically breaking the law somehow.
The phrase "they're always guilty of something"? The lawyers made it so.
Again, it doesn't quite follow, and again you are failing to differentiate between lawyers and politicians. Just because we have a complex legal system, doesn't imply a conspiracy of lawyers! Nor does it mean that we have a conspiracy of politicians. What it does mean is that determining what is right and wrong is a complex issue. If you're too broad, then you end up punishing essentially innocent people doing nothing intuitively wrong. If you make it too lax, then you get people ruthlessly exploiting loopholes, of which you can do nothing about. It is, in fact, in our interests to make the law complex, for humanity is complex.
Oh, and for the record, I have never met a person, lawyer or not, who claims that the number of federal crimes is known by anyone. The only dishonesty I can see is your intellectual dishonesty, insinuating that some lawyers basically lie for the sake of it.
While we are refining threats to capitalism (and democracy), I think you'll find that it's not the fact that lobbyists are representing corporations, more that corporations are obscenely rich, and can afford lobbyists. Would it change your mind if it was an individual pushing a law you disagree with, instead of a corporation? The system should be more or less invariant to the amount of money you have, and the problem is that isn't towards the "very rich" end of the scale. We desperately need some kind of reform over lobbying laws, regardless of where the money comes from.
What is it specifically you don't like about copyright and patent laws? Is it the whole thing; the whole concept? Or is it just parts (e.g. term lengths, DMCA, no protection of fair use, etc)? I don't know, perhaps it is the whole thing, and perhaps you should be violating every copyright and patent you can see. However, that being the case, good luck finding enough people for a political movement. Sure, they exist, but most people you talk to can see some utility in copyright and patent law, including most judges.
If it's not so much the entire bundle as it is certain parts, try to focus on those parts. Perhaps, if you object to DMCA, restrict yourself to distributing cracks for popular games. Or if you dislike term lengths, perhaps violate only the copyrights that are older than 20-30 years. Try to violate only what you object to.
An even better approach would be to divorce yourself from copyrighted media (or the elements you dislike). Prove to people that you, and they, can live without $BAD_FACTOR_OF_COPYRIGHT and everything that it could possibly bring. Prove that we are better off without it. It's certainly no less harmful to Big Media.
There's a lot of greed in play in the copyright debate. Not just on Big Media's side, but on both sides. It's difficult to differentiate between those who want change and those who want free stuff. Make it unavoidably clear, whatever you do, that you are not in it for the entertainment.
Unfortunately the government lackeys and christian rights groups continue to scream "CHILDREN!!!" and "PEDOPHILIA!!!!" and no real logic ever comes into play.
I decided to put your claims to the test. So far, all I've ever seen are these comments screamed by people trying to mock government lackeys or christian rights groups, and this mocking has been, more often than not, the extent of logic used in such comments. So, I searched "australia filtering internet" in Google, and went to the first result with anything where the government/christians had a voice. I first came to this page:
Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.
"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.
"The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children being exposed to such material."
He says the Government will not determine what is blacklisted on the internet in Australia, rather an independent body will determine what sites are rated as RC for refused classification.
Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material which has been refused classification in other countries.
This would include sites containing child sex abuse, bestiality, sexual violence or detailed information about how to use drugs or commit crimes.
The filtering trial attracted criticism from some who said it would not work and would slow internet speeds.
But Senator Conroy says the trial has been successful.
"Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 per cent accuracy," he said.
"It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed."
Not a lot of logic here, but there's only so much of your research you can include in such a small space, and you wouldn't want to explain yourself particularly much, since most opponents will have already set their minds against such a proposal, no matter how much you explain yourself. But, the key things here are that he does mention children, but he clearly does not limit himself to children. He believes this true for all Australians.
He notes particularly that (as the government believes) parents want some help keeping such content away from their children. So, not for the government to do the parenting for the parents, but to help. So, if little Timmy decides to go over to Katie's house, the parents don't have to come over as well, and breathe down their necks. Whether you agree with the filter or not, you have to admit that the filter isn't redundant under the assumption of perfect parenting. The filtering of everyone, assuming it's effective, serves a function that parents cannot achieve alone.
He also points out that the body maintaining the filter will be "independent", which, I suppose, is a logical response to some people's fear of government power and opacity.
So, yeah, right or wrong, he seems pretty reasonable, just like many opponents of the filter. It's a pity so few of them make it here on slashdot.
Rule #1 - Any positive comments about Apple will get you modded troll it seems. Slashdot has turned from rational thinking and actual intelligent discourse in regards to Apple to simply "they are anti-geek or anti-hacker and therefore evil". ... I don't even know why I'm posting this. It will be modded into obscurity shortly anyway (see Rule #1).
As unfair as it is to be classified as anti-geek for rational thinking, it is not unfair to be classified anti-geek for carelessly tossing in a GOTO 10 line into your comment.:-D
Yeah, they're OK, but they're only really prevalent in the low cost plans. Pirates are addicted and enslaved to ISPs for life (barring an uncommonly massive force of will/conscience).
Understanding my point requires the ability to read this thread.
Not to mention some subtlety and the ability to rise over groupthink.
Not to "accuse" you of being an Apple apologist, but these days, I find them to be some of the more refreshingly alternative thinkers here on slashdot. The "Rahr, rahr, rahr, corporations are evil, politicians are corrupt, lawyers are the source of the world's problems" train of thought is wearing very thin. You can only bolster conventional wisdom so far with baseless accusations.
Pirates are any ISP's best customers. Once a pirate is hooked, then they're not likely to stop or downgrade their internet service. If anything, they'll upgrade their internet service.
If the ISP charges for the bandwidth they use, even better.
Absolutely. The measurable scientific scale of how much popcorn the AC throws at the screen during a screening, divided by the length of time he decides to sit through it.
It has therefore been proven that Ghost is the best movie ever made, because the AC finds Patrick Swayze sooooo dreamy!
You know, I was just reading your review, and thinking it was the perfect popcorn review. It had all the information you need, fairly light on spoilers (just the cave really), with fun language ("grinning like a 12-yr old"), spiced with some humour ("Don't let Osama get a hold of this guy.") and trivia ("It really should have been a mess but somehow wasn't.").
If you weren't already at +5, I would suggest mods to mod you up!
The existence of an avenue of distraction causes you to distract yourself, because had no avenues of distraction existed, you would not have distracted yourself. So, slashdot, being one such distraction, partially causes you to waste time at work. If it, and every other distracting past-time you enjoy had not existed, you would not be wasting time at work. It's a bit of a pointless argument because it's not actually possible to remove sources of distraction, as they can be found absolutely everywhere.
But this is distinct from blame, which lies on you (and does not originate from me, since I am doing the same thing;-)
Gravity causes things to fall to earth. So does placing objects above the ground. So, if I drop your $300,000 convertible from the roof of a skyscraper, the gravity and my placing it there caused the car to fall, but it is me who is to blame.
Anyway, the semantics of this argument is not what's interesting. What's interesting is whether lying should be protected as right, and if so, under what circumstances. I wasn't really joining this conversation, more trying to defuse Dunbal's attempt to turn interesting subject matter into yet another pointless demonstration of the prevalence of the/. groupthink.
The fact that the vandal vandalised out of free will doesn't mean the accusation didn't cause the vandal to do what he did. All it means is that the vandal is at fault. Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of free will?
Whether the rumor was true or not, there is no justification in vandalizing their house.
I never claimed otherwise. Just like the OP never claimed that a lie vandalised the house.
It's not the lie per se that caused "damage" but some idiot who used it as an excuse to break the law.
Look, you can't ignore causal bonds because they don't square with your world view (just like you can't ignore my, or the OP's, intelligence for the same reason). Yes, some idiot used it, without justification, as an excuse for vandalising some guy's house, but, had the accusation never come, the house would never have been vandalised. Now, this means the vandal is at fault, and the vandal did cause the vandalism, but at the same time, the accusation caused the vandal to do what he did.
If we start censoring the truth because of people's (bad) behavior, we might as well give up on speech altogether, because there will ALWAYS be a fringe element that resorts to violent anti-social behavior.
It's interesting that you use the phrase "censoring the truth", which is clearly not what the OP, or I, was talking about. The OP was talking about lying, and whether it should be viewed as a right (this isn't even talking about legality yet), and I was talking about your little strawman.
Slashdot Mirror
So I take that neither you nor the OP are voters?
Indeed. The GP should not have mixed terms. There's nothing more gay than mixing "dick" and "smart-ass".
Nope. That's completely false. Thus you have no right to think of it.
OK, fair enough. But, I'm sure that at least one of their party is Jewish, but I don't see any accusations (except racist trolls, but they conflated Jews with rich people anyway) that they pass any Jew-favouring laws. You see, it doesn't follow that just because the party has x percentage of y minority, that y minority runs the party. That's because they're professional politicians, capable, on the whole, of putting their personal preferences aside in order to ensure their re-election.
So they do it out of the kindness hearts? There's no collusion between them and lawyers to scratch each others backs? They are willing to alienate voters in order to pay unsolicited and unreciprocated favours to their ex-profession?
I assumed conspiracy theory, because the theory without the conspiracy makes no sense, despite its consummate simplicity.
Spot the difference between the seemingly identical statements!
A lawyer's job is very similar to a politician's job. They both basically debate for a living. The transition of lawyer to politician is extremely natural. It, in no way, follows that because there are a lot of ex-lawyers in politics, that lawyers have formed some kind of conspiracy to rule the world. Or maybe that's their mind-control ray telling me to say that.
Again, it doesn't quite follow, and again you are failing to differentiate between lawyers and politicians. Just because we have a complex legal system, doesn't imply a conspiracy of lawyers! Nor does it mean that we have a conspiracy of politicians. What it does mean is that determining what is right and wrong is a complex issue. If you're too broad, then you end up punishing essentially innocent people doing nothing intuitively wrong. If you make it too lax, then you get people ruthlessly exploiting loopholes, of which you can do nothing about. It is, in fact, in our interests to make the law complex, for humanity is complex.
Oh, and for the record, I have never met a person, lawyer or not, who claims that the number of federal crimes is known by anyone. The only dishonesty I can see is your intellectual dishonesty, insinuating that some lawyers basically lie for the sake of it.
Meh. I've seen better.
While we are refining threats to capitalism (and democracy), I think you'll find that it's not the fact that lobbyists are representing corporations, more that corporations are obscenely rich, and can afford lobbyists. Would it change your mind if it was an individual pushing a law you disagree with, instead of a corporation? The system should be more or less invariant to the amount of money you have, and the problem is that isn't towards the "very rich" end of the scale. We desperately need some kind of reform over lobbying laws, regardless of where the money comes from.
What is it specifically you don't like about copyright and patent laws? Is it the whole thing; the whole concept? Or is it just parts (e.g. term lengths, DMCA, no protection of fair use, etc)? I don't know, perhaps it is the whole thing, and perhaps you should be violating every copyright and patent you can see. However, that being the case, good luck finding enough people for a political movement. Sure, they exist, but most people you talk to can see some utility in copyright and patent law, including most judges.
If it's not so much the entire bundle as it is certain parts, try to focus on those parts. Perhaps, if you object to DMCA, restrict yourself to distributing cracks for popular games. Or if you dislike term lengths, perhaps violate only the copyrights that are older than 20-30 years. Try to violate only what you object to.
An even better approach would be to divorce yourself from copyrighted media (or the elements you dislike). Prove to people that you, and they, can live without $BAD_FACTOR_OF_COPYRIGHT and everything that it could possibly bring. Prove that we are better off without it. It's certainly no less harmful to Big Media.
There's a lot of greed in play in the copyright debate. Not just on Big Media's side, but on both sides. It's difficult to differentiate between those who want change and those who want free stuff. Make it unavoidably clear, whatever you do, that you are not in it for the entertainment.
I decided to put your claims to the test. So far, all I've ever seen are these comments screamed by people trying to mock government lackeys or christian rights groups, and this mocking has been, more often than not, the extent of logic used in such comments. So, I searched "australia filtering internet" in Google, and went to the first result with anything where the government/christians had a voice. I first came to this page:
Not a lot of logic here, but there's only so much of your research you can include in such a small space, and you wouldn't want to explain yourself particularly much, since most opponents will have already set their minds against such a proposal, no matter how much you explain yourself. But, the key things here are that he does mention children, but he clearly does not limit himself to children. He believes this true for all Australians.
He notes particularly that (as the government believes) parents want some help keeping such content away from their children. So, not for the government to do the parenting for the parents, but to help. So, if little Timmy decides to go over to Katie's house, the parents don't have to come over as well, and breathe down their necks. Whether you agree with the filter or not, you have to admit that the filter isn't redundant under the assumption of perfect parenting. The filtering of everyone, assuming it's effective, serves a function that parents cannot achieve alone.
He also points out that the body maintaining the filter will be "independent", which, I suppose, is a logical response to some people's fear of government power and opacity.
So, yeah, right or wrong, he seems pretty reasonable, just like many opponents of the filter. It's a pity so few of them make it here on slashdot.
No! Say it isn't so!
Since when was the Linux kernel "progress"? /complete and utter troll ;-)
As unfair as it is to be classified as anti-geek for rational thinking, it is not unfair to be classified anti-geek for carelessly tossing in a GOTO 10 line into your comment. :-D
Yeah, they're OK, but they're only really prevalent in the low cost plans. Pirates are addicted and enslaved to ISPs for life (barring an uncommonly massive force of will/conscience).
Not to mention some subtlety and the ability to rise over groupthink.
Not to "accuse" you of being an Apple apologist, but these days, I find them to be some of the more refreshingly alternative thinkers here on slashdot. The "Rahr, rahr, rahr, corporations are evil, politicians are corrupt, lawyers are the source of the world's problems" train of thought is wearing very thin. You can only bolster conventional wisdom so far with baseless accusations.
Pirates are any ISP's best customers. Once a pirate is hooked, then they're not likely to stop or downgrade their internet service. If anything, they'll upgrade their internet service.
If the ISP charges for the bandwidth they use, even better.
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
*facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm*
*bang head repeatedly against the wall*
Excuse me guys, but I'm going to go. My faith in human intelligence is shattered, and I think my head is bleeding.
Forget it. That fight's well and truly over.
How is this "siding with the public domain"? Does this, in any way, increase the number or quality of works in the public domain?
As far as I can see, all this ISP is doing is siding with pirates, their best customers.
Absolutely. The measurable scientific scale of how much popcorn the AC throws at the screen during a screening, divided by the length of time he decides to sit through it.
It has therefore been proven that Ghost is the best movie ever made, because the AC finds Patrick Swayze sooooo dreamy!
Well worth it IMHO
(I'm not joking here)
You know, I was just reading your review, and thinking it was the perfect popcorn review. It had all the information you need, fairly light on spoilers (just the cave really), with fun language ("grinning like a 12-yr old"), spiced with some humour ("Don't let Osama get a hold of this guy.") and trivia ("It really should have been a mess but somehow wasn't.").
If you weren't already at +5, I would suggest mods to mod you up!
The existence of an avenue of distraction causes you to distract yourself, because had no avenues of distraction existed, you would not have distracted yourself. So, slashdot, being one such distraction, partially causes you to waste time at work. If it, and every other distracting past-time you enjoy had not existed, you would not be wasting time at work. It's a bit of a pointless argument because it's not actually possible to remove sources of distraction, as they can be found absolutely everywhere.
But this is distinct from blame, which lies on you (and does not originate from me, since I am doing the same thing ;-)
Gravity causes things to fall to earth. So does placing objects above the ground. So, if I drop your $300,000 convertible from the roof of a skyscraper, the gravity and my placing it there caused the car to fall, but it is me who is to blame.
Anyway, the semantics of this argument is not what's interesting. What's interesting is whether lying should be protected as right, and if so, under what circumstances. I wasn't really joining this conversation, more trying to defuse Dunbal's attempt to turn interesting subject matter into yet another pointless demonstration of the prevalence of the /. groupthink.
The fact that the vandal vandalised out of free will doesn't mean the accusation didn't cause the vandal to do what he did. All it means is that the vandal is at fault. Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of free will?
I never claimed otherwise. Just like the OP never claimed that a lie vandalised the house.
Look, you can't ignore causal bonds because they don't square with your world view (just like you can't ignore my, or the OP's, intelligence for the same reason). Yes, some idiot used it, without justification, as an excuse for vandalising some guy's house, but, had the accusation never come, the house would never have been vandalised. Now, this means the vandal is at fault, and the vandal did cause the vandalism, but at the same time, the accusation caused the vandal to do what he did.
It's interesting that you use the phrase "censoring the truth", which is clearly not what the OP, or I, was talking about. The OP was talking about lying, and whether it should be viewed as a right (this isn't even talking about legality yet), and I was talking about your little strawman.
Lol! Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Only if you believe that immoral should imply illegal, which should imply overzealous enforcement.