"The US then took this evidence out of the country without permission."
It's worse than that. They took it out of the country against the explicit instructions of the judge. That's the "rule of law" that Mike's referring to, a simple fact that our anonymous friend seems to be struggling with.
Can you explain why you're so tired of this, and why we should just all shut up and let journalists get censored by corporate and/or government interests?
"I really don't see a problem with twitter having a standard rule for everyone and every situation when it comes to putting out email addresses, business or home."
Only in a very simplistic world (yours maybe?) does one rule cover all situations without causing stupid situations, like widely publicised email addresses being considered private.
"I think if you have issues with that kind of good manners to users then you're looking way to hard to find problems with things."
I think if you don't have an issue with NBC censoring a critical journalist then you're not looking hard enough.
"It's called classified information for a reason."
But unfortunately a lot of the info Wikileaks has released should not be classified, because it served no national security purpose and was merely embarrassing to those involved. That's not the way classifying of info should be used.
"If you tell an enemy state that classified information either directly or via an open website, that's still espionage and aiding an enemy."
Can you point to any evidence that any of America's enemies have been aided in any substantial or material way by Wikileaks releases? And no, confirming an already low opinion doesn't count.
"If wikileaks found out about plans to stop a terror attack and published them causing the attack to be directed elsewhere resulting in thousands dead... well... doesn't bear thinking about does it?"
You're right, your made-up fantasy doesn't bear thinking about, because it hasn't happened and is not going to happen.
"Journalists have to be responsible for their behaviours just as much as the Govt."
If a journalist has evidence of corporate or governmental misbehaviour that has strong public interest, it is irresponsible for that journalist to not publish it. Governments in particular should always operate under the fear that their actions could one day be made very public.
The real fun will be when some idiot is watching police and gets shot by the perp or gets hit by a car while standing in the road to watch - and then sues the police for letting him watch.
It's hilarious to watch you bang away at this, mistakenly thinking you're doing us all a favour criticising something that we all seem to understand much better than you.
It's a headline in an opinion blog. It's supposed to grab your attention. It's supposed to make you want to read further. It's a succinct summary of the resulting situation.
The more you argue against this the sillier you look.
"A 'sporting rifle' is, as far as I'm aware, any rifle that was made with sporting purposes in mind, ie hunting and competitive shooting (think speed and accuracy contests)."
I'd agree with that, which is why I have an issue with an AR-15 being defined as one.
"That being said, the gunman didn't have an assault rifle; he had a semi-automatic sporting rifle based on an assault rifle frame. In other words, it looked like one, but it didn't function as one."
Apart from not being fully automatic, in what way did it not function like an assault rifle? And what exactly is a "sporting" rifle? What sports do you compete in with one?
"Oh, and if that was a backhanded insult on the Swedish..."
Nope, just pointing out that they're obviously far better behaved with guns than Americans are. Their statistics do nothing to prove tighter gun control isn't required in the US.
"Copyright is for a limited time, and you know it."
Your definition of unlimited has gone well beyond any reasonable definition of the word in this context. It's absurd to think any creator needs life+70 to both encourage future work and make a living. I'd love to see you explain exactly how such a ridiculously long time is needed, and why it needs to be so much longer than was originally intended.
"You hate artists by not supporting them if they choose to exercise their statutory rights. You hate artists by always siding with the pirates and making excuses for piracy. You hate [blah, blah, blah]..."
That's an impressively emotional list, but none of them are actually examples of hating anything, much less artists. Perhaps if you weren't so ridiculously hyperbolic in your claims you might get taken a bit more seriously.
"If you really didn't hate artists, you wouldn't run the biggest pirate-apologist blog on the planet."
Or you could just double down on the hyperbole. Yeah, that'll work...
Please don't compare gun deaths to car deaths as some kind of excuse against control. As terrible as car death rates are, the car's usefulness to society is orders of magnitude huger than the gun's. They should simply never be compared in these terms.
There are no good reasons whatsoever for needing an assault rifle and a large-capacity magazine. These sorts of things should be extremely hard to obtain, but they're not.
"And a person determined to cause that much havok wouldn't be limited by gun restrictions."
Of course he would. The harder it is to get something, the harder it is to get! Simple. He may have been determined to do something, but the scale of what he did was a direct result of how easily the items were obtained.
"Again, why is banning guns, disarming the population, the answer?"
Strawman argument, nobody is suggesting that is a realistic option.
"Countries like Sweden have a far higher rate of gun owners, but a far lower rate of gun related homicides."
So Americans are less law-abiding, less responsible, and more murderous than the Swedish. That's not something to be proud of.
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
Re: None so blind...
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
Re: Re: Re:
And you'll continue to be ridiculed and your opinions dismissed as a result. That's just how adults treat rude children.
"If he wants to prove me wrong, he can jump into the comments and defend himself."
You really don't understand how this open commenting thing works do you? Poor boy.
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
Re: Re:
It's worse than that. They took it out of the country against the explicit instructions of the judge. That's the "rule of law" that Mike's referring to, a simple fact that our anonymous friend seems to be struggling with.
On the post: Biggest Critic Of NBC's Awful Olympic Coverage Has Twitter Account Suspended For Tweeting NBC Exec's Email
Re:
On the post: Biggest Critic Of NBC's Awful Olympic Coverage Has Twitter Account Suspended For Tweeting NBC Exec's Email
Re:
Only in a very simplistic world (yours maybe?) does one rule cover all situations without causing stupid situations, like widely publicised email addresses being considered private.
"I think if you have issues with that kind of good manners to users then you're looking way to hard to find problems with things."
I think if you don't have an issue with NBC censoring a critical journalist then you're not looking hard enough.
On the post: Ubisoft DRM Fiasco: Allows Any Website To Take Control Of Your Computer
Re: This is not a rootkit
On the post: More And More People Sign On To The Declaration Of Internet Freedom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. Prove it.
On the post: Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
Re:
But unfortunately a lot of the info Wikileaks has released should not be classified, because it served no national security purpose and was merely embarrassing to those involved. That's not the way classifying of info should be used.
"If you tell an enemy state that classified information either directly or via an open website, that's still espionage and aiding an enemy."
Can you point to any evidence that any of America's enemies have been aided in any substantial or material way by Wikileaks releases? And no, confirming an already low opinion doesn't count.
"If wikileaks found out about plans to stop a terror attack and published them causing the attack to be directed elsewhere resulting in thousands dead... well... doesn't bear thinking about does it?"
You're right, your made-up fantasy doesn't bear thinking about, because it hasn't happened and is not going to happen.
"Journalists have to be responsible for their behaviours just as much as the Govt."
If a journalist has evidence of corporate or governmental misbehaviour that has strong public interest, it is irresponsible for that journalist to not publish it. Governments in particular should always operate under the fear that their actions could one day be made very public.
On the post: Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
Re: Re: Re:
You do realise the Wikleaks has been releasing unclassified and non-government info for years, and continues to do so, right?
Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to criticise an organisation you know so little about.
On the post: DC Police Chief Lays Down New Cell/Camera Policy: 'Don't Seize. Don't Delete. Don't Interfere.'
Re:
You won't get away with doing that with a camera for the same reason you won't get away with doing that without a camera.
Stupid AC comment is stupid.
On the post: DC Police Chief Lays Down New Cell/Camera Policy: 'Don't Seize. Don't Delete. Don't Interfere.'
Re:
Oh wait, that's how it's always been...
On the post: Disappointing: Craigslist Sues Padmapper For Making Craigslist More Useful & Valuable
Re: Re: Re:
It's a headline in an opinion blog. It's supposed to grab your attention. It's supposed to make you want to read further. It's a succinct summary of the resulting situation.
The more you argue against this the sillier you look.
On the post: More And More People Sign On To The Declaration Of Internet Freedom
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two possibilities:
You're lying, making vague threats which are not very threatening.
Or, you actually are demonstrating obsessive/compulsive tendencies, because what you describe is not normal behaviour.
I'd drop this lame line of attack because I'd be embarrassed to admit to either option.
On the post: Press Speculates Batman Shooter Must Have Played Video Games; They're Right: He Loved Guitar Hero
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd agree with that, which is why I have an issue with an AR-15 being defined as one.
On the post: Press Speculates Batman Shooter Must Have Played Video Games; They're Right: He Loved Guitar Hero
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apart from not being fully automatic, in what way did it not function like an assault rifle? And what exactly is a "sporting" rifle? What sports do you compete in with one?
"Oh, and if that was a backhanded insult on the Swedish..."
Nope, just pointing out that they're obviously far better behaved with guns than Americans are. Their statistics do nothing to prove tighter gun control isn't required in the US.
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your definition of unlimited has gone well beyond any reasonable definition of the word in this context. It's absurd to think any creator needs life+70 to both encourage future work and make a living. I'd love to see you explain exactly how such a ridiculously long time is needed, and why it needs to be so much longer than was originally intended.
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an impressively emotional list, but none of them are actually examples of hating anything, much less artists. Perhaps if you weren't so ridiculously hyperbolic in your claims you might get taken a bit more seriously.
"If you really didn't hate artists, you wouldn't run the biggest pirate-apologist blog on the planet."
Or you could just double down on the hyperbole. Yeah, that'll work...
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you explain to the class how this would be disrespecting anyone's privacy?
On the post: Press Speculates Batman Shooter Must Have Played Video Games; They're Right: He Loved Guitar Hero
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Press Speculates Batman Shooter Must Have Played Video Games; They're Right: He Loved Guitar Hero
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are no good reasons whatsoever for needing an assault rifle and a large-capacity magazine. These sorts of things should be extremely hard to obtain, but they're not.
"And a person determined to cause that much havok wouldn't be limited by gun restrictions."
Of course he would. The harder it is to get something, the harder it is to get! Simple. He may have been determined to do something, but the scale of what he did was a direct result of how easily the items were obtained.
"Again, why is banning guns, disarming the population, the answer?"
Strawman argument, nobody is suggesting that is a realistic option.
"Countries like Sweden have a far higher rate of gun owners, but a far lower rate of gun related homicides."
So Americans are less law-abiding, less responsible, and more murderous than the Swedish. That's not something to be proud of.
Next >>