Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Jul 2013 @ 5:56am
Re: Re: But...?
Sadly this is indeed true - copyright is indeed the "cake and eat it, oh and everyone else's cake too" law. Of course the ones primarily benefiting are also the ones bri - uh, "making substantial contributions" to political campaigns so even such obvious stupidity is unlikely to get fixed anytime soon. Reality (other than possibly at the quantum level) is not a high priority for applying copyright law.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:24pm
Re: Re: Re: Drones
Those Predator drones are pretty damn expensive. Certainly more so than a standard Cessna airplane would be, and you don't really save anything in manpower costs because you still have to have someone flying the thing.
True enough. But then those are top-of-the-line toys for, among other things, battlefields. If it's just watching joe public you're interested in the pricetag is rather less. I know someone who basically built his own drone capable of fairly long range ariel photography on a pre-programmed flight path. Far as I know he didn't spend more than a couple of thousand on it...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Jul 2013 @ 9:03am
Re: Re: One Law to Rule Them All (as long as they are serfs)
A government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people has no ruling class.
"You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--", "There you go, bringing class into it again."
Couldn't resist... seriously though the US, like other "democracies" very definitely has something that
can only be described as a "ruling class" - What would you call it when most of the politicians either do no "work" other than being a politician or sitting on the boards of various companies etc getting exorbitant wages for a few hours work?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 5:39am
Re:
To have incredibly harsh penalties for even the pettiest crimes?
Not quite. The idea is to have incredibly harsh penalties for the pettiest crimes that have any potential to inconvenience or take small amounts or imaginary amounts of money from an entity with truck loads of it, while generating a comparative slap on the wrist for serious crimes.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 25 Jun 2013 @ 10:08am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty sure it used to be 16 but went up, so stuff that used to be legal now isn't.
It's 16, but you can't look at or appear in "adult images" until 18... so looking at real naked 16-year olds is apparently fine but not a picture of one... now that makes sense...
The argument is I believe that "looking at drawings might lead to a thirst for more 'real' things". No-one ever seems to consider or even acknowledge the flip-side to that coin where drawings might assuage the urge and prevent something actually bad...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 12:29pm
Re: Re: What terrorists?
You rightly accept that, and most people can understand how IT REDUCES activities that lead to auto deaths
No, I don't "rightly accept it" and statistics actually suggest it reduces auto deaths far less than you imagine if not actually increasing them (relatively). In the UK, road deaths have always declined on a consistent curve... until the government started focussing on "speeding" and vastly increased the police "surveillance" done to combat it in the 90's. Since then the curve has levelled off and road deaths have declined much more slowly.
The primary keys to avoiding road deaths are driver skill and vehicle safety improvements. These are barely affected by law never mind police surveillance. If the equivalent amount of money currently spent on surveillance were spent on driver education and training would have a far greater effect than many times as much spent on police enforcement. The same is true of "security" - there are far more cost-effective and less invasive ways to increase security than treating everyone as criminals.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 9:27am
Re: Re:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin
I always thought that he was copping-out when he said that. It ought to be "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, get neither liberty nor safety."
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 6:39am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Minor correction: we're a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Yeah, I know that... There are no democracies, though many governments (including the US) always refer to themselves as democratic.
Oddly, in this day-and-age and with modern communications and the internet a "true" democracy is in fact possible. Which makes one wonder why none exist or are in the process of being created... guess that kinda underlines your point, huh?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 5:24am
Re: Re: Re:
Also, why does each candidate require such a huge war-chest in order to campaign?
This! When it costs around $3M to be elected to the senate, around £1M to be elected to congress and $500M to be elected president it's clear that in the modern media world speech has become money and anyone with it has the loudest voice. That's nowhere close to democracy.
How you fix that I don't know.... maybe elections should be publically funded with each candidate given exactly the same budget.... but I've no idea how one enforces that.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 5:11am
Re: Re: President and Candidate not the same thing
Why was this comment flagged?
I'd tend to agree with you since it was mostly fairly innocuous, but if I had to guess it's because it has the tone of one of the regular trolls who has repeatedly shown themselves completely uninterested in "public discourse" in favour of ad-hom attacks (the pejorative "Masnick" is often the start) and "dissenting opinion" that ends up looking like the Argument Sketch
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 5:02am
Re: Re: Re:
your President said that, you agree with him,
I don't have a president and no, that's not what the quote says.
The phrasing sets up the idea that you can have 100% security if you remove "enough" privacy and convenience to do so. This is completely false, and in fact history has shown that beyond a certain point the opposite becomes true.
but that does not mean you MUST therefore have 0% security.
Again a false dichotomy and I suggested no such thing. Some security is achievable without any sacrifice of privacy.
The entire basis of the United States is supposed to be that one must be incredibly careful and deliberate and measure even the smallest sacrifice of such things as privacy and freedom against a collective gain for the country as a whole, meaning all the people in it not the government.
If such a calculation is found wanting it should not be considered acceptable. It is blatantly obvious that such calculation is not being performed anymore since most of the recent sacrifices have be undeniably large for security "gains" that achieve barely in increase in perceived security, never mind actual security.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 4:42am
Re:
When a supposedly healthy Democracy spends more time and effort fighting enemies from the inside than it does fighting enemies from the outside, you know that you don't live in a Democracy any more.
Looking at the your government's actions over the last few administrations I've come to the conclusion that the US is not any kind of democracy, but in fact a re-enactment of Animal Farm...
Sadly this is becoming more and more true of most "democracies", but the US usually paves the way
On the post: Making Mobile Video Streaming Better By Operating In The 'Unused Spectrum' Of Copyright Law
Re: Re: But...?
On the post: Making Mobile Video Streaming Better By Operating In The 'Unused Spectrum' Of Copyright Law
But...?
On the post: Border Patrol Drone Fleet Straying Far From The Borders When Not Being Loaned Out To Whatever Agency Comes Asking
Re: Re: Re: Drones
On the post: Copyright Claim By Freddie Mercury's Charity Results In Removal Of Another Charity's Freddie Mercury Gorilla
Could have been worse...
On the post: TSA's Instagram Account Full Of Confiscated Weapons Photos Only Looks Like 'Safety'
Re:
/sarc
On the post: James Clapper Admits He Lied To Congress; His Punishment Will Likely Be A High Paying Private Sector Job
Re: Re: One Law to Rule Them All (as long as they are serfs)
Couldn't resist... seriously though the US, like other "democracies" very definitely has something that
can only be described as a "ruling class" - What would you call it when most of the politicians either do no "work" other than being a politician or sitting on the boards of various companies etc getting exorbitant wages for a few hours work?
On the post: Broadcasters To FCC: Now That Our Audience Is Gone, Can We Swear More?
Re: Re: Minion cheers lowering standard.
On the post: Leaked Document Shows EU Approach To Cybercrime Is Completely Misguided
Re:
On the post: Clueless Spanish Politicians Want To Join The Government Malware Club
Wow!
This is so mind-bendingly dumb you have to wonder if it's deliberate.
On the post: Contrary To The Claims Of Grandstanding Politicians, Child Porn Is Very Difficult To Stumble Onto Accidentally
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The argument is I believe that "looking at drawings might lead to a thirst for more 'real' things". No-one ever seems to consider or even acknowledge the flip-side to that coin where drawings might assuage the urge and prevent something actually bad...
On the post: Contrary To The Claims Of Grandstanding Politicians, Child Porn Is Very Difficult To Stumble Onto Accidentally
Re: Re:
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re: What terrorists?
The primary keys to avoiding road deaths are driver skill and vehicle safety improvements. These are barely affected by law never mind police surveillance. If the equivalent amount of money currently spent on surveillance were spent on driver education and training would have a far greater effect than many times as much spent on police enforcement. The same is true of "security" - there are far more cost-effective and less invasive ways to increase security than treating everyone as criminals.
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re:
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oddly, in this day-and-age and with modern communications and the internet a "true" democracy is in fact possible. Which makes one wonder why none exist or are in the process of being created... guess that kinda underlines your point, huh?
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re: Re:
How you fix that I don't know.... maybe elections should be publically funded with each candidate given exactly the same budget.... but I've no idea how one enforces that.
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re: President and Candidate not the same thing
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re: Re:
The phrasing sets up the idea that you can have 100% security if you remove "enough" privacy and convenience to do so. This is completely false, and in fact history has shown that beyond a certain point the opposite becomes true.
Again a false dichotomy and I suggested no such thing. Some security is achievable without any sacrifice of privacy.
The entire basis of the United States is supposed to be that one must be incredibly careful and deliberate and measure even the smallest sacrifice of such things as privacy and freedom against a collective gain for the country as a whole, meaning all the people in it not the government.
If such a calculation is found wanting it should not be considered acceptable. It is blatantly obvious that such calculation is not being performed anymore since most of the recent sacrifices have be undeniably large for security "gains" that achieve barely in increase in perceived security, never mind actual security.
On the post: Obama Administration Has Declared War On Whistleblowers, Describes Leaks As 'Aiding The Enemy'
Re:
Sadly this is becoming more and more true of most "democracies", but the US usually paves the way
Next >>