 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
>> illegally copy stuff?
>
> Sure, if it means they can get loads of free music and movies. Human
> nature 101.
That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
porn dissemination! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
>>> illegally copy stuff?
>>
>> Sure, if it means they can get loads of free music and movies. Human
>> nature 101.
>
> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
> porn dissemination! o_O
>
You mean it wasn't? XD
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
>> porn dissemination! o_O
>>
>
> You mean it wasn't? XD
...this would radically alter my mental image of the US military. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> ...this would radically alter my mental image of the US military. o_O
>
Heh. I remember in just about every commissary and exchange there being
certain "top shelf" magazines available for purchase. Wouldn't change my
perception a bit ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>
>> ...this would radically alter my mental image of the US military. o_O
>>
>
> Heh. I remember in just about every commissary and exchange there being
> certain "top shelf" magazines available for purchase. Wouldn't change my
> perception a bit ...
So that's why there were so many weird pictures in FarCry then...?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ...this would radically alter my mental image of the US military. o_O
>>>
>>
>> Heh. I remember in just about every commissary and exchange there
>> being certain "top shelf" magazines available for purchase. Wouldn't
>> change my perception a bit ...
>
> So that's why there were so many weird pictures in FarCry then...?
>
? err What do you mean? (I've never played FarCry before) Now I'm afraid.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So that's why there were so many weird pictures in FarCry then...?
>
> ? err What do you mean? (I've never played FarCry before) Now I'm afraid.
Lots of the mercenary camps have magazines scattered around with
scantily-clad ladies in them. At least, I *think* that's what those 12
pixels are supposed to represent... kinda hard to tell.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> So that's why there were so many weird pictures in FarCry then...?
>>
>> ? err What do you mean? (I've never played FarCry before) Now I'm afraid.
>
> Lots of the mercenary camps have magazines scattered around with
> scantily-clad ladies in them. At least, I *think* that's what those 12
> pixels are supposed to represent... kinda hard to tell.
>
Oh.. yep. thats why :) Those mags were very available on the base, but
you couldn't find them off base in the city I lived in, where I lived
was known as part of the "bible belt". But the base had all of the
hustler and playboy you could ever want.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> > Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
> > traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
> The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to
> be OK, as long as it's peaceful.
And as long as you don't leave the "free speech zone"? ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
>>> traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
>
>> The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to
>> be OK, as long as it's peaceful.
>
> And as long as you don't leave the "free speech zone"? ;)
As I said, "supposed to". Yeah, it's pretty f'ing shameful around here
lately.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> And as long as you don't leave the "free speech zone"? ;)
Someone told me that the reason people used soapboxes to make speeches was
that there was a law that you couldn't speak against the government if you
were standing on the country's territory, or some similar wording. So they
stood on soapboxes to avoid touching the country's soil with their feet :)
I should probably check snopes.com about it right now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
> porn dissemination! o_O
>
Excuse me?
"The Internet is for Porn" remember?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Or being a soldier.
"Legal" doesn't mean "good", but ok...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
> to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
But you signed a contract saying they're allowed to do such throttling ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a
> different ISP.
They don't say that.
All ISPs say "you can't pirate stuff over our networks" (duh).
Some ISPs say "we may block stuff if we think it's good for the network"
(and it is; the BitTorrent protocol is a significant percentage of many
ISPs' traffic, so blocking it would "help the network")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
>> traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
>
> The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to
> be OK, as long as it's peaceful.
Well, exactly how can they "disrupt the government" while being "peaceful"?
You're suggesting that if they could find a way to prevent Congress
from going into session peacefully and indefinitely, then it'll be OK?
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Unfortunately, choice is rather limited in most places, due to
> government interference.
Could you elaborate? In a few isolated places in the US, the choice is
limited because the companies sued whenever the government tried
providing free Internet...
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a
> different ISP.
Which has the same clause in their TOS.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
>>> traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
>> The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to
>> be OK, as long as it's peaceful.
>
> Well, exactly how can they "disrupt the government" while being "peaceful"?
Well, OK. You can certainly disrupt government plans without disrupting
the government as such. That's kind of the wonders of democracy.
Sure, if you actually prevent the government from governing, you're
breaking the law.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Or being a soldier.
>
> "Legal" doesn't mean "good", but ok...
I wasn't saying whether it was legal *or* good, but only why "guns were
made". Most cops go their entire careers without having to shoot
anyone, let alone kill them.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Could you elaborate?
Each community selects a provider for cable and for local phone service.
Just like you don't really get a choice of provider for water or
electricity, if you don't like your cable TV provider, you're pretty
well screwed in most areas.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> limited because the companies sued whenever the government tried
> providing free Internet...
Oh, and yes, the government isn't supposed to do that sort of thing. :-)
I can understand why the private companies sued.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And we are not talking about lying and deceiving. We are talking about
> *expressing your opinion*, which is a rather different thing.
Like I said, fine so long as you don't cause any trouble with it (ie
blocking a road with a protest while you express your opinon loudly, or
persuading others to do some terrorist act, or damaging the image of some
other person or company for no reason, there are lots of reasons).
> A Finnish person posted an article in his blog citing, among other
> things,
> official crime statistics performed by certain groups of people and using
> words which some people consider derogatory
Publishing derogatory comments, especially when generalising about a certain
group of people is a very dangerous thing to do, and certainly not what most
people would call "without causing trouble".
If that's the worst (or best?) you can come up with, I think we're safe with
being free to express our opinions :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
>> traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
>
> The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to be
> OK, as long as it's peaceful.
>
> Disrupting traffic gets you in trouble for disrupting traffic, not for
> protesting.
>
> Unfortunately, I think a great number of on-the-street level cops are
> taking their clues from the high administrations and simply ignoring the
> law and misusing their privileges.
I saw a thing here a while back where a group of people were protesting
about something. There were literally twice as many police with shields and
guns compared to the protesters (who were armed with nothing). The police
were just waiting at a safe distance when suddenly the protesters started
destroying peoples gardens and ripping out fences and trees to throw at the
police. The police did nothing, they just stood there. Afterwards they
showed the state of these peoples gardens and interviewed them, basically
they couldn't believe it that the police did absolutely nothing to protect
their property.
If that is "free speech" and "freedom to express your opinion", then I want
it banned!
Mind you, the German police seem to take a very strong stance against anyone
who tries to protest violently against those nuclear waste trains. Someone
has chained or cemented themselves to the train tracks, no problem, where's
the angle grinder? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, exactly how can they "disrupt the government" while being
> "peaceful"?
Vote for someone else. Lobby your local politicians. Make a petition. Try
to gather support in the community. Hold a peaceful protest at a key
location. There are many non-violent ways to disrupt the government.
Physically disrupting it by force is not one of them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
>> porn dissemination! o_O
>>
>
> Excuse me?
>
> "The Internet is for Porn" remember?
Sure, it is *today*. But when it was invented, high-resolution graphics
didn't even *exist*. :-P
I think it would be rather a stretch to claim that this was the design
goal. More like, any technology which can be used for porn will
inevitably be used for porn...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I wasn't saying whether it was legal *or* good, but only why "guns were
> made". Most cops go their entire careers without having to shoot
> anyone, let alone kill them.
Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
They do, however, have these wicked batton things that look pretty mean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
Hehe yeh, which is probably why I'm always a little disconcerted when I'm at
the airport and every cop has some automatic rifle about 50cm long held in
such a way that it looks like they're about to start shooting everyone. If
you look carefully above you will probably find another couple aiming down
at the crowds of passengers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
>
> Hehe yeh, which is probably why I'm always a little disconcerted when
> I'm at the airport and every cop has some automatic rifle about 50cm
> long held in such a way that it looks like they're about to start
> shooting everyone. If you look carefully above you will probably find
> another couple aiming down at the crowds of passengers.
o_O
That can't be good...
(Personally I've never seen *anybody* IRL with an actual firearm. Well,
unless you count an air rifle.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I think it would be rather a stretch to claim that this was the design
> goal. More like, any technology which can be used for porn will
> inevitably be used for porn...
It was the reason VHS won out over Beta. So, its entirely possible,
stories you hear otherwise are just invented to cover up that fact. We
know what they were /really/ thinking ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (Personally I've never seen *anybody* IRL with an actual firearm. Well,
> unless you count an air rifle.)
I remember after 9/11 seeing lots of military types wandering the
airport with automatic rifles. Pretty freaky....
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I saw a thing here a while back where a group of people were protesting
> about something. There were literally twice as many police with shields and
> guns compared to the protesters (who were armed with nothing). The police
> were just waiting at a safe distance when suddenly the protesters started
> destroying peoples gardens and ripping out fences and trees to throw at the
> police. The police did nothing, they just stood there. Afterwards they
> showed the state of these peoples gardens and interviewed them, basically
> they couldn't believe it that the police did absolutely nothing to protect
> their property.
> If that is "free speech" and "freedom to express your opinion", then I want
> it banned!
Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> If that's the worst (or best?) you can come up with, I think we're safe with
> being free to express our opinions :-)
You are being the perfect example of the type of mentality which allows
freedom of speech to be limited more and more.
There are thing which are now so "taboo" that it's completely "ok" if
they are not anymore included into the rights of free speech. These taboos
are being expanded little by little as time passes, and more and more
things are passing outside of the free speech right. But all this is ok.
It is, after all, a taboo, and everyone who dares to express their opinion
on them must be fanatic and violent and deserves to be punished.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Publishing derogatory comments, especially when generalising about a
> certain group of people is a very dangerous thing to do,
No it's not. It's *words*.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
> expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
In spite of numerous actual videos of it happening on youtube. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
Well, there is that, yes. A much better way to work things, IMO.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Publishing derogatory comments, especially when generalising about a
>> certain group of people is a very dangerous thing to do,
>
> No it's not. It's *words*.
Both of you are going to opposite extremes. There are intermediary states.
Taking your message literally, by their (them?) being *words* does not
make them harmless or harmful. Unless you think that someone suggesting
all members of race Z should be killed is harmless.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
>>>> traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
>>> The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to
>>> be OK, as long as it's peaceful.
>>
>> Well, exactly how can they "disrupt the government" while being
>> "peaceful"?
>
> Well, OK. You can certainly disrupt government plans without disrupting
> the government as such. That's kind of the wonders of democracy.
>
> Sure, if you actually prevent the government from governing, you're
> breaking the law.
Which was my point.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Well, exactly how can they "disrupt the government" while being
>> "peaceful"?
>
> Vote for someone else. Lobby your local politicians. Make a petition.
> Try to gather support in the community. Hold a peaceful protest at a
> key location. There are many non-violent ways to disrupt the
> government. Physically disrupting it by force is not one of them.
How are any of these disrupting the government? Voting is part of the
process - no one classifies it as a disruption. Lobbying disrupts what
and how, exactly? Peaceful protest is equally peacefully ignored.
Not that I'm advocating either side - just pointing out that in the US,
disrupting the government is generally illegal - regardless of the method.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I saw a thing here a while back where a group of people were protesting
> about something. There were literally twice as many police with shields
> and guns compared to the protesters (who were armed with nothing). The
> police were just waiting at a safe distance when suddenly the protesters
> started destroying peoples gardens and ripping out fences and trees to
> throw at the police. The police did nothing, they just stood there.
> Afterwards they showed the state of these peoples gardens and
> interviewed them, basically they couldn't believe it that the police did
> absolutely nothing to protect their property.
>
> If that is "free speech" and "freedom to express your opinion", then I
> want it banned!
It isn't.
Pointing out situations where the police don't do their job is not an
argument against anything Warp was saying.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
>> expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
>
> In spite of numerous actual videos of it happening on youtube. :-)
Kind of hard to figure out whether you mean videos supporting Warp's
point or Scott's ;-)
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> limited because the companies sued whenever the government tried
>> providing free Internet...
>
> Oh, and yes, the government isn't supposed to do that sort of thing. :-)
> I can understand why the private companies sued.
Wasn't saying they should - it just sounded quite the opposite of what
you were saying.
As for looking at it from a moral perspective - I have no idea. I can
see it both ways. People and societies are very keen on maintaining the
status quo. If a company sued a city because they had a private library
and felt the city was competing, would you side with the private
business? I'm not asking from a legalistic viewpoint, BTW.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Unless you think that someone suggesting
> all members of race Z should be killed is harmless.
It's harmess unless someone acts on it. It's merely an opinion.
Alternately, I'm not against banning *all* such speech, as long as it
includes (for example) the Bible and such. Somehow, I don't think this
is what the authors of such laws have in mind, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
>>> expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
>> In spite of numerous actual videos of it happening on youtube. :-)
>
> Kind of hard to figure out whether you mean videos supporting Warp's
> point or Scott's ;-)
Warp's, because there *are* such videos.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:59:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Oh, come on - I think there's a bit of a difference between "you can't
>> post material you don't have the rights to" and "you can't speak out
>> against your government without risking your life". Again, let's get
>> some perspective, please.
>
> Soon we will be in a situation where you really can't speak against
> your government (about certain issues) without being fined or jailed,
> which in many cases is effectively almost as bad as risking your life.
>
> You know, there are certain issues which are becoming more and more
> a taboo, and which are overriding freedom of speech. Not too unlike what
> has happened in China where, for example, speaking about the Tiananmen
> Square events is taboo and will get you fined or jailed.
I'm just speechless, Warp - that you'd equate protecting copyrights to
the Tienemen Square massacre....well, like I said, I'm at a loss for
words.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:59:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> Oh, come on - I think there's a bit of a difference between "you can't
> >> post material you don't have the rights to" and "you can't speak out
> >> against your government without risking your life". Again, let's get
> >> some perspective, please.
> >
> > Soon we will be in a situation where you really can't speak against
> > your government (about certain issues) without being fined or jailed,
> > which in many cases is effectively almost as bad as risking your life.
> >
> > You know, there are certain issues which are becoming more and more
> > a taboo, and which are overriding freedom of speech. Not too unlike what
> > has happened in China where, for example, speaking about the Tiananmen
> > Square events is taboo and will get you fined or jailed.
> I'm just speechless, Warp - that you'd equate protecting copyrights to
> the Tienemen Square massacre....well, like I said, I'm at a loss for
> words.
I was not talking about copyrights.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Wasn't saying they should - it just sounded quite the opposite of what
> you were saying.
I was speaking of the "regional monopolies" granted local-loop
communications companies in most areas. You really don't have a choice
of who provides the wires and pipes to your house.
> As for looking at it from a moral perspective - I have no idea.
I can see it both ways too. You don't want the government taking over
and putting businesses out of business simply because the government
doesn't actually have to follow rules of accounting. You also don't want
to deny the government from improving things that are best improved by
having buy-in from everyone.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If that's the worst (or best?) you can come up with, I think we're safe
>> with
>> being free to express our opinions :-)
>
> You are being the perfect example of the type of mentality which allows
> freedom of speech to be limited more and more.
I think that making derogatory comments about certain people will have got
you punished far worse than what happens today since a very long time ago.
It's nothing new, if anything I see in recent times people being allowed
more and more freedom without being punished. You give some people an inch
though and they take a mile.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Publishing derogatory comments, especially when generalising about a
>> certain group of people is a very dangerous thing to do,
>
> No it's not. It's *words*.
Try telling that to a newspaper editor! They can't go publishing things
like I suggested without risking being sued or having some fine. Ditto for
people on the radio. There are all sorts of laws that you can break using
just words - it's nothing new.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
> expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
I'm not refusing to believe it, I just think that in each case there is
always something more than you are trying to say. There is no way in this
world any police officer would even look twice at me if I told him how bad I
thought the goverment was. However if I start telling him about how I don't
believe in the holocaust, or how I want to try and convince everyone to
become Nazis, or if I start making insulting comments about people or groups
of people, or if I even swear at him while telling him how stupid I think he
is, of course that is going to cause trouble and likely get me carted off to
the police station. There's a difference, and if you're too dumb to realise
when you're going to cause trouble by expressing your opinion in such a way
then that's your own stupid fault for getting arrested or whatever. Normal
people don't have this problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
