I pointed out two examples of a specific kind of spurious logic that have been used in two ongoing dialogues. No, the topics themselves are not relevant to Sony's panic over BitTorrent but the logical misstep certainly is comparable. If you want, I can point out other incidents of the stupid, even in favor of positions with which I agree, because I don't like intellectual dishonesty.
How, exactly, that is hatred or being a hater you will have to explain to me. Please elaborate.
I will grant you that yes, I do regard biblical creationists the way that (giving you the benefit of the doubt) you do geocentrists or flat-earthers, but that is because my education so far has precluded all the creationist hypotheses that are based on observation and logic. Feel free to enlighten me. (I do hold respect for philosophical creationists such as Last-Tusedayists since they actually take a Socratic approach and apply reason.)
And yes, I tend to disfavor idealogues, but that is because I've seen too many incidents of people clinging to notions of the way things should be without actually considering why, or how.
And yes, I do hope to the Pillars of Creation that you do not mean to suggest Bill O'Reilly is an exemplar Republican, or for that matter, an exemplar conservative.
I find the whole issue with Mein Kampf a bit weird. I'd think the text would be in the public domain as a historic work. The notion of tying it up with copyright so as to inhibit its publication glorifies it as underground and cult by making it the perview of sharers and bootleg publishers. Essentially by making it verboten it becomes even more sacred and romanticized to the neo-Nazi sectors.
In reality Mein Kampf is a scattered, poorly composed work, the product of Goebbel's notes while Hitler paced and ranted in his prison cell. Like the bible, everyone in Nazi Germany owned a copy, yet no one actually read it. Frankly, the reading of Mein Kampf is a labor I'd gladly inflict on anyone determined to worship an ideology simply to retain justification to hate and scapegoat.
Maybe, just maybe, some of them would come to terms with the discovery that their icon was a very human very tempermental narcissistic psycho.
I had thought, yeah, that profiting directly from Nazi paraphernalia was illegal thoughout Western europe. They don't even like US GIs collecting and trading war trophies. It is much like selling artifacts from sereal killers here in the US.
There are some rules governing archeological and academic studies -- you can use artifacts for scholastic purposes and display them in a museum, but trying to sell copyrights seems right out... even criminal to try.
This seems related to our love for false associations, such as science can't be trusted to explain the origin of life because science brought us the atom bomb. And, yes, that is a Creationist argument made by scholars we'd think would know better.
Humans can't logic. They can, but only in short bursts with lots of training.
And this is why (for instance) we have OReilly rants against government waste (as if waste was a thing that could be unilaterally point-sourced and curbed). You can't explain that.
Sony's execs see BitTorrent as the evil engine of piracy, and not the multi-purpose tool it is. By the same notion, they would probably judge the Sony Walkman or Sony Betamax the same way.
In the case of the Walkman, that helped Sony make its gazillions and buy up Hollywood (Columbia and Tristar... wistful sigh) so now they can generalize anything associated with piracy and try to obstruct its use and development.
CGP Grey does an excellent job of explaining the problem that arrises with first-past-the-post elections, namely that people are driven to vote defensively against the worst evil rather than voting for their preferred candidate.
Third party candidates at their strongest tend to be spoilers for the primary candidates to which they have the most common ground, essentially giving the election to the other guy.
And it's what we in the US got and it won't change because that's what sustains the corporate oligarchy.
Except that money directly facilitates organization.
We're not talking the small-potatoes kinds of cash that gets your pamphlet printed or even the donuts that bring a crowd to the protest, but the kind of money that gets your message listened to by our representatives.
If you don't have a considerable amount of cash to help a man finance his political career -- one hundred times or more what I make in a year -- you don't get acknowledged.
Organization without that money, as we've seen in recent affairs like Ferguson, just gets your volunteers shot with rubber bullets (steel encased in rubberized plastic) and gets your entire neighborhood teargassed.
The American courts may get to claim that the lone pamphleteer is on equal footing with a Hollywood mogul, but they know that's a lie. They know the mogul is regarded as a citizen and the pamphleteer is marked as a terrorist without a violent thought in his head.
And you appear not to recognize just how disparate our wealth is in the US, when single individuals can claim to have more assets than the populations of states. With that kind of imbalance of power, how can our nation be anything but feudal?
Partisanship within the US is hardly about people agreeing with (or even considering) the platforms, but is about having sides to choose. We are as loyal as sports teams are to their alleged hometowns.
Most of us who are moderate are so not because we are apathetic about issues (when we think about them), but because we have strong opinions that don't necessarily mesh with the painted lines.
But the interesting thing to me is that the place where the people disagree with the state (trade, copyright, control of the internet, et. al.) seem to fall into the same patters from nation to nation.
I think WWIII is going to be a civil war, a war of peoples against the states that want to retain power against the common will.
The valid reason why no-one is rioting in the streets.
Our obedience to authority is as instinctive to the human brain as confirmation bias, or the notion that we should throw rocks at people with different-colored skin.
That is to say human beings have to actually work to think critically of people in power. If left to their own devices, it's easier and more assuring to presume that they got into office because they are somehow more qualified than the rest of us. Even when it's Joffrey or Caligula or Palpatine.
And that is why people are adamant that all these people getting murdered by cops in the streets all somehow deserved to die. Because it's easier and natural to think it's a just world and the law officer executes his job perfectly.
This CAS, now that it is proceeding, may have far-reaching implications
Microsoft has gone out of its way to avoid a class-action suit regarding the Windows OS. The XP support shutdown was delayed time and again due to countless businesses who could not afford to upgrade, and that was an operating system that had versions that didn't require online activation (at least until WGA and countless downloadable patches).
If this CAS rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it may set a precedent that a company that requires online activation will have to do so for an extensive length of time, or provide a patch (and indefinite support) that removes the activation requirement.
In the case of Big MS, they seem so be determined to provide such support, at least until the screaming stops.
In the case of Steam, they've committed to the cause, and allegedly have a plan-b patch on standby which will allow backups to be installed and run without phoning home if ever Valve fails. (No notice on what happens if EA offers them four billion dollars for the whole Steam franchise -- because four billion dollars).
But in regards to Origin and Uplay and any other we-don't-trust-you-because-pirates preloader gateways, those companies may quickly be discovering that they have some serious contingency planning to do to ensure all their games are supported indefinitely.
This also may inform future rulings regarded abandonware and lost franchises such as NOLF.
I have a certain love for the old Westwood RTS titles and some of their derivatives before they went full Origin. EA once believed in making games for the same of the game, before they were effective engines for pumping money out of hapless consumers.
My roommate has one EA (Battlefield 3) not because it's a particularly good game but because a friend of hers invested time and energy into the game and it's one of the things they do together. So even when we know EA is shit, social pressure can (or at least has in this case) pulled new customers in.
EA wasn't evil to begin with. It was corrupted from within by greed and fruits of their prior successes.
"...In the name of “transparency,” Snowden... may have empowered one of the world’s worst censors. "
By definition, opacity is censorship, and only empowers those with intent to deceive. And so far we've yet to see any organization who hasn't been tempted to use opacity for private, and criminal, use.