That's why I said understandable. I don't think it is acceptable but it's understandable given the current context. And I agree with you, and it's fast evolving into 'different opinions equal terrorism' mindset. I think that what's happening now shows how human beings are still more animals than civilized and have plenty to evolve.
ISIS is a byproduct of places on the outskirts of the law like Guantanamo (I don't remember the Iraqi main facility name). The US is fully to blame for what's happening right now. You heap what you sow. Which makes the US Executive an even worse type of terrorists.
These kinds of statements are cartoonishly evil. They're the kind of ridiculous statements one would have hoped you'd only see in late night TV fictional TV dramas, not coming from an actually elected leader of a major western power.
When reality meets art it seems.
Good thing he rules the UK and the UK alone so the worst he can do is screw the UK citizens into non-encrypted nightmare. Which can be a good thing. Once one western country collapses under the weight of its own stupidity such ideas may lose traction. Not that I'm advocating that the British people should be thrown under the bus as an example but it could be a good thing.
(and my fellow Britons, what the fuck were you thinking when you re-elected him??? What are you want to go full blown street protests against this?)
Hmm, what's the problem with that? One point doesn't invalidate another. And let's consider that while IP maximalism has its greatest drivers in the US media the tech companies mentioned are actually calling for a more balanced system. Besides, there's no EU equivalent to these companies. If Youtube was European would they be hammering it that hard? I'd point that it's more IP maximalism than anti-americanism and it's just a "successful companies must pay me because reasons" that happens to have American companies at its focus right now.
This is terrifying. Targeting supposed terrorists or even spying on another Governments is one thing and it is perfectly understandable - though I think we should go past this childish "borders", "espionage" and "them vs us" culture (will not hold my breath, we need another thousand years before humanity is ready for that).
But spying on Human Rights organizations? Really? What justification do you have for such travesty? Unfortunately we know now that the Governments are considering activism and even humanitarian help extremism, the same as terrorism. This is not a surprise at all given how fast they are sliding down the slippery slope that 9/11 created.
You see, other ISPs can still offer their services even with a municipal broadband in place. As far as I understood being municipal doesn't mean being free or altruistic but rather actually making the service available with quality where the private sector has failed to do so.
Then the question is: what is the problem with municipal broadband again?
You see, beyond the privacy concerns that are very real and should be debated I see intrusion and annoyance. Much like Viola above I'm sick of advertisements to the point my brain is actively ignoring them as if they were noise. An incredibly annoying noise. Most people are already doing the same to some degree but I was surprised when I commented with my partner that I needed a determined product while we had the TV on the evening news and she replied there was an ad about that running at that exact time (she still notices ads on TV it seems). I mean, I was looking at the TV while making that observation, there was an ad about what I needed and I simply wasn't registering.
So we got to a point that advertisers became so obnoxious we are actively ignoring them.
That. Eventually they will be replaced by saner people. I hope. But really, if we want to see the IP system being derailed it's just a matter of applying the strict letter of the law with no mercy. The damages will be so great that people will sit down to discuss actually fixing the system.
Either way, doesn't it seem highly questionable for a law enforcement official to interfere in the private business agreements of two companies, neither of whom are breaking the law?
Worse than that is the fact that the companies happily complied without a court order. This by itself would be investigated by an independent body and possibly result in a lawsuit from the Government itself against the payment processors.
Re: Re: Re: Ford Motors fails to provide me with Crown Vic for $1, therefore I'm justified in stealing one. Those bastards. Not even end of year models at convenient price.
Well then let's talk about the costs of copying an electronic file, shall we? But since you brought entirely unrelated examples I took the liberty of using a poetic license to adjust the car to what the article is about.
If you had $75,000, you don't have it any more! Just saying! #freemoney
Good, law abiding citizens use credit card and carry only patriotic gadgets inside bags, unlocked so law enforcement can do whatever they want, so if you have any money you don't have anymore. Now move along, nothing to see here, citizen.
Re: Ford Motors fails to provide me with Crown Vic for $1, therefore I'm justified in stealing one. Those bastards. Not even end of year models at convenient price.
In your example, said car would cost virtually zero and I could download and reproduce infinitely at home. So $1 is too much for something that can be copied at home for no cost. And I would download said car unless Ford offered me a service where I'd pay a premium to bypass the download step and have a different copy of a different car every week at my disposal, tank filled.