Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am
As has been pointed out by That One Guy, what you perceive as censorship is merely spam filters working to keep the comments section clear of things that need not be there. As any post that is hidden can be easily viewed with a single click, that clearly indicates that there is no censorship here. Censorship only applies when one can no longer access what was said, which is never the case here. I would suggest you educate yourself on the actual meaning of the term before commenting further.
This place, Techdirt, is important in many ways and for many reasons. It stands as a beacon of free speech and a defender of the Constitution and the rights it protects for us against those who would abuse or destroy them. For this reason, I have added my financial support to this cause and encourage others to do likewise. To remain silent in a time of need is to succumb to apathy, and one cannot claim to care for the rights and freedoms cherished here if one does not act when the time comes to do so.
The attacks by certain individuals here do not surprise me, as vultures always circle when they feel the time to feed is near. I would point out, however, that that time may not be as close as they think. Techdirt has a very strong and logical case with large amounts of supporting data to support their defense. They are not finished yet, and those who would like them to be so would be wise to remember that.
You have built a great thing here, Mike, and I do not believe it will go down easily or swiftly. Those of us who appreciate what you and the others who work with you have done are here, and we are with you and support you. The voice of this place must not be silenced, and we who value it will do what we can to ensure that does not happen. May both you and this place live long and prosper, and continue to be a light in the darkness, as you always have been.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This amendment contains no specification as to what form a person's papers and effects may take, and as has already been pointed out above, its protection extends to any technological format used to store such information. It is illogical and incorrect to assume that such electronic messages somehow lose that protection merely due to age. The Fourth Amendment has no expiration date. And I concur with That One Guy that it is highly likely that the IRS, SEC, and many members of the Senate profit from removing that protection either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it is imperative that this law by the House be passed in spite of this corruption. Patrick Henry's words were "Give me liberty or give me death!" Not "Give me security or give me death!"
Let us hope that Delaware North did not have any trademark on the name of El Capitan. Although it would be fascinating to see a company attempt to claim such a trademark upon a mountain and be unsuccessful. Such a case would be highly unlikely to have any other outcome.
I am reminded of the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard concerning a mindset and situation not unlike that of the surveillance organizations and the effects their actions and those of their supporters have upon us all:
"When the first link in the chain is forged, the first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, it chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged."
This comes from an incident aboard the Enterprise-D known as "The Drumhead." A warning we would be unwise to ignore.
The media's obsession with blaming video games is both unwise and counterproductive. They ignore the clear common thread running through every mass shooting of the modern age: in every single incident, the perpetrator has always been revealed to have been taking prescribed psychotropic drugs. Addictive drugs which have been shown to have dangerous side effects capable of causing mental instability and a lack of empathy. The pharmaceutical companies knowingly produce these drugs, deliberately crafting them to be addictive so as to create a guaranteed customer base and income source.
The logical course of action would be to confront these companies and hold them accountable, as well as forbidding them from producing these drugs any further. There are alternative methods for dealing with mental issues that do not require these dangerous, mind-altering drugs. They would not profit the pharmaceutical industry, however, which is why they do all they can to keep us from knowing just how truly effective they are. Nature's design provides everything we needóchemical processing only causes harm to us and all those around us.
McCoy's increasing desperation is an emotional, illogical response to the failure of ACTA, his previous such project. However, it is unsurprising given his position. It is unfortunate that those such as he are permitted to retain power and cause further damage. We cannot make any lasting positive changes for our nations and societies while individuals such as he remain unpunished and in their positions of power. They must be dealt with first, and exposed for what they truly are.
What is most illogical is the presence of a for-profit medical system in the first place. Human beings have an inherent right to be healthy, It can be said that any society can be judged by the way it treats its sick and its elderly. America, unfortunately, has not done well in that regard. A nonprofit, patient-oriented system which utilizes not only allopathic medicine but alternative natural approaches as well with equal measure would be far more effective and humane. Dr McCoy once referred to the existing for-profit system as "medievalism," and he is correct. Human lives have been reduced to an expendable commodity in this system, and both hospitals and pharmaceutical companies must be fully investigated and held accountable for their actions.
I'm pointing out the fact that this article is baseless FUD. It's Mike lashing out at anything and everything government-related that he can possibly cast aspersions on. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's clear that Mike only cares about posting idiotic, anti-government/anti-authority nonsense.
There is not one iota of evidence that the Secretary performs her duties less capably because she doesn't use email. This story epitomizes the essence of Mike Masnick. He runs with a story that makes someone in authority/government look bad, regardless of whether there's any actual actual evidence that there is in fact a problem.
Yet you have not provided a single piece of empirical evidence to support your claim. Without such evidence, your claim is as baseless as you say Mike's is.
Here's the extent of Mike's thought process: "Hey, that kind of makes someone in power look bad at first blush. New article! Fuck you, government servant!" That's how shallow he is.
I *wish* Mike would conduct himself like Karl does, having intelligent discussions with those who challenge him. But Mike will *never* do that. All he cares about is pleasing the 4chan kiddies.
No wonder Mike won't engage me (or any of the other critics) in a substantive discussion. He's just not *albe* to. It's all making sense to me now. What a waste of an ivy league MBA.
I see you did not heed my words about changing the tone of your posts. Do not expect discourse when you hurl vitriol at anyone who speaks with you. This is why Mike and others do not engage you. Because of your arrogance and unwillingness to refrain from insults and condescension.
Who knows, but I'll bet the CEO of USAirways can't fly a 737. Same thing for the guy who runs Amtrak- I doubt he could bring the Acela from NY to Boston.
It is really so difficult, AC, to understand that one could move up from having done those things for many years to supervising them? In a company or organization with rational policies, this would be the norm, for experienced individuals to ascend to positions of leadership where their firsthand knowledge and expertise would aid them far more in their field than a generic business degree. Thus, if USAirways operated in a logical manner, its CEO would have been a pilot of its planes for many years before ascending to his current position, thereby possessing the experience necessary to guide such a company more wisely than a business graduate with no firsthand knowledge of how his or her business or organization and its components operate.
It would be wise of you to refrain from posting as you do, Average, unless you wish to persist in this illogical course of action and continue to appear as clearly uninformed as your words and tone portray. Arrogance and condescension will not win you any minds, but rather only harm both your case and your reputation. I realize that as an attorney, you argue for a living, but there are times when it is more beneficial not to do so. This is one of those times. If you do not refrain from your insults and other derogatory methods of speech, they will continue to undermine everything you say. Falsehood and misrepresentation will take you nowhere. At least, nowhere that you wish to go. Therefore, I advise you to abandon them. Otherwise, your intellectual dishonesty will cling to you like a pair of Tiberian bats.
It would also be wise of you to begin examining the government with a clear eye, as opposed to the clouded lenses you use now. Logic clearly dictates that the best individuals to supervise technology or any other field are those with many hours and years of experience with it. For example, Mr. Scott is the chief of Engineering because of his high degree of expertise and many years of experience in the operation and maintenance of the warp engines and their related technologies. It would neither be logical nor prudent to have an individual in charge who did not have such qualifications. Yet you appear to have no issues with an official supervising a field with which she herself admits she has no practical experience. To make and enforce policy in such an environment based on the decisions of one unfamiliar with what they are supervising would be both unwise and possibly dangerous.
Furthermore, when the law does not conform to the will of the people, it has no lasting power and will inevitably be overturned. And while these illogically high fines could be seen to act as a deterrent, they do not do so in the way their proponents would like. Rather, they serve only to dissuade others from having any association with those who promote such fines and punishments. No profit can be made from an individual who does not wish to have anything to do with you or your product.
Consider the case if Ms. Thomas been sued for theft of physical goods of equivalent value to the songs she infringed. Twenty-four items worth $.99 each. Twenty-four $.99 pencils, for example. The fines would have been far less in that case. As there is no logical basis for such a discrepancy, the mere difference of the nature of the product should have no bearing on the amount fined. Therefore, the damages awarded to the RIAA and its labels are grossly disproportionate and must be opposed. Unless you believe, as copyright maximalists do, that it is ethical and reasonable to fine an individual for hundreds of millions of dollars and ruin him or her financially for an act with less provable harm than the theft of handful of pencils.
This incident demonstrates that no corporate entity or union of such is immune to the power of the internet community. Logic clearly dictates that no matter the precautions taken, those with the skill and desire to redirect the online tools of corporations will do so. It is as certain as the sand on Vulcan.
When an organization such as the FBI becomes more concerned with its image and its own power rather than the well-being of the citizens it is intended to serve, the logical course of action is to oppose it and expose its corruption, as Antisec has done. It is at this point that the FBI must be reformed or removed, as it has forgotten the purpose it was created for. To do so, it must be made to collapse from the weight of its own bureaucracy. This leak and its exposure by Antisec are conducive to that process and should be encouraged.
This incident serves as a simple yet effective demonstration of how adjusting business policies and procedures to reflect actual consumer demand is both profitable and reduces infringement in a positive way. It is unfortunate, however, that most such networks and entertainment companies are not likely to learn from this experience.
You have yet to demonstrate with empirical, non-entertainment industry evidence that infringement causes any harm whatsoever, Lime AC. Until you do, every argument you make is invalid because they are based on a false premise.
Average Joe, you fail to realize that, as I stated above, only physical things can truly be property, because they are rivalrous. Intangible, nonphysical things such as ideas and expressions cannot, by their very nature, be property no matter what legal constructs you attempt to fence them in with. They will not be contained or locked down, and the sharing of them does not in any way diminish them. Rather, it builds them and helps them grow.
Unethical laws such as what copyright has become must be opposed and ignored and their powerlessness demonstrated for all to see. The control you once had is gone and will never return, and no amount of laws and treaties will change that. People will do what they know can be done, and they will not be stopped. Digital copies cannot be contained or restricted. To attempt to do so is futile. The only choice you can make is whether to adapt to the new way, or fall into obscurity with all that is left of the old guard.
Incorrect, AC. For something to be property, it must be strictly physical in nature. Things that are intangible cannot be property, precisely because they cannot be contained. The kind of control you imagine does not exist. As Captain Sisko said, "you can pulp a book, but you cannot destroy an idea." What this means is that ideas and culture, and the individual expressions thereof, will exist in spite of any and all attempts to silence or destroy them. They will not be stifled or restrained. When a voice demands to be heard, it will be heard. You cannot silence what by its very nature must speak.
I note also that you provide no evidence of your claims or of your alleged expertise. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that you possess either one, and as such, your argument is invalid. You also neglected to account for the fact that unauthorized downloads are only illegal because of laws that are demonstrably unethical and which were passed through corrupt means. Therefore, it is not wrong to ignore and oppose such laws.
Whether you like it or not, AC, technology is changing how individuals and societies interact with our shared human culture. If you wish to remain relevant, you must change with it. The Borg have a saying, and I believe it is relevant here:
Agreed. According to the Greek myths, the only way the hydra could be killed was with fire, burning all the heads at once. A similar solution may be required here, though I hope we do not have to find out.
Concerning the comments about Lindsay Lohan, I believe she has inflicted enough damage through her own actions that she has no reputation left to tarnish.
As the Yeats poem states, "Things fall apart. The center cannot hold." This will prove true of the legacy industries of all kinds and their government supporters. Evil is inherently self-destructive, and their end can only result in one outcome, as history has shown numerous times. Those who fear, fade away. And those who adapt, as the Borg do, thrive.