I can tell you that piracy in the corporate world was RAMPANT in the ‘90s. I made a nice sum of money back in the day as a freelance auditor for companies trying to get their legal ducks in a row. Productivity software like Lotus, WordPerfect, Word, Excel were just mass installed off one license because there was no product activation keys or any sort of license validation methods.
Dongles were pretty commonplace on your more expensive software products from mid 90s through the early 00s. If I was publishing software that was a >$1000 a license, I damn sure would have used them.
> Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event
The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested.
> it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested
Just to be clear, this is the ad hominem, which is moot. Even if this is true, it has no bearing on the case being discussed and the question is a foolish one for this silly political game you describe: firstly, it can easily be turned around on the asker and, secondly, it has an extremely obvious game theoretic answer of "yes" because that's the only option to get one's interrogator to continue with the actual discussion. (Thanks for proving the point.)
While it has no bearing on the active case itself, within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case. Would they have a different opinion if the variables were tweaked a bit, but the action and violation of the statute was the same?
It’s always a good exercise to evaluate your opinion this way, it should help keep you honest about legal fairness.
> within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case
You say that it matters for these silly political "gotcha!" games. I say it therefore does not matter. It is an ad hominem attack which has no basis in the discussion.
I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides.
If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine. Others want to open it up. You are not the gatekeeper to the discussion and what paths it might take.
> I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides.
Sure, but to what end? What is the purpose of pointing this out? Even pointing it out to the person behaving in such a manner seems foolish: they're just as likely to change their mind as the person pointing it out.
> If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine.
It seems the act of disregarding the points being made by others so one can hint that their bias is clouding their judgement to see it the correct way shuts down discussions far more effectively than simply arguing from a certain perspective. As I said before, such an accusation can easily be turned around on the accuser; if you think through what happens there, the accuser just denies it the same as the accused would because that's the only option that moves on from the point which is only relevant to the political game. The entire game theory can be explained in a single sentence. It's not really an interesting game and the best outcome of it in the context of a greater discussion is for it to end as quickly as possible.
> Others want to open it up.
One might consider (perhaps by not being "so ingrained on one side that they can't conceive, comprehend, or concede") that the point of calling out a rhetorical ad hominem is to open the discussion to more critical thinking.
I realize that there are some people that don’t really want the first amendment to cover speech they don’t like and religions they don’t like, but it does. As it relates to the FACE act that includes interruption of those religious services they don’t like too.
Yes, I agree, and these statements do not refute anything I've written in this thread. Besides, what do they even have to do with the ad hominem point we've been discussing? Anyway, we can just move on from that, I guess.
> the first amendment
In this case, the first amendment, as a matter of law, isn't relevant in the context of those who had their religious service interrupted: the service in question was not interrupted by the government. The first amendment concern in this case is whether or not Don Lemon's right to journalistic freedom is being infringed since he's the one who's actually facing criminal prosecution for actions which seem a lot like journalism.
> the FACE act
It appears that Don Lemon did nothing which violates this Act. I guess if you disagree with the judge who found there was no probable cause of such a violation for an arrest warrant, you're more than welcome to explain why. (I mean, surely it's not simply because you disagree with Don Lemon's politics, that would be embarrassing.)
I am sure how from my comments you could have any idea what my opinion about Don Lemon in this situation would be…
But if you must know, I think it’s a long shot that he will be convicted, but he damn sure didn’t make it easy on himself. He should have followed his own advice on his livestream when he was in the car and said “I don’t think I should go in…”
In a church service? To what end does it make sense?
The whole thing was live streamed. They intentionally interrupted a religious worship service. You had children traumatized, crying. What idiot or group of idiots would think that is going to motivate the government to do anything except go after you with specific laws that were passed to protect religious gatherings from such things.
This type of tactic was not productive to whatever your cause is…it did damage.
> Until that moment, the general sentiment about the government and the internet is that they are too incompetent to do anything about it
In 2008 I worked with a retired NSA guy who had retired from the agency 5 years prior. He refused to have a cellphone. He refused to have a home ISP. Did not have cable tv, Just OTA. He would only use the internet as needed for the work we were doing and would not use it for anything else (news, etc). He eventually moved to the mountains to live off grid. He left the agency ten years before Snowden disclosed anything.
An example like that in my life and here I sit making comments on the internet.
I question the wisdom of that path though. Like yes the government can probably read a lot of your stuff easily, and all of it if they really want to. But why does that mean you have to live like a medieval hermit in a hut in the mountains?
I have opinions but at the end of the day I'd rather live within the system with everything it has to offer me, even knowing how fake a lot of it is. Living in remote huts is just not that interesting
Maybe he wanted that regardless (remote hut life), and this was just a final push for change. I can see myself, under different circumstances (no family) to enjoy such life and hardships (and simplicity) it brings, at least for some time.
If NSA employs primarily some high functioning people on spectrum or similar types, which often don't work well in societies with tons of strangers, then moving off is also not the worst idea if one has enough skills and good equipment to not make it into constant hellish survival.
> Maybe he wanted that regardless (remote hut life), and this was just a final push for change
Perhaps. Like I said in the other comment, his motivations for that living choice may have been unrelated to his government work, but it did fit a pattern of choices. I am pretty sure his other choices of specific technology avoidance was related to his government work. No specific conversation but other colleagues and I noticed comments (mainly about cellular and internet avoidance) over the time we worked together in the vein of “I just don’t think it’s a good idea”.
I can’t speak to his reasoning and he made no explanation as to why he chose that living choice path to me, but I just view it as another choice he made to disconnect. Circumstantially with the rest, it would not surprise me if it was related to his time with the government, but it could be unrelated in motive, but related in result.
…and still got elected a second time, despite two impeachments on top of all his other legal woes, his previous term, etc...and he still managed to gain more votes each time he ran.
People seem to forget what this says about the other party.
It’s pretty well known that for probably 50+ years that the US has commissioned operational plans on virtually every country in the world. Including allies.
> Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say it’s not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to.
If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”. If the reason that your property was seized is because you chose to not pay your rent, then I am not sure understanding, sympathy, or joining in violence would be an appropriate response.
If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”
Yeah, like maybe you didn't have $50,000 to appeal a bad decision made because a magistrate couldn't be bothered actually reading the evidence in front of them.
If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal much easier than people sympathetic to the violence.
You are commenting about legal avenues not going your way on a thread literally about the concept of a violent response being justified for people when normal legal avenues don’t go your way.
Well I mean that's nice for you but I'm not sure how it responds to the question asked - when did I say anything about violence being justified? I merely responded to your ignorant and empirically incorrect fantasy-world assumption that the legal system is always right.
At no point did I say the legal system is always right. I suggested that in certain situations it might be right and in those situations resorting to violence because you feel aggrieved at a legal loss would not be an appropriate response. Frankly, some people are guilty and some people are legally responsible.
I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that. I stand by that. You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.
> At no point did I say the legal system is always right
First you made the incorrect assumption that we live in a disney-style fantasy world with "If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a 'why'."
Then you made the totally unwarranted assumption that "If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal"
> I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that
No, you made an assumption based on zero information and chose to incorrectly insinuate that the case is not just.
> You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.
But "evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds" doesn't actually have anything to do with the case being just, does it? There's a million possible explanations why someone might choose not to donate their time for free. Like for example "I'm aware of just how corrupt this system is based on my previous experiences and so I choose not to waste my time and energy on this".
And it's almost impressive, in a sad way, how indifferent you are to everyone else on the planet, and how prima-facie ridiculous your fantasy world assumptions are when given more than two seconds thought. But I'm not here for that sort of "discussion".
Unfortunately however since you have no response to any of the points I actually made, I'll just have to say that I hope you run into someone just as horrible when the corrupt system chews you up and spits you out too.
"sadistic vengeance"? I don't know what you're talking about - you yourself claim that you're merely "indifferent". If you're not being a condescending ass, then how is what I wished for "sadistic"? I think you just your entire premise.
> sadistic vengeance"? I don't know what you're talking about
A couple of quotes from your comments above…I added the emphasis that highlights your sadism and vengeance:
“You know, I look forward to the day this unjust system that you blindly and stupidly trust bites you, too”
“I'll just have to say that I hope you run into someone just as horrible when the corrupt system chews you up and spits you out too.”
If you want to claim ignorance about what you wrote, fine. But it’s here for all to see. With every word you post I become more and more convinced that your perception of justice is tilted outside societal norms.
Fraudsters usually don't resort to violence once they get caught. In your contrived example, the guy would probably end up paying what he owed and that would be that. Violence mostly emerges from people who feel that they are treated unfairly, and can't use civil channels to solve their issues. Which is why it's important to build a society that treats people fairly.
> I don’t think we can assume that the presence of violence automatically indicates that society isn’t fair.
I think it does, actually. The more unequal the country, the more violent it is. Which is why the best way to get rid of crime is not to give unlimited funding to the police (that has been shown to be very ineffective, and ruinous), it's to make sure no one needs to commit it. That will never get rid of all crimes, of course.
To what end? I think this has become the “feel good that I am doing something about it” approach but it literally has almost zero effect beyond creating rhetoric from the politicians.
You need to hold your political leaders responsible with your vote. Don’t just automatically vote for the politicians that are “saying” the right things. Find out what your representatives are “doing” and hold them responsible for their actions or more importantly, inactions.
Start holding the opposing party responsible to run good candidates for office and adopt a platform that can appeal to independents.
The knee jerk reaction is to run your party’s candidates and platform to the opposite extreme. Instead you should move towards the center. I really hope the democrats realize this (some do and are speaking out) soon.
Dongles were pretty commonplace on your more expensive software products from mid 90s through the early 00s. If I was publishing software that was a >$1000 a license, I damn sure would have used them.
reply