Dead people lose the capability of holding principles.
And? At least they weren't cowards until the very end. People show their true colors in discussions like these; they make it known what they truly care about, and it often isn't freedom.
Hah! You're killing me.
People of your mentality are killing something much more important.
I was merely responding to "It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others." I think such a mentality is poisonous, so I replied. I don't care about semantics.
In the case of that war, yes, it was okay.
No, it wasn't.
It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others.
Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) in order to defeat the bad guys; cowards do that.
Losing a war equals losing your freedom.
Fighting and losing while keeping your principles is far better than being a sniveling coward.
Most people have nothing to hide
Everyone has something to hide. Everyone needs privacy.
Everyone especially has something to hide from an abusive and/or incompetent government; one wrong word and you could be harassed for years.
then the fact that the NSA is just another insult of everything they believe in?
Everything they claim to believe in. I have trouble believing that most people truly care about freedom when they allow it to be sacrificed in the name of preventing terrorism.
Most of the data people have are not that valuable.
Not valuable? Not valuable to you? Even data you believe is utterly worthless to you could be seen as valuable to someone looking to abuse their powers or find out more about you. Hell, someone in the government could just misinterpret what you say and then you'll be harassed for years for some joke you made.
Even if your data truly is worthless, you should still encrypt so as to provide cover those whose data isn't worthless.
They're just realists. Any population that would accept the Patriot Act, getting groped at airports, free speech zones, and other such freedom-violating nonsense without truly doing anything about it (even voting for third parties or writing en masse to representatives) should be treated as nothing more than mentally retarded preschoolers, for that is what they may as well be.
I didn't say that they shouldn't be able to do so; I just think paying for something with DRM--any DRM--is harmful.
Why not? I can very well agree with it.
Well, I can't. I'm fundamentally opposed to DRM, so even if someone were to offer me a DRM-infested game at a cheap price, I would not buy it.
I buy AAA titles on steam for five bucks. At those prices, I am totally ok with the DRM.
You certainly shouldn't be.
His point was that you shouldn't pay for this garbage and then be presented with ads; that's absurd.
So whatever they can do, they will do if the market is OK with it.
And since most people seem to be morons, they'll end up doing pretty much everything.
and TODAY nobody is bad-mouthing Steam after over a decade of DRM-encumbered operation.
I am. Plenty of other people still do. So, you're wrong.
When I want a game console, what I actually want are advertisements! And the Xbox One offers interactive advertisements, no less! Sure, you could just play games to get your fill of interactive content, but why play games when you could watch ads? Who plays games, anyway? Certainly not people who buy the Xbox One; they'll be too busy with ads.
It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire
