How about I just declare my decision to oppose you at every turn for the rest of my life, and when you escalate, re-escalate in response, for the rest of my life, and we just leave it at that?

Secrets coming out all over these days... good luck, you'll need it.

Evolution doesn't kill anything. Sometimes the environment kills things, sometimes they reach the full expression of their complexity without being killed. Evolution is when the environment kills and diversity is reduced, and the herd now again consists of those whose nature is capable of full expression in the environment.

Ever heard of Gnosticism? They preached that this world was inherently evil, and that when humanity went extinct, we'd all be resurrected in a much nicer world, and therefore, breeding was an evil act.

Not too many Gnostics around. See how that works?

At least with mythology, if it's wrong enough, it kills its adherents, so it's subject to evolutionary pressure.

This may as well have been pulled out of a cereal box.

As do members of unions and members of activist groups. Using your logic these groups of individuals should also be silenced.

I agree. No additional rights because you have pooled your money.

As the court has said, a group of people have the same speech rights as individual persons. There are no additional rights, just the same right.

Except, corporations are allowed to participate in elections to an extent and in ways that private citizens cannot.

Using your logic employees may have even more rights than shareholders. In your logic shareholders may have two voices, individual and corporate; while employees may have three voices, individual, corporate and union. Again I am referring to a situation such as "a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports". The steel workers union would probably want the government to maintain the tariff too.

Right. Everybody gets the same vote. Everybody gets the same campaign finance limit (and citizens only). That's simple. Corporations, unions, etc are not citizens. They cannot vote or run for office. Why should they be allowed to participate in politics financially?

And if it was all about "rights" why has Citizens United allowed corporate donors anonymity in political finance when individuals are not allowed to be anonymous in the same way?

You make the mistake of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You have an image living in your head that is not real.

Who's bitching? We like being called pirates. Everyone is a pirate. Sadly, some people are still ashamed of it, or afraid of copyright enforcement, but that will change. Sharing was the old normal, and will be, or already is, the new normal.

Everyone will eventually realize that the copyright extremists were controlling, tyrannical, hypocritical, propagandizing, rent-seeking scum. They twist meanings to equate copying with theft, and moralize to us about theft while they commit the very "thefts" they complain we do. They will take their place in history as bad guys akin to the Inquisition.

A group of people does not lose its free speech rights by forming the group. Full stop.

Nor do they gain additional rights, which is the current situation under Citizens United.

I understand that you weren't trying to make a serious point, but no, the government is not a person, either. The government has no constitutional rights.

Yeah, you're probably right. I hadn't thought of it that way.

Those employees and shareholders already have their individual rights. Do you believe that the corporation should confer upon them additional rights? So that people who own stock have rights to certain speech that others do not? Because that's exactly the current situation.

Nossir. Corporate personhood was a legal shorthand that has gone out of control. It will be looked upon by history with embarrassment.

You cling desperately to your stupid "I'm thinking of a number" straw man because you know that I'm right. Everything that hasn't been confirmed not to be a threat is a threat. You secure your turf, survey it regularly, and build a wall in the hopes it will be good enough to deal with the threat of the unknown.

You know this, of course. Children could figure this out. You're taking this position because you seek to work against the interest of your neighbour and you don't want the task to become more difficult.

You're selfish, and it's as plain as day for all to see.

Now you're just being stupid.

Dictionary: Adj: Secret: kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged

If you have a secret that you share with just a few and keep the rest of us in the dark, that is a conspiracy, and conspiracies are a threat to peoples freedom.

Is it a number? Is it a plan to seize control over the water supply? I don't know, but you've expended extraordinary effort to keep me from knowing what it is, which means I can't assure myself that I'm secure and further implies to me that if I knew what you were doing I'd be motivated to put a stop to it.

Your secrets keep me from having access to concrete facts, and that is the reason that they represent a threat.

Now, fuck off, coward.

Great illustration.

On my desktop, over the LAN, with caching forcibly disabled, HTTP took 5.3 seconds and was 9% slower than HTTPS.

On my mobile, over WiFi, again, with caching forcibly disabled, HTTP took 6.8 seconds and HTTPS took 10.8 seconds, 33% slower, AND instead of consumed 2 MB of data because caching couldn't be used.

On my mobile, over the cellular network, HTTP took 18 seconds, and HTTPS took 30 seconds, 69% slower, AND consumed 2 MB of data.

So, considering that mobile is huge and growing, THIS IS A DUMB IDEA.

Yeah, set up encrypted WebRTC with multiple peers from a mobile device, and see now negligible it is.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Freedom does not require you to operate in secret. If you feel the need to operate in secret, either you need to fix your culture, or you need to fix yourself.

Preventing misrepresentation is a social positive. Preserving secrecy is a social negative. Compromises have to be made, but protecting your secrets is not a noble goal in and of itself, shouldn't be necessary in a free society, and in fact represents a threat to other peoples freedom.

I know, but.. Sony, North Korea and the FBI. Not exactly a triumvirate of trust.