That's me done here.
That's me done here.
The specifics are another matter -- as I said, I didn't read TFA so maybe this particular example has lots of faults. But the general principle should be clear to anyone who is capable basic rational thought and empathy -- somebody that doesn't think capitalism is the sole arbiter of all value(s).
Even if it's no cheaper, you would have paid that amount anyway if you purchased the game through more usual means, so channeling the same amount of funds to an entity that does something good with the money is the incentive. You get the product at the same price you would have paid and the money goes to a good cause -- how is that not an incentive?
And yes, metadata can easily be more intrusive than content.
They weren't behaving in a way that could be described as "targeted" when they asked for Lavabit's encryption keys. IIRC, Lavabit did comply with some previous requests that were targeted to individual users -- but the case that led to them shutting down was for blanket access. Retroactive blanket access.
Furthermore, "based on suspicion" and "case by case" fall by the wayside when asking for blanket access, too. And of course the whole issue of "not rubber stamp oversight" isn't met either.
So, they were doing none of what I suggested and what you quoted -- very far from "exactly the case."
...but sometimes you just hear these sorts of things.
Sometimes? What happened to, "every discussion" and "so many people" and "the overwhelmingly vast majority of people argue"? No doubt someone can be trotted out to say something stupid from time to time, but that's different than saying an entire debate is stifled because it's being forced into a false dichotomy. Or that the regular discourse position is centered around a false dichotomy.
They have to know that it's necessary at some level...
If by "it" you mean some sort of surveillance that's targeted, based on suspicion and granted on a case by case basis by an oversight (court, law, etc.) body that's just not a rubber stamp factory, then yes -- but I haven't really seen anyone argue against that, so I don't know where you are getting the notion of a false dichotomy.
Unless by "it" you mean "suspicionless mass surveillance" -- in which case, no, it is not necessary at some level.
When you use such generalizations as "...they're all completely drug-fucked wastes of space..." and respected scientific terms such as "the not being a complete cunt part of your brain" why would we think you unworthy of notice? Why would we not wish to bask in such measured delivery of your wisdom? When you proclaim the devil's weed will "...destroy your mind..." why would we think that to be hyperbole and scare mongering? Oh good sir, taunt us not with your desire to be unheard -- to be banished from our eyes and minds. You do us great injury to suggest such a thing -- even in mockery.
Mod him up! Mod him up, my friends. We must all see what "not being a dickhead" looks like. We must all learn from this shining example.
...you don't know the damage for blowguns and pixie bites...
Word is that the newest version just refers to these as "ouchies" -- "You have received an ouchie, you are now hopping from one foot to another for the next three rounds."