Most advertising is fraudulent - defrauding the fraudsters is really a crime?
Could you please point to a generation that had no music? Cavemen had music, as far as I can determine. Which generation since has done without music?
The problem here is, that people expect to MAKE MONEY off of music.
I don't pay money for music, yet I have music. If the web just dried up, if television and radio stopped broadcasting music, I would still have music. Two of my three sons have learned to play guitars. I used to play the trumpet, I could relearn all that I've forgotten.
Grow up without music? Come on, just try to get in touch with reality.
Big deal, the big corporate honchos may find that they can no longer make mega-bucks from music. It's not like they actually CONTRIBUTE any thing to music. They are frigging parasites. Let them die off. Just starve them. The world won't miss them.
We will still have no-name kids playing music because they love music. And, if they are actually any good at it, people will reward them for playing. People will still be entertained.
Grow up without music. Preposterous.
Not only can the end user choose which algorithm, they can come up with their own. The right to read and modify the source code ensures that the truly paranoid can modify that source code, in whatever way they choose, to actually ensure that their stuff is secure.
Little Joey Nerd decides that he really, really, REALLY doesn't want anyone to read his stuff. Three pass encryption results - first with Blowfish, then with his own home brewed encryption, and finally with AES. So, the attacker understands AES quite well, and manages to strip away one level of encryption. What is he left with? A garbled mess for which there is no documented decryption anywhere, except in Joey's head, or on his device.
You can tamper with Joey's device, or his head, but chances are he is going to know about it.
How would I find out, personally, that Linux Mint is sharing keys with the NSA? The likelihood that I would personally discover that secret is somewhere between slim to none. I can't read code well enough, nor am I likely to spend the time necessary to read every line of code in the programs.
My assurance stems from,
1. Thousands (at least) of other end users actually do peruse the code, looking for errors, back doors, exploits, etc.
2. My OS comes from a "trusted source" - one which I personally trust.
Yes, there is a weakness in there. That weakness is, I have to trust someone. At the same time, there is a strength hidden right beside the weakness. I get to CHOOSE who I trust.
What, exactly, has convinced you that you can actually trust Microsoft? Has MS invited you to personally examine their code, to satisfy yourself that there are no exploits in their system? No? I didn't think so.
Linux, on the other hand, invites me to read any or all of their source.
You choose what you want, I'll choose what I want, thank you very much.
It seems that ACTA was defeated, primarily because so many millions wrote or called their representatives.
What is the alternative to writing? Lie down, and whimper like a whipped dog? If that appeals to you, then go for it.
Spin around three times, widdershin, while standing in front of the mirror. It may help if there happens to be a Satanic mass in progress - or not. YMMV
"You seem to want free will without the consequences."
Nope. One accepts the consequences of his actions, that goes without saying. Among other things, I'm a motorcycle rider. I choose my actions, and I suffer the consequences when I am wrong. You learn that lesson very soon after hopping on a bike for the first time. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and when the reaction involves tearing off some of your hide, you learn.
What I object to is, the author who apparently feels qualified to set himself up as judge and arbiter of good and bad, and to punish those with whom he disagrees.
Submitter doesn't like humanity very much. He wishes there were laws, rules, regulations, and guide lines for everything. He wants to hold engineers responsible for their discoveries. He wants to judge each discovery as "good" or "bad", then reward or punish the engineers, scientists, and the craftsmen for whatever results.
Sad as it is, I prefer the world we have, in which men and woman exercise free will.
I just finished watching a pirated Blue Thunder. I watched some of the series when I was a kid, never saw the movie before. You should maybe watch it yourself. Keep in mind our current monitoring by NSA and the militarization of police forces, including drones, as you watch the movie.
I'm sure you know how to use a torrent search.
I thought my statement was reasonably clear. Between 25 and 33% of all of Planned Parenthood's funds are allocated directly by the federal government. PP admits to 25%, various organizations claim 33% minimum, and some actually claim that 50% of PP's money comes through the government. I don't find the 50% claim to be exactly credible, but I can't discredit it either.
To spell out what I know for fact:
If the federal government wasn't funding PP, then PP couldn't keep all their clinics open, and they would probably have to cut pretty deeply into the abortions they perform.
PP's OTHER objectives, of providing gynocology care, and family planning, are perfectly legitimate. There is no problem with tending to women's health - only an idiot or a genuine misogynist would object to it. It's the abortions that so many of us find objectionable. Worse, is the lack of meaningful counseling. PP's counseling ALWAYS tends to push women toward choosing abortion, rather than helping women to find alternatives.
I am not one who wants to end all abortions, for any reason. But, I find PP's methods and goals to be very objectionable.
This has been in all of my RSS feeds all day. Some of those feeds claim that an empty truck was recovered. I'll wait a little while before I decide that all the cobalt was recovered.
Snowden was a trusted agent of the NSA (or one or more of the NSA's contractors). I asked " Please explain how the same tech empowers you to snoop on the federal government," Do you, personally, have the resources, the knowledge, or the training to start sifting through NSA's communications in the same manner that the NSA snoops on you? If you don't personally have those resources, are you capable of commandeering the required resources? Which citizens of the United States might possess the capability to go head-to-head against the NSA?
"I agree that tech helps those in power, but it also empowers the week."
The NSA is "empowered" to snoop on your most intimate relations. Please explain how the same tech empowers you to snoop on the federal government, or any part of it's agencies and organizations.
You are quite the optimist. With today's technology, a locked down population is unlikely to be able to throw of the yoke of tyranny. And, government will be improving on today's technology, of course. Given a few decades of round the clock surveillance, mandatory forced indoctrination in the school system, and enforced thought policing, how are people ever going to regain their freedom?
If the US falls to tyranny, there will be something equivalent to Europe's Dark Ages. It will be a long, long, LONG time before the pendulum swings back the other way.
Why repeat that lie?
Federal money goes to PP. If PP didn't get federal money, then PP would have to close up around 1/3 to 1/2 of their operations. The federal government is SUBSIDIZING Planned Parenthood, which in turn, commits the murder of millions of babies.
Taxpayers are subsidizing abortions, it's as simple as that.
In Texas, when the state mandated that an abortion doctor meet certain standards before he could perform an abortion, PP complained that they would have to close about 25% of their clinics. If, as you say, abortion only accounts for 3% of their services - why close up shop in a location that is no longer able to perform abortions?
Lies, and damned lies.