ldar15's comments

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/41-levying-war....

"Major" Bloomberg: "The NYPD is my Army", Homeland Security trampling on the US Constitution at every opportunity and at the order of congress, warrantless wiretaps, etc etc. Peaceable Protest made impossible by bureaucracy. Establishment of "First Amendment" zones for the press - where they can't see what's going on. Congress/Executive/SCOTUS making a tidy living from bribes^H^H^H Free Speech Expressed As Money.

There are a great many "bodies of men" acting unconstitutionally in this country, so assuming that a revolution took place, I don't think this line of prosecution would have much of a problem, do you? If a revolution doesn't take place, I think its pretty safe to say that the Government will take your side on the matter.

Yes. That pretty much nails the complaint on the head right there.

"I never saw"

And that would be the second.

"From the prosperity of the empire during the Wilhelmine era (1890-1914), Germany plunged into World War I, a war it was to lose and one that spawned many of the economic crises that would destroy the successor Weimar Republic."

"During the Hitler era (1933-45), the economy developed a hothouse prosperity, supported with high government subsidies to those sectors that tended to give Germany military power and economic autarky"

Economic crises inducing a transition from democracy to plutocracy/fascism, and massive military spending, ending in wars on multiple fronts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Germany

I suppose I should also qualify my statement as "dominant states". Since the most common way for small states to be converted to fascism is by the dominant state (i.e. USA) installing fascist/authoritarian governments for them. So I concede that, in general, you may be right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sopa-the-c...

If I get pulled over 10 times by 10 different cops, and I offer each one $100 to let me off, and only one of them takes the bribe - the other 9 don't negate the fact that one guy took the bribe.

"No your honor, I just like giving money to police officers whenever I meet them. See, its just random chance that this one guy let me off. Clearly it was on the merits of the situation, not because my money influenced him."

Cops don't make the laws of course. Otherwise you'd be allowed to bribe cops.

1) My guy was honest and just expressing his opinion.

2) My guy had trouble raising money when faced with an opponent who also had the same opinion and whose honesty you cannot vouch for.

You argument does not refute our claim: Money goes to the corrupt. Indeed it would appear to support it.

Of course, this only applies to me, you, county judges, etc. Not senators. Not SCOTUS Justices. Not the people who have the most to gain from such corruption. Not the people who actually decide such laws. Fancy.

[1] http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corr...

Even if you believe that these were genuine "accidents", do you believe that it is acceptable to allow these interests to have such power? Do you think it is just about "unimportant" things like copying music?

The US is still the worlds largest superpower, but compared to 20 years ago it has vastly less power. Its power has declined and continues to do so. Any student of history will tell you that this is exactly when states transform from free nations to fascist states.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

"limited times". Apparently the US Constitution disputes your assertion. Bunch of pirates, those founding fathers.

More on the "ownership" myth. Just one of many sites picked from google. http://c4sif.org/2011/07/the-mythology-of-intellectual-prope...

This is why any student of history is against SOPA. We believe that it does not protect the rights espoused in the Constitution. We believe that it may be abused in the future.

Some people, such as yourself, seem to believe that this would never happen. You seem to think that because there is a need (in your view) for copyright holders to remove "owned" content, that we need a law like this. And further you seem to believe that its ok to have such a broad law, even though it may be open to such abuse.

UMG is just demonstrating why the founding fathers were right and why you are naive and short-sighted.

Here's the thing: if UMG wasn't actively doing it, you'd still be naive and short-sighted. You'd still be an "asshole", in your words, and the founding fathers would still be right.

I don't think you can use the excuse that we don't have a way to support your business model, to turn around and support fascism.

I could draw you a venn diagram if you like.

I can't believe in all your experience, you haven't met extremely smart hackers who are also utterly immoral. A situation like this just means they will be worth more money.

"catching security holes" is the compiler version of "think of the children".

Choosing "overflow" or "underflow" to mean "I fucked up" is totally arbitrary. Variables usually indicate values that have a domain - a range of valid numbers. Saying "I don't want to think about what that it is, but oh if X hits 2 billion and change then warn me when some math fails" is no better than having it not fail at all. In most cases there's already a problem.

So, simply, writing "OS quality" code means explicitly checking inputs to ensure they are in the permissible range. Once you know what the range is, you know if your code needs to go up to 64bit math to handle them.

UPDATE: Some explanation for the downvote would be appreciated.

Otherwise, let us agree that "I gave my word" is not a moral absolute and we are now debating about degree.

We get where you stand on this. Many disagree.