SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Swedish ISP punishes Elsevier for forcing it to block Sci-Hub by also blocking Elsevier
[...] Unfortunately for Swedes and for science, the Swedish Patent and Market Court (which never met a copyright overreach it didn't love) upheld the order, and Bahnhof, a small ISP with limited resources, decided not to appeal (a bigger, richer ISP had just lost a similar appeal).
Instead, Bahnhof now blocks attempts to visit Sci-Hub domains, and Elsevier.com, redirecting attempts to visit Elsevier to a page explaining how Elsevier's sleaze and bullying have allowed it to monopolize scientific publishing, paywalling publicly funded science that is selected, reviewed and edited by volunteers who mostly work for publicly funded institutions.
To as[sic] icing on this revenge-flavored cake, Bahnhof also detects attempts to visit its own site from the Patent and Market Court and redirects them to a page explaining that since the Patent and Market Court believes that parts of the web should be blocked, Bahnhof is blocking the court's access to its part of the web.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @05:21AM (33 children)
As always, you can't impose a monopoly without the aid of a (the?) monopoly on violent imposition.
Big Government corrupts business, not the other way around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:15AM
Corruptions like Corporate Personhood, patents and copy-"rights".
(Score: 2, Touché) by sjames on Monday November 05 2018, @06:27AM (28 children)
So you're advocating for strong gun control because it's guns, not people using guns, that kill people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:34AM (20 children)
As the 2nd Amendment states very clearly [wikipedia.org]:
A well armed population is a polite population; a lack of politeness is an asymmetry in armaments. The Cold War proved this on the grand scale, too.
Goodbye, SoylentNews. Enjoy your echo chamber.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:45AM (1 child)
Lol, liar.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @09:03AM
Liar, or not, having echo in your chamber suggests excessive headspace, which could lead to dangerous pressures and a possible "banana barrel split", which is quite unpleasant, and possibly resulting in one less Trump voter. I would get that checked, and not vote in the mid-terms, just in case. In case your case has excessive head-space.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @09:42AM
I upvote you damn near every time. You're not alone VIM-man.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 05 2018, @10:24AM (2 children)
I think your knee jerked a bit there. Think harder, then post.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @01:08PM
I don't think it was his knee he was jerking when he wrote that...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @04:28PM
Read the AC's reply until you understand it.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday November 05 2018, @12:43PM (10 children)
Explain New York then.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Oakenshield on Monday November 05 2018, @02:50PM (9 children)
Perhaps you should not have stopped reading and you might have had your answer.
a lack of politeness is an asymmetry in armaments.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday November 06 2018, @04:53AM (8 children)
So if no one is armed, you get maximum politeness? And if people are unequally armed you get minimum politeness?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 06 2018, @05:08AM (7 children)
No, he's trying to hide his own insecurity behind tough-sounding talk. It says a lot about people who say "an armed society is a polite society," because what that implies is that 1) they only reason they're "polite" is they're afraid of injury or death, and 2) if that threat weren't there, they'd be "impolite." Also 3) they think everyone else in the country is as much of a spineless, antisocial moral nullity as they are.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday November 06 2018, @05:52AM
True, but your bluntness will never make people think. Probably nothing will but coming from an unarmed society, I'm polite. (Of course there are also impolite unarmed societies)
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday November 06 2018, @02:48PM (5 children)
Unfortunately, I am all too aware that much of the country is witless, amoral, self destructive and naïve. The underlying issue is asymmetric power and as a female, it's something you should completely understand unless that MeToo thing was much ado about nothing.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 06 2018, @04:12PM (4 children)
Oh yes, I understand *all* about asymmetric power. It's one of the reasons I'm actually pro-gun-ownership, I just want people to stop being fucking stupid about it. I may or may not possess a concealed carry license and a .22 myself. Not saying one way or another. No one but me needs to know unless they attempt a rape or robbery.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday November 06 2018, @06:53PM (3 children)
So you claim to support gun ownership yet you want to call me a "spineless, antisocial moral nullity" for pointing out the obvious that there aren't very many of those rapes and robberies occurring at the gun range. I also find it interesting that I can freely admit I have no concealed carry permit, nor do I own any handguns at all but you scrutinize me to be spineless and antisocial, fearing injury or death whereas you imply that you do carry concealed but apparently are not subject to the same assessment. Perhaps you should do some personal introspection before you make snap judgments about others lest they reflect back upon you.
Apparently this is another one of those "rules for thee, not for me" cases.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 07 2018, @05:39AM (2 children)
Oh blow it out your ass. I'm going to call you spineless and antisocial *if* you think the only thing stopping people in the main from rape and robbery is the fear of a high-speed vitamin L injection. If you aren't that simpleminded and bestial, then you can ignore those insults, as they're not meant for you. If you are, then they apply.
I'm under no illusions about what that weapon means and what the implications of carrying it are. I don't think most people truly understand what it is to carry (potential) deaths, plural, on their person, how horrible and scary it is and how awful, therefore, the surrounding world is in order to make someone even consider doing such a thing. If we have fallen, as a nation, to the point that only fear of permanent injury or death stops us from committing violent crime, then we're well and truly fucked.
THAT is my beef here. Anyone who thinks this way is a threat to civilized society, because it means that 1) they think existence is at BEST a zero-sum game, 2) humans can never, ever raise ourselves above the moral level of, say, chimpanzees no matter how much our technology advances, and 3) despite 1 and 2 they don't have the presence of mind to place limits on the most dangerous bits of that technology because "MUH FREEDUMBZ."
Do you truly not see the contradiction in there, and the self-defeating, despairing nihilism of it all?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Wednesday November 07 2018, @05:41PM (1 child)
I thought the quote was that an armed society is a polite society, not non-violent or crime free. Regardless, we *have* fallen as a society. We have the largest prison population in the world. We have daily road rage incidents. There are people being shot over items of insignificant value. Fights break out over perceived insult to ego. Way too many people place no value on the lives of others.
You would like to think that your handgun will protect you if you are attacked, when in reality you are statistically unlikely to have time or opportunity to produce it when most needed. However, if it were known by the attacker in advance that you were armed, you would be much less likely be attacked. Bullies choose not to victimize those who are able to defend themselves. This is the point. You can try to throw in sociological or psychological justifications of why this should not be, but reality wins.
You certainly have proven your point though being armed and one of the most impolite humans I have ever met. Next time, make an effort to debate without jumping straight to ad homonyms.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 09 2018, @05:26AM
Oh cry harder, asshole. I'm not "nice," and have not been "nice" for several years now. This is what you jerkoffs call "not being politically correct," innit? Odd how your kind are the flakiest of snowflakes despite all the tough talk. If you can't stand the heat, get off the pot, as the saying doesn't go.
Now, you seem reasonably intelligent, and you have at least a partial grasp on the problems at hand. You mention, in the middle of that list, "people being shot over items of insignificant value." What, precisely, are these people being shot with? Please think about that in context of the rest of your post.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @02:16PM (2 children)
A well regulated militia
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @04:24PM
The Founders are saying that in order to keep a state free, you need to be able to form not only a militia, but a militia that is well equipped with high-quality weapons composed of regular, industrial parts. You can't rely on farmers with pitchforks.
Ergo, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why? Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:09PM
it's not an restriction it's a goddamn explanation. also, the "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulation by the federal gov either. it meant well trained and ran (by citizens). all you cowardly authoritarians like to talk about not needing "assault weapons" for hunting and that's more dishonesty. the founders would have shot you in the ass for even suggesting something so stupid, as the 2a was for protecting your right (and duty) to rebel against treacherous government and they meant "of current military and police use", and they said so. hunting and self defense were considered givens. they never imagined the slaves calling themselves citizens that we have today and the need to explain that you should be able to bag your own game without begging for a license from some parasite in the state capital. if you traitors win seats and pass gun laws that go too far, you're going to find out what the 2a is for.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Monday November 05 2018, @08:53AM (4 children)
After doing so, for the first time ever *drum rolls* I'm seriously reconsidering my moderation. Maybe you're not a troll. Maybe you're just a dumbass.
Because it struck me, there is some sort of logic to what you're saying.
Guns are tools. The fallacy in 'gun control' is trying to prohibit useful tools, rather than simply prohibit their misuse. You're calling the government a tool, and you're implying it's being misused?
The government, in a /western liberal democracy/ at least, is supposed to be a tool of the citizens, certainly. The point is coherent to that point. Yes, institutions intended to be tools for good are being misused.
But the difference is enormous. Guns are not people - they don't take action on their own, to preserve their own position, to perhaps increase their pay and influence? No guns are inanimate objects. They can never bear blame for anything - if they fail, it is because of an error made by their designer, their manufacturer, their maintainer, or their end user.
The government, on the other hand, is composed of people. Each of whom has presumably been taught and tested throughout their life on the basic concepts of the society they are supposed to be serving. It can fail on the same levels - it can have a flaw in design, in implementation, in adaption to changing circumstance, or by otherwise losing the general consent (天命.)
But it's still people. It's not an inanimate object, behind which we *must* look to find a conscious decision. No, it's literally a beast composed of living human carcasses.
You'd find a better parallel in comparing it to a big corporation, than a proper tool. Try appealing to sympathy for the poor government employee, who tries his best to present a sane outer face while simultaneously satisfying multiple incompatible and ill-considered demands from different sets of bosses (or the same set of bosses in different annual incarnations or whatever) if you want to invoke any real sympathy for the gov very far from the Potomac.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Monday November 05 2018, @09:04AM (1 child)
Arik, you are a verbose monospaced fool. Just let it go, please. I may have to mod you counter-troll mod.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Arik on Monday November 05 2018, @09:31AM
Phillistinos,
"you are a"
Be careful! Absolute phrasing with the verb 'to be' can cause you to think like an animal! CATegorically and DOGmatically!
"verbose"
/me nods and rolls his eyes skyward, shrugging his shoulders.
"monospaced"
/me tilts his head towards his left shoulder, brows furrowing, puzzled.
"fool."
/me shrugs helplessly, nods.
Countermod me if you wish, I tried to undo his mod already, I'm more interested in his reply than thine.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 05 2018, @10:22AM (1 child)
Indeed, government, like a gun may be considered to be a tool. And this was a serious misuse of a tppl. You may have missed the way I pointed out a serious disconnect that takes place in the mind of a person who is pro gun but anti government when they claim that tool is blameless in the former case but the tool carries all of the blame in the second.
Considering that you see the point but couldn't resist the troll mod, I'm guessing something in that line of reasoning makes you uncomfortable.
I do see your point as well. Government doesn't go blameless in this case, but neither does Elsevier. Of course, I would likewise remind the strict gun control advocate that the person holding the gun is hardly blameless for the gun violence.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday November 05 2018, @02:10PM
You're misunderstanding, I didn't see your point until after modding.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @08:01PM
"So you're advocating for strong gun control because it's guns, not people using guns, that kill people?"
I would advocate for strong gun control because that's the only thing that will at least try to verify the quality of the person receiving the gun in question, thus hopefully preventing the people using guns to kill people won't be receiving the gun to do their dirty work. Will they still kill people? Maybe. Depends entirely on how determined or lazy they are. But people don't suddenly say "Fuck, I can't get a gun. Let's go kill people I don't like." nearly as much as "Fuck, I got a gun. Let's go kill people I don't like."
Bottom line, if you're a person that can be trusted with a gun, you're likely not going to affected by gun control laws. (And I'm not bringing racism into this with how african americans and the like will be unfairly judged etc since most of the people that bitch about gun control laws are white men.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 08 2018, @03:40PM
I'm pretty sure it is the mix of the two. As it is harder to outlaw humans than it is to outlaw guns, let's go with removing the guns from the equation.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 05 2018, @04:27PM (2 children)
Hey, dipshit, when corporations become powerful enough, they become de facto government entities. Get this through your head. Your entire twisted little shibboleth relies on a line of demarcation that doesn't actually exist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @07:01PM (1 child)
Essentially, you're saying "We need a government to save us from a government." You're admitting that your government idea is the failure mode of my idea.
You know what, though? Thank god for competition in the world; thank god there has never been One World Government—even among explicitly authoritarian organizations, competition is what has kept the peace, a peace which has only grown more stable as these organizations have been forced to adopt increasingly capitalistic principles of interaction.
Competition: The ultimate form of checks and balances; the ultimate separation of powers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 06 2018, @05:01AM
Er, no. YOU are the hypocrite here, not me. Hypocrisy, projection, and willful ignorance are the gibbertarian Holy Trinity and you're one of the single most pathological examples I've ever met.
Catch a fucking clue, asshole: power goes to power, money goes to money, wealth goes to wealth, and the accretion is a positive feedback loop. Get beyond a certain level of wealth and power, and there is no longer any line between government and private entity, not least because of all the disgusting, incestuous mixing between the two.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...