deathgrips

Every government protection starts as a temporary relief. Then the corporations that benefit from those regulations use the extra revenue to lobby for more exclusively beneficial regulations that harm their competitors. The result is copyrights that last for infinity minus one years, infantile industries requiring temporary protections yet never leaving infancy, and regulatory boards staffed by CEOs from the industries they regulate. Copyright law, much like communism and eating ice cream for dinner every night, sounds good only in isolation without a historical perspective.

Since I am a fellow coder I cannot in good conscience suggest another terrible name.

This implies that there are political motives that justify killing thousands to millions of soldiers and civilians. Can you or anyone here provide a non-exhaustive list of these justifiable motives?

The feds don't like him because he leaks their secrets. The Republicans don't like him because he makes our military look bad. The Democrats don't like him because he leaked Clinton's emails. There's no longer anyone in America willing to stop his incarceration so he can pester their political rivals.

>What's far more interesting about this case, is the fact that the press used to be in love with Assange, and now they hate him. I wonder what caused them to turn.

He published Clinton's emails. After that he was no longer on the same "team" as American journalists.

>4 million innocent people murdered in illegal wars

This phrase has always bugged me. How do you carry out a 100% legal war? War is by its very nature an uprooting of the normal system where we resolve conflicts in a peaceful and organized fashion.

Coders can't come up with a good name to save their lives.

Julian Assange knew what he was getting in to when he voluntarily got a security clearance, accessed information he wasn't authorized to access, and then leaked that information to the entire planet in violation of his security clearance. The leaks accomplished nothing of concrete positive value. He was perfectly free to leave government work and become a political activist without leaking classified information.

Snowden and Manning were perfectly free to engage in political activism without leaking classified information. Leaking classified information didn't amount to anything good.

Yes, assuming that everything that program relies on to run also works perfectly as intended. God help you if you get a CPU bug.

I think we're talking about different classes. Computer science 102 traditionally teaches data structures and algorithms coding. Analysis of algorithms teaches the mathematical techniques for evaluating algorithms by their time and space efficiency.

>we're all on board with the idea of intellectual property actually being a thing now

No. Intellectual property is not genuine property. It is a state granted monopoly and is antithetical to free market principles.

This right here is why we should regulate twitter up to nationalization. If twitter does away with free speech and other human rights it becomes the new norm.

Call it whatever you want, I'll take the imperialist country that doesn't censor activists' accounts.

Does this mean that women don't date men with misogynistic beliefs or habits?

I'm sorry to hear about that. I hope you got the support you deserve.

This is true! It does take up a lot of time. If you are a decent looking, interesting guy and want to get dates, take up dancing and go to a lot of dances. I recently stopped going dancing because I got too busy with more important stuff.

>A lot of guys are complaining in the thread, with undertones of an expectation of sex

I don't see the undertones. Copied from another comment:

It's so interesting how whenever any man talks about romantic problems he is met with this feminist mantra "you aren't owed sex". Do you honestly think that's what we're talking about? If someone talked about how much it sucks that they don't have car and need to walk to work would you tell them "you aren't owed a car"?

I think people regurgitate this phrase because we can't ever acknowledge that sexual empowerment results in peoples needs not being met. It must be their fault, they must be sabotaging somehow. They must be sexists.

Please search for nopoo. It's like nofap but you don't take a shit more than once every three days. Your body expends a lot of energy with excretion. If you train your body to conserve this energy it becomes easier to concentrate and you exude attractive pheromones.

I'd argue that people who get laid off deserve it and just need to work harder.

>Just because your monogamous friends are happy and fulfilled doesn't mean your slutty friends would be happy if they lived the same way.

This isn't backed up by research which seems to suggest that the more sexual partners you have, the worse your relationships are in practically every dimension.

>You aren't owed a significant other, or sex. Nobody is.

It's so interesting how whenever any man talks about romantic problems he is met with this feminist mantra "you aren't owed sex". Do you honestly think that's what we're talking about? If someone talked about how much it sucks that they don't have car and need to walk to work would you tell them "you aren't owed a car"?

I think people regurgitate this phrase because we can't ever acknowledge that sexual empowerment results in peoples needs not being met. It must be their fault, they must be sabotaging somehow. They must be sexists.

This gives more ammunition to my hot take that degrees from elite universities don't teach you anything special.

Nice job dehumanizing anyone who doesn't benefit from the current system. In other news, poor people just need to work harder!

Ask some men you know.

Regardless of the real quantity, society will blame all sexless men for their lack of sex because to acknowledge any other reality would mean that something is wrong with how we are dating.

Looks like after a couple days this anarcho-communist zone has already begun starving: https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=148485

Right, because police rarely break the law?

If reform worked it would have already worked.

No, you are missing the point. Without a gun there is nothing keeping you safe aside from a cop's whims. If someone wanted to walk into your house/office and kill you, a cop would (1) stop them, (2) choose not to stop them and not get punished for it, or (3) not get to you in time to be of any help. Defending yourself is the fourth option you exercise with your right to self-defense. If you really think that cops are bad, arrange your life so that your life doesn't depend on their whims. I live in a state where at least two thirds of people own guns (usually multiple guns) and the crime rate is very low.