I "set up a dichotomy"? Again, you are being vague. I am not saying you have to be either a PC or console gamer. Nor did I say that those are the only two types of gamers you can have. Sure, I didn't mention the other types of gamers, but I did that because they were irrelevant to what I was discussing.
a) The only way they can have a comparable experience (or performance) to a PC in terms of a FPS game is if they have a mouse or use auto-aim. So your point about auto-aim being optional is actually, not relevant.
b) The person I replied to specifically mentioned input methods and input methods directly relate to PFS games. Probably because input method's only come into the spotlight when you require certain FPS-specific actions and speeds.
Your post is a typical example of someone diverting an argument. I never said a person couldn't own a console and a PC, where on earth are you coming up with that?
Every one from a foreign country featured in an American game or movie speaks english horribly. I mean they even try to push that with British and Australian people. As if we can't tell they're foreign by their accents!
Anyways, am I the only one getting sick of all this stereotyping in todays entertainment?
Nerds love Star Trek.
Nerds have no life.
Nerds have pimples.
Cheerleaders are not intelligent.
Jocks wear football jackets everywhere.
I could go on forever with these one liners. It's like they pick one of these lines out of a hat when they want to create a character.
We are not arrogant about our graphics and our input methods.
We, PC gamers, actually, pity console gamers. Fellow PC gamers, you are free to join me on this comment:) We pity you because you can't enjoy the game properly without using 'auto-aim'.
And, secondly, I don't think you should sympathize for us. I'm not telling you that in a rude way, but I'd like to point out to you that it is much easier for us to "circumvent" said DRM "features".
I'm not going to go into details or start a PC vs console debate.
And every time someone from a DRM-implementing publisher reads a post like yours they think:
"Gee, if he doesn't buy it, he must be pirating it. No one can live without our games! Oh well, let's continue blaming it on piracy! Har har..."
Your reply has nothing to do with the parent you replied to! He never said anything about giving it away for free. You assumed he meant give it away for free when he actually complained about the fact that the company gave exclusive rights to one entity when it should have allowed others the chance to license the rights from them.
But hey, if the parent was talking about Microsoft you would have agreed with him and called Microsoft evil without thinking twice!
I'm glad someone here has the balls to admit to that. I would have, too, but in a much harsher way, and would have been modded down:)
Good job on not submitting to the popular way of thinking, and on not betraying your right to come up with your own conclusion and think for yourself!
Have you ever searched on google and got a few million sites that had nothing to do with what you wanted? They were filled with text that did nothing but fill all the possible search combinations. You open them, and you find what? Ads, ads and more ads, that's what! You think that webpage you just opened had anything useful? Of course you didn't, you just clicked back and tried the next one. But for every 5 people like you, there's 1000 other people that are dumb and will click advertising on sites like these. These sites were on google for your search because they were spam linked on a billion other sites exactly like them. Is this what you want of your internet? Ha, go ahead and pay for nothing by 'taking advertising'.
Sure advertising is useful, when used right. But what ad abuse has done to the internet is awful. Something needs to be done.
Foofoobar:"Want to see my picture collection?"
Guest:"Sure, buddy... Let's see them!"
Foofoobar:"Err, wait, I have to restart my computer. Damn windows can't open pictures!"
Foofoobar and Guest in unison:"Har har har... Typical windows!"
Yes I did RTA. Heck I even searched for "gag order lifted" in google news to find it.
But the fact that it was lifted is besides the point. The point is that they had the idea that they could gag these students from releasing such information.
Second, did you this bit in the first paragraph: "judge refused to renew a gag order". That means that not only did they think that it was their place to gag these students, but that a judge initially approved a gag order.
I'm suprised this whole gag MIT student thing hasn't come up on slashdot. Or maybe I missed it, meh...
How about those MIT students that were gagged by the city authorities? So that they could keep their precious little income source from being exploited. Come step into the real world, buddy. Lack of free speech is one of America's faults. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/19/gag_order_lifted/
I think he meant to have a play on words. Because windows is "sleeping" while vendors find ways to do things without turning windows on. Kind of a gay play on words, but hey, it was approved. Joy... Not
I agree. What does this have to do with free will?
If you mean to say "A and B are made of the same stuff, and B are mindless automatons, therefore A are mindless automatons", then that is a fallacy (my point was to replace "mindless automatons" with not being conscious - though there are all sorts of counter argumnents to this argument). If that isn't your argumnent, my apologies, but then my question is how this relates to an argument against free will?
The question that interests me is: Do we - as in our consciousness - have an influence on events in our brain?
I'll try answer, but I'm not sure what you quite mean by that question. Your brain is your consciousness. If your brain is in a deterministic world, then yes your brain influences itself. If your brain is not in a deterministic world then yes your brain influences itself, but with random events also influencing your brain. Hence, your brain would not be entirely influenced by all the events that preceded it and led to its creation. Determinism basically boils down to causality and whether or not you believe in truly random events. If you go further than this, then you're basically in the "God did it" debate on determinism.
In what sense are you interpretting the question of free will? (Don't ask me to "read up", because I already know there are multiple definitions, and would rather avoid guessing which is yours.)
The one I think is the purest. Which also happens to, by definition, rely on determinism. I'm not going to quote so I'll just put it nice and simply:
Free will is when your brain's shape, structure, chemicals and everything else within it that makes consciousness is not entirely affected by anything other than itself.
In this sense, determinism is strictly incompatible with free will. The same definition phrased slightly better: Free will is when any random event was involved in the shaping of your brain.
Lol, I don't know how many times I have to phrase and rephrase. Do you finally understand the definition of free will that I'm talking about?
I would have said that I believe this definition is the only real definition, and that any other definitions are only the result of people trying to make free will and determinism compatible. But then you'd go on about how I'm not open minded and that my mind is set etc.
You are right, the processing requirements will grow incredibly fast. Unless they can come up with some sort of easily comparable "hash" that doesn't depend too much on image size they are doomed to fail. But as I see it, this sort of technology is just too impractical at this stage. And I seriously doubt that this little startup company has enough processing capacity to handle being in the real world.
Another possible way to reduce the problem is to reduce all images in the database and uploaded to be of a small, generic size, such as 100x100 pixels. Ok, that might produce a lot of false-positives, but then again, it might just leave you sorting out 50pictures instead of the impractical 2-3, or even more impractical 5billion.
You could also remove colour from the photographs, thereby reducing the processing power needed. But this would depend on whether or not their algorithm compares colour.
Some sort of grouping that can easily reduce the problem space. An example of this is searching only words beginning with a if the word you are comparing starts with an a.
But odds are these guys have already thought of the same things I have. And who can blame them, they're going to need all the help they can get.
Any software where they won't show me the source code and/or let me compile it myself with my own tools and have it work has something to hide. In Flash's case, I'll grant that what it's likely hiding is umpteen million security vulnerabilities,. But it could just as easily be hiding code to spy on me or censor things because the software decides I don't have a copyright license or I'm living in China or something.
And I don't think, given the general history of software, that I'm being particularly paranoid here.
That sounds an awful lot like a spoiled little brat. "Don't peel my apples, I only want you to cut them in half. Any other way and I will throw a tantrum fit to complain."
Bear in mind, I have my reservations about this argument, but I'm only posting this as a response to the parent's attitude about the subject and not as my opinion on the subject. Just in case I get trigger-happy-OSS-lovers reading my post.
You literally misunderstood every single one of my statements. And I had a tough time deciding whether you just plain disagree with me or you are inept at comprehending what I'm saying. The second would not have warranted a reply. But since I think it is both you not understanding the subject matter and not wanting to agree with me I will indeed respond.
If we don't have free will, then _we_ don't choose to believe anything. So the question is, why does the deterministic decision making process in the brain construct a belief for our consciousness to experience that we are all unique?
Well, first of all your mudding the argument here with different definitions. What we want has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. We want things regardless if we have free will or not. As for your questions, well I'm sorry to say, I don't understand how it has anything to do with my quote or what you said prior to asking it.
Firstly, whether or not there is free will, there is still the difference of consciousness. I don't think this means we have a soul - it's still part of our brain. Which means it's also part of the thing which makes our decisions. I would say that not having free will means that our consciousness is more likely to be separate from our brain.
Consciousness has nothing to do with what I said. When I say "not separate from the environment", I mean that we are byproducts of it, and that the things that drive us (call it soul, spirit, consciousness, whatever), is essentially made up of the same deterministic particles that make everything else mindless automatons.
That could be the case, but one wonders what the evolutionary reason for consciousness was, if it is merely a passive observer?
This bit warrants its own reply. Consciousness is not a passive observer, because again you are mixing around definitions. See, what you are basically saying is that consciousness is a passive observer if we have no free will. However, we have consciousness regardless if we have free will or not. Just because the universe is deterministic doesn't mean we don't play a part in it, because we do. We play the part that was determined by everything that created and shaped us. You need to read up on your definitions.
I don't think determinism has anything to do with that: in a non-deterministic world, we can still not be separate from the environment and be made from the same things. Or you could have a deterministic world where we were separate and made from different things.
I pretty much replied to this bit in the previous reply.
Moreover, it was the deterministic viewpoint that what the classical view of the world, and in part inspired by religion ("God made everything happen in perfect order, and everything is caused by everything else"). This has now been replaced by a non-deterministic viewpoint of the world, that was spawned from the scientific method, not religion.
I beg to differ. Religion was never the catalyst for a deterministic viewpoint. In fact, it was only somewhere around the time of Newton and company that people saw that they could accurately measure and predict the behaviour of objects. Mostly due to Newton's Theory of Gravity, but some other great thinkers at the time came up with ideas that also pointed to determinism. Those are the things that sparked determinism, not religion.
Similarly, if I consciously decide my next actions, then I necessarily have free will, regardless of whether the universe is pre-determined. You might argue that in a deterministic universe all consciousness is an illusion - but that's an unreawrding path to travel.
So we're supposed to believe in something because believing in it will result in a "rewarding path" for us? And you talk about being logical in the same post as this statement?
I believe that it is entirely logical to think that a deterministic universe implies no free will. Believing that determinism is compatible with free will is the equivalent of being a intelligent design proponent. The two just don't mix! Sure, you can twist meaning, or come up with some sort of elaborate ploy to make them mix, but you really are stretching it at that point.
As much as I want to believe that I have free will, I will not betray my logic over it. If you betray your logic once, you'll do it over and over again, and pretty soon you'll be admitting to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I know, it's a slippery slope argument, but in this case it really does apply correctly.
Exactly. We, people, want to believe that we are all unique. This dates back to when philosophers starting separating humans from everything else, which they dubbed "mindless automatons". We humans are supposed to have a "soul". Determinism takes all that away from us and simply tells us that we really are not separate from the environment, because we're made of the same things. Free will was spawned by the same thing that spawned religion.
It still amazes me how many times this one minor sticking point is thrown around when the topic of electric cars comes up. As my sibling nicely pointed out to you, the technology for electric cars having a decent range is already available, and has been for quite a while.
First, these people tinkering with their cars and getting 40 miles per charge is only due to the fact that they are unwilling to spend 10k - 20k on more efficient batteries. Second, these cars were never designed with efficiency in mind, and thus are ill suited for conversion to electrical. But again, as my sibling pointed out, there are cars that have been designed from the ground up to be electric and thus get much better range.
It really bothers me when people come to a discussion and just regurgitate all the same over-used points that they've been spoon-fed by the media.
I'm sorry to have to say this. But it is because of people like you that we are have huge environmental pollution problems! That whole "gung-ho let others pay the price for green" attitude is a major problem to the adoption of greener technologies and practices. Which makes you a hypocrite for being like that and saying "If you never take the first step, you'll never complete the journey". Because you are not taking the first step, instead you want others to do it for you until it becomes "competitive" and "efficient" enough for your selfish pocket!
Such a shame that we had to disregard all your good ideas because of this. And unlike you, I won't post this under anonymous, because I stand by my opinions even if other people don't like them. Unlike you, coward.
The problem may lie with public prosecutors that don't prosecute, or with the police that don't investigate. But let's take a step back and look at this without pointing fingers.
The reason these crimes aren't being focused on is simply due to the fact that they are not perceived to be real crimes. It's like that annoying little skateboarding teenager that likes to slide down that rail in the park. You just stroll up to them in your yellow spandex outfit, slobber all over them with your fat burger mouth, tell them off, and voila, problem solved! The two fall under the same category, except that with cyber-crime it isn't as easy to solve. My point is, to the cops, both are regarded as nothing more than a tedious annoyance.
Online wise - I know there's some huge jurisdictional problems, because many of the scammers are overseas. I just think we could still do SOMETHING.
That is why we humans, in a fit of brilliance, decided to create something known as the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). To pass on the evidence, and let other countries deal with it.
But the problem with this is that every country says: "Fuck it, it's someone else's problem, let them deal with it. Why should I investigate it just so they get to arrest the perpetrator?". And these criminals get away free as birds.
I can't remember the exact statistic on this. But I recall the figure being above 50%. More than 50% of americans don't believe in evolution. Do you really want to pick out 100 jurors from a group where more than half of them are that scientifically challenged and or plain ignorant of science?
And I'm not going to propose another patch to fix this inherently flawed system you call "democracy". Precisely because I think it is flawed. It may be the "best" system you've got right now, but it is far from ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
I "set up a dichotomy"? Again, you are being vague. I am not saying you have to be either a PC or console gamer. Nor did I say that those are the only two types of gamers you can have. Sure, I didn't mention the other types of gamers, but I did that because they were irrelevant to what I was discussing.
a) The only way they can have a comparable experience (or performance) to a PC in terms of a FPS game is if they have a mouse or use auto-aim. So your point about auto-aim being optional is actually, not relevant.
b) The person I replied to specifically mentioned input methods and input methods directly relate to PFS games. Probably because input method's only come into the spotlight when you require certain FPS-specific actions and speeds.
Your post is a typical example of someone diverting an argument. I never said a person couldn't own a console and a PC, where on earth are you coming up with that?
Every one from a foreign country featured in an American game or movie speaks english horribly. I mean they even try to push that with British and Australian people. As if we can't tell they're foreign by their accents!
Anyways, am I the only one getting sick of all this stereotyping in todays entertainment?
Nerds love Star Trek.
Nerds have no life.
Nerds have pimples.
Cheerleaders are not intelligent.
Jocks wear football jackets everywhere.
I could go on forever with these one liners. It's like they pick one of these lines out of a hat when they want to create a character.
We are not arrogant about our graphics and our input methods.
:) We pity you because you can't enjoy the game properly without using 'auto-aim'.
We, PC gamers, actually, pity console gamers. Fellow PC gamers, you are free to join me on this comment
And, secondly, I don't think you should sympathize for us. I'm not telling you that in a rude way, but I'd like to point out to you that it is much easier for us to "circumvent" said DRM "features".
I'm not going to go into details or start a PC vs console debate.
And every time someone from a DRM-implementing publisher reads a post like yours they think: "Gee, if he doesn't buy it, he must be pirating it. No one can live without our games! Oh well, let's continue blaming it on piracy! Har har..."
Your reply has nothing to do with the parent you replied to! He never said anything about giving it away for free. You assumed he meant give it away for free when he actually complained about the fact that the company gave exclusive rights to one entity when it should have allowed others the chance to license the rights from them.
But hey, if the parent was talking about Microsoft you would have agreed with him and called Microsoft evil without thinking twice!
I'm glad someone here has the balls to admit to that. I would have, too, but in a much harsher way, and would have been modded down :)
Good job on not submitting to the popular way of thinking, and on not betraying your right to come up with your own conclusion and think for yourself!
Nice to see how you resort to a personal insult just to defend your precious comment. That kinda thing always brightens my day.
So save your petty insults for someone else. I have better things to do with my time than to entertain people like you.
Bull. What do you pay the ISP for, then?
Have you ever searched on google and got a few million sites that had nothing to do with what you wanted? They were filled with text that did nothing but fill all the possible search combinations. You open them, and you find what? Ads, ads and more ads, that's what! You think that webpage you just opened had anything useful? Of course you didn't, you just clicked back and tried the next one. But for every 5 people like you, there's 1000 other people that are dumb and will click advertising on sites like these. These sites were on google for your search because they were spam linked on a billion other sites exactly like them. Is this what you want of your internet? Ha, go ahead and pay for nothing by 'taking advertising'.
Sure advertising is useful, when used right. But what ad abuse has done to the internet is awful. Something needs to be done.
Not everything is a bloody conspiracy to keep linux out of the mainstream market, get over it...
Foofoobar:"Want to see my picture collection?"
Guest:"Sure, buddy... Let's see them!"
Foofoobar:"Err, wait, I have to restart my computer. Damn windows can't open pictures!"
Foofoobar and Guest in unison:"Har har har... Typical windows!"
What could be less cool than this situation? lol
Yes I did RTA. Heck I even searched for "gag order lifted" in google news to find it.
But the fact that it was lifted is besides the point. The point is that they had the idea that they could gag these students from releasing such information.
Second, did you this bit in the first paragraph: "judge refused to renew a gag order". That means that not only did they think that it was their place to gag these students, but that a judge initially approved a gag order.
I'm suprised this whole gag MIT student thing hasn't come up on slashdot. Or maybe I missed it, meh...
I call bullshit.
How about those MIT students that were gagged by the city authorities? So that they could keep their precious little income source from being exploited. Come step into the real world, buddy. Lack of free speech is one of America's faults.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/19/gag_order_lifted/
I think he meant to have a play on words. Because windows is "sleeping" while vendors find ways to do things without turning windows on. Kind of a gay play on words, but hey, it was approved. Joy... Not
I agree. What does this have to do with free will?
If you mean to say "A and B are made of the same stuff, and B are mindless automatons, therefore A are mindless automatons", then that is a fallacy (my point was to replace "mindless automatons" with not being conscious - though there are all sorts of counter argumnents to this argument). If that isn't your argumnent, my apologies, but then my question is how this relates to an argument against free will?
The question that interests me is: Do we - as in our consciousness - have an influence on events in our brain?
I'll try answer, but I'm not sure what you quite mean by that question. Your brain is your consciousness. If your brain is in a deterministic world, then yes your brain influences itself. If your brain is not in a deterministic world then yes your brain influences itself, but with random events also influencing your brain. Hence, your brain would not be entirely influenced by all the events that preceded it and led to its creation. Determinism basically boils down to causality and whether or not you believe in truly random events. If you go further than this, then you're basically in the "God did it" debate on determinism.
In what sense are you interpretting the question of free will? (Don't ask me to "read up", because I already know there are multiple definitions, and would rather avoid guessing which is yours.)
The one I think is the purest. Which also happens to, by definition, rely on determinism. I'm not going to quote so I'll just put it nice and simply:
Free will is when your brain's shape, structure, chemicals and everything else within it that makes consciousness is not entirely affected by anything other than itself.
In this sense, determinism is strictly incompatible with free will. The same definition phrased slightly better: Free will is when any random event was involved in the shaping of your brain.
Lol, I don't know how many times I have to phrase and rephrase. Do you finally understand the definition of free will that I'm talking about?
I would have said that I believe this definition is the only real definition, and that any other definitions are only the result of people trying to make free will and determinism compatible. But then you'd go on about how I'm not open minded and that my mind is set etc.
You are right, the processing requirements will grow incredibly fast. Unless they can come up with some sort of easily comparable "hash" that doesn't depend too much on image size they are doomed to fail. But as I see it, this sort of technology is just too impractical at this stage. And I seriously doubt that this little startup company has enough processing capacity to handle being in the real world.
Another possible way to reduce the problem is to reduce all images in the database and uploaded to be of a small, generic size, such as 100x100 pixels. Ok, that might produce a lot of false-positives, but then again, it might just leave you sorting out 50pictures instead of the impractical 2-3, or even more impractical 5billion.
You could also remove colour from the photographs, thereby reducing the processing power needed. But this would depend on whether or not their algorithm compares colour.
Some sort of grouping that can easily reduce the problem space. An example of this is searching only words beginning with a if the word you are comparing starts with an a.
But odds are these guys have already thought of the same things I have. And who can blame them, they're going to need all the help they can get.
Any software where they won't show me the source code and/or let me compile it myself with my own tools and have it work has something to hide. In Flash's case, I'll grant that what it's likely hiding is umpteen million security vulnerabilities,. But it could just as easily be hiding code to spy on me or censor things because the software decides I don't have a copyright license or I'm living in China or something.
And I don't think, given the general history of software, that I'm being particularly paranoid here.
That sounds an awful lot like a spoiled little brat. "Don't peel my apples, I only want you to cut them in half. Any other way and I will throw a tantrum fit to complain."
Bear in mind, I have my reservations about this argument, but I'm only posting this as a response to the parent's attitude about the subject and not as my opinion on the subject. Just in case I get trigger-happy-OSS-lovers reading my post.
If we don't have free will, then _we_ don't choose to believe anything. So the question is, why does the deterministic decision making process in the brain construct a belief for our consciousness to experience that we are all unique?
Well, first of all your mudding the argument here with different definitions. What we want has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. We want things regardless if we have free will or not. As for your questions, well I'm sorry to say, I don't understand how it has anything to do with my quote or what you said prior to asking it.
Firstly, whether or not there is free will, there is still the difference of consciousness. I don't think this means we have a soul - it's still part of our brain. Which means it's also part of the thing which makes our decisions. I would say that not having free will means that our consciousness is more likely to be separate from our brain.
Consciousness has nothing to do with what I said. When I say "not separate from the environment", I mean that we are byproducts of it, and that the things that drive us (call it soul, spirit, consciousness, whatever), is essentially made up of the same deterministic particles that make everything else mindless automatons.
That could be the case, but one wonders what the evolutionary reason for consciousness was, if it is merely a passive observer?
This bit warrants its own reply. Consciousness is not a passive observer, because again you are mixing around definitions. See, what you are basically saying is that consciousness is a passive observer if we have no free will. However, we have consciousness regardless if we have free will or not. Just because the universe is deterministic doesn't mean we don't play a part in it, because we do. We play the part that was determined by everything that created and shaped us. You need to read up on your definitions.
I don't think determinism has anything to do with that: in a non-deterministic world, we can still not be separate from the environment and be made from the same things. Or you could have a deterministic world where we were separate and made from different things.
I pretty much replied to this bit in the previous reply.
Moreover, it was the deterministic viewpoint that what the classical view of the world, and in part inspired by religion ("God made everything happen in perfect order, and everything is caused by everything else"). This has now been replaced by a non-deterministic viewpoint of the world, that was spawned from the scientific method, not religion.
I beg to differ. Religion was never the catalyst for a deterministic viewpoint. In fact, it was only somewhere around the time of Newton and company that people saw that they could accurately measure and predict the behaviour of objects. Mostly due to Newton's Theory of Gravity, but some other great thinkers at the time came up with ideas that also pointed to determinism. Those are the things that sparked determinism, not religion.
Similarly, if I consciously decide my next actions, then I necessarily have free will, regardless of whether the universe is pre-determined. You might argue that in a deterministic universe all consciousness is an illusion - but that's an unreawrding path to travel.
So we're supposed to believe in something because believing in it will result in a "rewarding path" for us? And you talk about being logical in the same post as this statement?
I believe that it is entirely logical to think that a deterministic universe implies no free will. Believing that determinism is compatible with free will is the equivalent of being a intelligent design proponent. The two just don't mix! Sure, you can twist meaning, or come up with some sort of elaborate ploy to make them mix, but you really are stretching it at that point.
As much as I want to believe that I have free will, I will not betray my logic over it. If you betray your logic once, you'll do it over and over again, and pretty soon you'll be admitting to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
I know, it's a slippery slope argument, but in this case it really does apply correctly.
Exactly. We, people, want to believe that we are all unique. This dates back to when philosophers starting separating humans from everything else, which they dubbed "mindless automatons". We humans are supposed to have a "soul". Determinism takes all that away from us and simply tells us that we really are not separate from the environment, because we're made of the same things. Free will was spawned by the same thing that spawned religion.
It still amazes me how many times this one minor sticking point is thrown around when the topic of electric cars comes up. As my sibling nicely pointed out to you, the technology for electric cars having a decent range is already available, and has been for quite a while.
First, these people tinkering with their cars and getting 40 miles per charge is only due to the fact that they are unwilling to spend 10k - 20k on more efficient batteries.
Second, these cars were never designed with efficiency in mind, and thus are ill suited for conversion to electrical. But again, as my sibling pointed out, there are cars that have been designed from the ground up to be electric and thus get much better range.
It really bothers me when people come to a discussion and just regurgitate all the same over-used points that they've been spoon-fed by the media.
I'm sorry to have to say this. But it is because of people like you that we are have huge environmental pollution problems! That whole "gung-ho let others pay the price for green" attitude is a major problem to the adoption of greener technologies and practices. Which makes you a hypocrite for being like that and saying "If you never take the first step, you'll never complete the journey". Because you are not taking the first step, instead you want others to do it for you until it becomes "competitive" and "efficient" enough for your selfish pocket!
Such a shame that we had to disregard all your good ideas because of this. And unlike you, I won't post this under anonymous, because I stand by my opinions even if other people don't like them. Unlike you, coward.
The problem may lie with public prosecutors that don't prosecute, or with the police that don't investigate. But let's take a step back and look at this without pointing fingers.
The reason these crimes aren't being focused on is simply due to the fact that they are not perceived to be real crimes. It's like that annoying little skateboarding teenager that likes to slide down that rail in the park. You just stroll up to them in your yellow spandex outfit, slobber all over them with your fat burger mouth, tell them off, and voila, problem solved! The two fall under the same category, except that with cyber-crime it isn't as easy to solve. My point is, to the cops, both are regarded as nothing more than a tedious annoyance.
Online wise - I know there's some huge jurisdictional problems, because many of the scammers are overseas. I just think we could still do SOMETHING.
That is why we humans, in a fit of brilliance, decided to create something known as the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). To pass on the evidence, and let other countries deal with it.
But the problem with this is that every country says: "Fuck it, it's someone else's problem, let them deal with it. Why should I investigate it just so they get to arrest the perpetrator?". And these criminals get away free as birds.
I can't remember the exact statistic on this. But I recall the figure being above 50%. More than 50% of americans don't believe in evolution. Do you really want to pick out 100 jurors from a group where more than half of them are that scientifically challenged and or plain ignorant of science?
And I'm not going to propose another patch to fix this inherently flawed system you call "democracy". Precisely because I think it is flawed. It may be the "best" system you've got right now, but it is far from ideal.