Nobody here is going to have issue with you buying a game, even playing that game, then giving your game discs to somebody else to play. Many publishers have issues, but most slashdotters don't. You seem to be implying though (and correct me if I'm wrong), that if you buy a game you're entitled to post up a digital copy of it for anybody to share while you keep playing it? Copyright law has been twisted all sorts of ways, but this is the fundamental thing it is in place to prevent: allowing one person to take your work and broadly distribute it without your authorization. These things take time and money to make - not many people can do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Even game developers need to eat.
While it's great to play the devils advocate, the numbers still don't add up. You need to consider how that 15% failure rate is impacted by the "abstinence" group failing to properly educate kids on condom usage. You also need to consider that a long term (in your four year example) couple using condoms for birth control will be far closer to the 2% failure rate than the 15% failure rate of the short term flings and drunken hookups.
Essentially, it's "more data and analysis needed," but given the current data suggests higher pregnancy rates in abstinence only communities, I think the impact of risk compensation is far outweighed by the impact of ignorant horny kids.
Really the issue is not primarily with the judiciary. Run some statistics on what people are incarcerated for and what has changed in the last few decades for our prison populations to rise so rapidly.
Right, 'cause ruining somebody's life is always the best way to correct a mistake and will never have unintended consequences... These guys messed up big, but the point of the justice system is to correct and reduce crime - you don't do that by taking away people's livelihood.
I suppose we're just going to disagree here - even if you can rig a directional jammer. My opinion is that while it is wrong for somebody to be loud and obnoxious in public, it is more wrong for somebody back in the shadows to play judge jury and executioner on that person's ability to use their phone. I won't say it's a good idea to ask *everybody* to quiet down, you need to perform your own risk assessment on each case. What I am saying is that if you aren't willing to have a discussion with the person on the matter, then what gives you the right to end their conversation with no chance for appeal?
No, enforcing what the driver is too lazy or cowardly to do would be asking the guy to talk quietly or hang up. What he's doing is engaging in vigilante justice with widespread collateral damage. That, and he's only doing it because he knows it is very unlikely he's going to be caught.
...then I'm going to be rude and inconsiderate to them. Preferably in a stealthy manner.
So... you're too passive-aggressive to politely ask them to quiet down then? Another poster put this pretty eloquently, so I won't repost, but worth keeping in mind how differently we feel about restricting somebody else's access to a service when *we* have the button instead of somebody else: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2710361&cid=39263155
I don't know, I haven't seen anybody using a cell phone in a theater in recent memory. A lot of effort has been spent to make sure people know it's rude and unacceptable. Who knows though, could be a regional thing...
Hah - I have no problem with people using the phone in the restroom. It's disgusting and tacky and hilarious. It just makes another story to tell when I get out: "Oh man, Larry was totally just taking a s#it while talking to his wife!"
The trick is to always get a few toilet flushes in the background so whoever they are talking to knows it and can mock them accordingly.
Texts don't provide receipt of message confirmation that a phone call does. Point is, a short call or even a long *quiet* conversation on the bus is not impolite to most normal people, but I don't know if people on trains or buses using phone jammers are normal.
I suppose the bigger question is - why have manners deteriorated to the point that the general public feels it's necessary to take technological measures to fix social problems? The purchase and use of jammers is just a symptom of an underlying societal problem
Good point. After all, when did people get so passive aggressive that they can no longer politely ask somebody to speak quieter and fin it necessary to sit in a corner and anonymously flip a kill switch? Show somebody the respect of a polite request and you'll find that most often not only will they listen to you, but they'll keep it in mind during future conversations. Flip a switch on a jammer and all you'll get is some yelling at the phone wondering why it doesn't work.
I don't understand why it has to be a thwack upside the head - why can't it be a poke in the arm? Same with the cell phones. Why does it have to be a jammer? Why can't you simply *ask* them to talk quieter?
No mod points, but this is really the argument we should focus on. Sure, it could interfere with an emergency but that is rare and anecdotal. What is very real is that this asshat is interrupting all sorts of other people due to one asshat being loud. It is simply not his place to decide what the people around him should and should not be allowed to do. Some adjectives to describe a person like that: self important, sociopath, passive aggressive... asshat... I'm sure you can chime in with more.
As a matter of fact, I have. Politely ask somebody to quiet down and they will most likely apologize and comply. Sure, some will be rude and beligerent, but that is rare (I've actually never had it happen). I don't know when everybody got so terrified of talking to other people, but it really is not that bad.
Who cares? One person is being loud and because you're too passive-aggressive to politely ask them to quiet down, you're going to block *everybody* from using the service - including those quietly streaming music, surfing, or messaging? Why is it suddenly your place to enforce your will upon everybody on the bus?
So which is it... are the majority forcing the minority to feed them or are the minority providing bread and circuses to placate the majority? Either way, I don't feel the facts line up with your assertions.
I don't disagree with you, but I did just want to point out that I was simply mocking the self-important jackass GP. You and my sibling poster here sum up nicely that a lot of the problem comes from people ignoring the risks and assuming they will be protected by their cars and other drivers. More training and stricter licensing can improve that, but as long as we feel "safe" in our cars we get lazy and do things that greatly increase the risks without necessarily realizing it.
Exactly - get on a motorcycle for a bit. You learn real quick that your job is to look out not just for yourself but also for everybody else who knowingly or unknowingly are trying to kill you. That's a lesson that doesn't go away quickly when you get back in your car.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody here is going to have issue with you buying a game, even playing that game, then giving your game discs to somebody else to play. Many publishers have issues, but most slashdotters don't. You seem to be implying though (and correct me if I'm wrong), that if you buy a game you're entitled to post up a digital copy of it for anybody to share while you keep playing it? Copyright law has been twisted all sorts of ways, but this is the fundamental thing it is in place to prevent: allowing one person to take your work and broadly distribute it without your authorization. These things take time and money to make - not many people can do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Even game developers need to eat.
I'm pretty sure the actual quote was 100, though I don't recall who said it...
While it's great to play the devils advocate, the numbers still don't add up. You need to consider how that 15% failure rate is impacted by the "abstinence" group failing to properly educate kids on condom usage. You also need to consider that a long term (in your four year example) couple using condoms for birth control will be far closer to the 2% failure rate than the 15% failure rate of the short term flings and drunken hookups.
Essentially, it's "more data and analysis needed," but given the current data suggests higher pregnancy rates in abstinence only communities, I think the impact of risk compensation is far outweighed by the impact of ignorant horny kids.
Really the issue is not primarily with the judiciary. Run some statistics on what people are incarcerated for and what has changed in the last few decades for our prison populations to rise so rapidly.
Right, 'cause ruining somebody's life is always the best way to correct a mistake and will never have unintended consequences... These guys messed up big, but the point of the justice system is to correct and reduce crime - you don't do that by taking away people's livelihood.
I asked it. It told me it wasn't. I don't see any reason not to believe it.
I suppose we're just going to disagree here - even if you can rig a directional jammer. My opinion is that while it is wrong for somebody to be loud and obnoxious in public, it is more wrong for somebody back in the shadows to play judge jury and executioner on that person's ability to use their phone. I won't say it's a good idea to ask *everybody* to quiet down, you need to perform your own risk assessment on each case. What I am saying is that if you aren't willing to have a discussion with the person on the matter, then what gives you the right to end their conversation with no chance for appeal?
No, enforcing what the driver is too lazy or cowardly to do would be asking the guy to talk quietly or hang up. What he's doing is engaging in vigilante justice with widespread collateral damage. That, and he's only doing it because he knows it is very unlikely he's going to be caught.
...then I'm going to be rude and inconsiderate to them. Preferably in a stealthy manner.
So... you're too passive-aggressive to politely ask them to quiet down then? Another poster put this pretty eloquently, so I won't repost, but worth keeping in mind how differently we feel about restricting somebody else's access to a service when *we* have the button instead of somebody else: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2710361&cid=39263155
Not only is virtually every thing you've written wrong, but you have belligerently insulted the GP in the process. Sir, I salute you!
Already posted... have no mod points anyway... but good lord did you hit the nail on the head with this one!
Easy - it'll be the antisocial nerd in the corner who doesn't make eye contact with anybody.
Easy - it's going to be the antisocial nerd sitting back in the corner avoiding eye contact with everybody.
I don't know, I haven't seen anybody using a cell phone in a theater in recent memory. A lot of effort has been spent to make sure people know it's rude and unacceptable. Who knows though, could be a regional thing...
Hah - I have no problem with people using the phone in the restroom. It's disgusting and tacky and hilarious. It just makes another story to tell when I get out: "Oh man, Larry was totally just taking a s#it while talking to his wife!"
The trick is to always get a few toilet flushes in the background so whoever they are talking to knows it and can mock them accordingly.
Texts don't provide receipt of message confirmation that a phone call does. Point is, a short call or even a long *quiet* conversation on the bus is not impolite to most normal people, but I don't know if people on trains or buses using phone jammers are normal.
I suppose the bigger question is - why have manners deteriorated to the point that the general public feels it's necessary to take technological measures to fix social problems? The purchase and use of jammers is just a symptom of an underlying societal problem
Good point. After all, when did people get so passive aggressive that they can no longer politely ask somebody to speak quieter and fin it necessary to sit in a corner and anonymously flip a kill switch? Show somebody the respect of a polite request and you'll find that most often not only will they listen to you, but they'll keep it in mind during future conversations. Flip a switch on a jammer and all you'll get is some yelling at the phone wondering why it doesn't work.
I don't understand why it has to be a thwack upside the head - why can't it be a poke in the arm? Same with the cell phones. Why does it have to be a jammer? Why can't you simply *ask* them to talk quieter?
Why do you think it's up so loud?
No mod points, but this is really the argument we should focus on. Sure, it could interfere with an emergency but that is rare and anecdotal. What is very real is that this asshat is interrupting all sorts of other people due to one asshat being loud. It is simply not his place to decide what the people around him should and should not be allowed to do. Some adjectives to describe a person like that: self important, sociopath, passive aggressive... asshat... I'm sure you can chime in with more.
As a matter of fact, I have. Politely ask somebody to quiet down and they will most likely apologize and comply. Sure, some will be rude and beligerent, but that is rare (I've actually never had it happen). I don't know when everybody got so terrified of talking to other people, but it really is not that bad.
Who cares? One person is being loud and because you're too passive-aggressive to politely ask them to quiet down, you're going to block *everybody* from using the service - including those quietly streaming music, surfing, or messaging? Why is it suddenly your place to enforce your will upon everybody on the bus?
So which is it... are the majority forcing the minority to feed them or are the minority providing bread and circuses to placate the majority? Either way, I don't feel the facts line up with your assertions.
I don't disagree with you, but I did just want to point out that I was simply mocking the self-important jackass GP. You and my sibling poster here sum up nicely that a lot of the problem comes from people ignoring the risks and assuming they will be protected by their cars and other drivers. More training and stricter licensing can improve that, but as long as we feel "safe" in our cars we get lazy and do things that greatly increase the risks without necessarily realizing it.
Exactly - get on a motorcycle for a bit. You learn real quick that your job is to look out not just for yourself but also for everybody else who knowingly or unknowingly are trying to kill you. That's a lesson that doesn't go away quickly when you get back in your car.