I had forgotten, for a moment, about the fucked up math used by the MAFIAA to justify their stance. Now that you've reminded me, I realize you are 100% right - a boycott, according to the *.A.A's, would be proof positive that piracy was rampant, and thus would be used to try and shove even more draconian legislation down our throats.
So, in other words, we're stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation until a useful amount of legislators pull their heads from between the cheeks of lobbyist asses, and start drafting legislation that doesn't bend their constituents over the proverbial table.
Fuck; now I'm depressed.
As you can see your logical thinking just doesn't work when you are talking corporations and politics
Counterfeiting is not theft. It is counterfeiting. A sort of fraud.
... and fraud is but another way to steal from other people, i.e. theft.
It is not, however, theft. It is not a bridge, a banana or train derailment either. You views about how wrong it is does not make it magically arson now theft. Sorry.
Again, completely agree with you - but as I said before, pirating the material* just makes it appear that said material has value, and thus piracy only serves to help keep copyright law in it's current, fucked up state (or give an excuse to make it more fucked up).
* New material. After 25 years, everything should go into the public domain with very, very few exceptions (the only ones I can think of involve WMDs). After all, if you haven't profited from an idea after a quarter-century, you're most definitely doing something wrong.
Someone needs to come up with a docking module on the dash, to which you can dock a standard device that can be upgraded over the years. Kind of like the old "DIN" standard for car stereos, but more flat, intended for touch screen devices. Then when your in-dash system gets outdated you can upgrade it.
It's called the "Cigarette Lighter". It can power a wide range of devices...
Cigarette lighters provide a data connection? Since when?
You know, there's no sense in being a child about it.
I noticed you actually took a little care in writing your response with correct spelling and usage, so I'll hold to my promise and provide a response.
but this is because you don't understand what Subjective Morality is.
Incorrect. Did you even read my original post? I quite succinctly pointed out precisely what subjective morality is. Not my fault you were too busy formulating an angry response to read what was written.
Subjective Morality is where no one can be morally right, and no one can be morally wrong because everyone can have different morals.
Incorrect again.
Subjective morality, or as it's more commonly referred to in scientific circles, moral relativism, does not define that "no one can be morally right or wrong." Rather, it is recognition and acceptance of the absolute fact that morality, in general, is a subjective concept, and that the judgement of what is or is not a moral act is based not on any sort of metric, but rather personal interpretation of the topic at hand.
Using the submitter's bus scenario as an example, to a person who places fiscal conservation above all else, killing a busload of kids could be considered morally acceptable, as kids are a massive fiscal burden to taxpayers. Of course, anyone who holds the idea that life is more important than money would disagree. Thus, we have proof of moral relativism.
Your argument is that "Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself". Under Subjective Morality that isn't possible, and is an Objective Moral stance.
Yea, no shit.
Almost like that was the point I was trying to make.
Only Objective Morality allows for absolute rules like "It is immoral to imposes my beliefs on others".
Right, which I already established...
Under Subjective Morality it might not be moral to you, but could be moral for someone else.
Also already established by me...
Admitting it's Subjective, as you have, means you know your position has no moral meaning, or you don't know what Subjective Morality really is.
AAAaaaand you lost me.
What do you mean by "it's" in the statement, "Admitting it's subjective?" The statement that forcing one's beliefs on another is immoral?
Please tell me you're not actually using circular logic in your responses (although, that would explain why I can't make heads nor tails of most of what you're saying...), i.e. "a persons opinion is subjective, you made an objective point your opinion, therefore said objective point is subjective."
Garry Marcus, clearly, believes that is it a moral duty to make moral machine, and that it would be immoral not to. He is even using the "Greater Good" argument. The problem with Subjective Morality is that it can be used to justify ANY moral position you want, and who is to say, other than yourself, that position is always correct.
You lost me again.
What, exactly, do you think my stance is on this subject? Because I think you're confused about my rationale, leading to a communications breakdown.
Yea, that's where I got the 4 CDRs I posted. We'll chalk this one up to search filtering.
It is a fine excuse to spy on people. I'm just pointing out the entirely legitimate way in which this can happen. I think it's very reasonable that the subpoena not include any data following the assigning of a new phone and that, even if the CDRs include such data, it should not be included in the database. As with most systems, though, the devil is in the details. The police could be using this whole system for the very reasonable problem of finding repeat offenders -- carefully ensuring that any data of the victim's is redacted before being entered into the database -- or they could be slurping up any data people are dumb enough to offer them and using it to "solve" any case they can reasonably pin on the sucker. There's a wide field of possibilities, and I'm loath to think that either end of the spectrum is likely to be true.
Alright, I see what you're getting at. It's just that, with the recent explosion of scope creep and self-appointed expansion of power in the law 'enforcement' community over the past decade or so, I'm hard pressed to believe that their actions won't fall to the extreme negative side of the spectrum.
One look at all the anti-privacy laws that have been passed since 2001 (especially those specific to the New York, New York area) is all I need, to know that the NYPD very much will be using this for less-than-noble purposes.
but you're still full of it. Money is a representation of work and physical resources. You can Counterfeiting money all day long and not hurt a soul. It's when you pass the bill, exchanging something of value for something worthless, that you've now committed fraud. The same goes for counterfeiting art. Again, you're not copying, you're committing fraud, because there's the (implicit and unsaid) understanding that you are now going to pass that art off as the real thing.
In other words, "fraud" can be defined as "theft through copying."
Does anyone know if this exploit could be used to alter/remove the tracking dots every color laser printer marks its documents with?
Samsung is basically the only manufacturer that DOESN'T insert yellow tracking dots. Your own link DOESN'T include Samsung on the list of manufacturers to call, and the EFF link of affected models lists all tested Samsung units as free and clear.
Well, then, I guess I know which brand of laser printer I'm going for next time I'm in the market.
hmmm, I think you're jumping to conclusions here. The AC didn't say 'steal', they said 'find other ways to get it'.
That's what he meant, and I'm certain we both know that.
A lot of people really like your game, but $1000 per game is too expensive for them to buy it. So a few of them get together and make a copy of your game. It's got the same gameplay elements that they liked in your game, but uses different art and a new engine. They sell this version of the game for $10.
People will probably buy their version rather than your version. The price for the product you spent all that time building is now $10, not $1000.
Bad analogy - in this case, no one stole anything; this hypothetical group saw something they liked, but didn't love, and improved upon it. That's called "Invention," and it drives social progress.
Piracy is the way the games market is introducing competition.
How, precisely? Are the pirates doing what your hypothetical group is - seeing a game they like but don't want to spend the money on, then designing their own, similar game, and selling it for a much more reasonable price? I'd love to see some examples, since the concept alone seems quite dubious.
Eliminating piracy is a matter of providing multiple methods of obtaining your product at multiple price points, not attempting to break the market by creating a monopoly through DRM.
Like how Microsoft will sell a legit copy of Windows 7 in Malaysia for $15, but in the US it charges $150? Great idea, except that we know that such a strategy doesn't work, because people in the US still pirate copies of Windows 7.
Of course, there's a chance I'm misinterpreting your stance here; if so, please correct me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd nuke the moon, if for no other reason than just to see what happens.
I know what you're thinking, and the answer is 'indeed, I am a mad scientist - why do you ask?'
First you launch nukes at the moon to judge how well they work in space warfare. Later you build a base there which can launch nukes of its own.
...
But if the purpose of the moon-nuke-base was to launch attacks on terrestrial targets, who gives a rats ass how they work in 'space warfare?'
Somebody is wrong on the Internet, I must swing into action!
Wanna really blow someone's mind? Tell them the internet person owned up to being wrong.
I dig, I dig!
I had forgotten, for a moment, about the fucked up math used by the MAFIAA to justify their stance. Now that you've reminded me, I realize you are 100% right - a boycott, according to the *.A.A's, would be proof positive that piracy was rampant, and thus would be used to try and shove even more draconian legislation down our throats.
So, in other words, we're stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation until a useful amount of legislators pull their heads from between the cheeks of lobbyist asses, and start drafting legislation that doesn't bend their constituents over the proverbial table.
Fuck; now I'm depressed.
As you can see your logical thinking just doesn't work when you are talking corporations and politics
Scratch that - super fucking depressed.
Steam on linux is going to start with valve engine games.
Probably a lot of games that are already Linux native,* too.
OT: Perhaps this is just my sophomoric side showing, but when I see the acronym L.G.D.B., Linux games are not what immediately spring to mind...
Windows 8: where all Al Gore's Internet can root for success!
What you did:
It's there, and I see it.
Europe: they give you a house next to the brewery, and fresh, free beer for life. The US: they give you an alias. :/
In the UK (according to the wiki page you linked), you get the threat of incarceration:
Why do you want to send data to your car? A car is for transport.
...
Did you even read the post you originally responded to? Or the summary, for that matter?
Ignoring that for a moment, one word: telemetrics.
A car may be nothing more than a mode of transport to you, but to some of it's an awesome physics toy.
Counterfeiting is not theft. It is counterfeiting. A sort of fraud.
... and fraud is but another way to steal from other people, i.e. theft.
It is not, however, theft. It is not a bridge, a banana or train derailment either. You views about how wrong it is does not make it magically arson now theft. Sorry.
Now you're just being petulant.
Stop it.
Why, because they're public domain?
You do realize there is art out there that isn't 200+ years old, right?
Again, completely agree with you - but as I said before, pirating the material* just makes it appear that said material has value, and thus piracy only serves to help keep copyright law in it's current, fucked up state (or give an excuse to make it more fucked up).
* New material. After 25 years, everything should go into the public domain with very, very few exceptions (the only ones I can think of involve WMDs). After all, if you haven't profited from an idea after a quarter-century, you're most definitely doing something wrong.
Software, having a much shorter useful lifespan than other types of IP, should only be given a 10 year ©, if any at all.
Someone needs to come up with a docking module on the dash, to which you can dock a standard device that can be upgraded over the years. Kind of like the old "DIN" standard for car stereos, but more flat, intended for touch screen devices. Then when your in-dash system gets outdated you can upgrade it.
It's called the "Cigarette Lighter". It can power a wide range of devices...
Cigarette lighters provide a data connection? Since when?
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Supreme Law of the Land, not to be superseded by anything but another Amendment:
Good luck to you, Canadians. Here's hoping your judges are far less "activist" than our own.
Our judges are not elected. They don't have to impress anybody.
Depending on the jurisdiction, neither are ours.
Nice cop out,
You know, there's no sense in being a child about it.
I noticed you actually took a little care in writing your response with correct spelling and usage, so I'll hold to my promise and provide a response.
but this is because you don't understand what Subjective Morality is.
Incorrect. Did you even read my original post? I quite succinctly pointed out precisely what subjective morality is. Not my fault you were too busy formulating an angry response to read what was written.
Subjective Morality is where no one can be morally right, and no one can be morally wrong because everyone can have different morals.
Incorrect again.
Subjective morality, or as it's more commonly referred to in scientific circles, moral relativism, does not define that "no one can be morally right or wrong." Rather, it is recognition and acceptance of the absolute fact that morality, in general, is a subjective concept, and that the judgement of what is or is not a moral act is based not on any sort of metric, but rather personal interpretation of the topic at hand.
Using the submitter's bus scenario as an example, to a person who places fiscal conservation above all else, killing a busload of kids could be considered morally acceptable, as kids are a massive fiscal burden to taxpayers. Of course, anyone who holds the idea that life is more important than money would disagree. Thus, we have proof of moral relativism.
Your argument is that "Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself". Under Subjective Morality that isn't possible, and is an Objective Moral stance.
Yea, no shit.
Almost like that was the point I was trying to make.
Only Objective Morality allows for absolute rules like "It is immoral to imposes my beliefs on others".
Right, which I already established...
Under Subjective Morality it might not be moral to you, but could be moral for someone else.
Also already established by me...
Admitting it's Subjective, as you have, means you know your position has no moral meaning, or you don't know what Subjective Morality really is.
AAAaaaand you lost me.
What do you mean by "it's" in the statement, "Admitting it's subjective?" The statement that forcing one's beliefs on another is immoral?
Please tell me you're not actually using circular logic in your responses (although, that would explain why I can't make heads nor tails of most of what you're saying...), i.e. "a persons opinion is subjective, you made an objective point your opinion, therefore said objective point is subjective."
Garry Marcus, clearly, believes that is it a moral duty to make moral machine, and that it would be immoral not to. He is even using the "Greater Good" argument. The problem with Subjective Morality is that it can be used to justify ANY moral position you want, and who is to say, other than yourself, that position is always correct.
You lost me again.
What, exactly, do you think my stance is on this subject? Because I think you're confused about my rationale, leading to a communications breakdown.
Good luck to you, Canadians. Here's hoping your judges are far less "activist" than our own.
Go for a walk in the park and talk to people instead of downloading Transformers VII*.
* that's the one with the credits that explode, and then that explosion explodes into two exponentially larger explosions shaped like boobs.
FTFY.
This is Micheal Bay we're talking about, after all.
Canada....would you mind shipping all this reason and common sense down south to the USA?
No need, we already have a law that prevents the imposition of excessive fines - it's called the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Problem is, it tends to get ignored; here's hoping the Canadian courts don't follow suit, as they have in the past.
You have access to Google.
Yea, that's where I got the 4 CDRs I posted. We'll chalk this one up to search filtering.
It is a fine excuse to spy on people. I'm just pointing out the entirely legitimate way in which this can happen. I think it's very reasonable that the subpoena not include any data following the assigning of a new phone and that, even if the CDRs include such data, it should not be included in the database. As with most systems, though, the devil is in the details. The police could be using this whole system for the very reasonable problem of finding repeat offenders -- carefully ensuring that any data of the victim's is redacted before being entered into the database -- or they could be slurping up any data people are dumb enough to offer them and using it to "solve" any case they can reasonably pin on the sucker. There's a wide field of possibilities, and I'm loath to think that either end of the spectrum is likely to be true.
Alright, I see what you're getting at. It's just that, with the recent explosion of scope creep and self-appointed expansion of power in the law 'enforcement' community over the past decade or so, I'm hard pressed to believe that their actions won't fall to the extreme negative side of the spectrum.
One look at all the anti-privacy laws that have been passed since 2001 (especially those specific to the New York, New York area) is all I need, to know that the NYPD very much will be using this for less-than-noble purposes.
but you're still full of it. Money is a representation of work and physical resources. You can Counterfeiting money all day long and not hurt a soul. It's when you pass the bill, exchanging something of value for something worthless, that you've now committed fraud. The same goes for counterfeiting art. Again, you're not copying, you're committing fraud, because there's the (implicit and unsaid) understanding that you are now going to pass that art off as the real thing.
In other words, "fraud" can be defined as "theft through copying."
Thanks for backing me up.
Samsung is basically the only manufacturer that DOESN'T insert yellow tracking dots. Your own link DOESN'T include Samsung on the list of manufacturers to call, and the EFF link of affected models lists all tested Samsung units as free and clear.
Well, then, I guess I know which brand of laser printer I'm going for next time I'm in the market.
If anything, this is REVERSE karma.
Amrak?
Grow a sense of humor, douche.
Swap "10^5 American bank note" with "Coach Purse" or "Mona Lisa," and you may just get my point.
I'm sorry, but the combination of spelling, usage, punctuation, and mechanics errors in your post make it nigh unreadable.
I'll be happy to provide a response if you can re-write your post in a way that's comprehensible.
Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself.
Says Who?
Uh, how about everyone?
There are plenty of people in the world who think it's just fine - or even that it's a divine imperative - for them to force their morality on others.
Sure, lots of people have no problem shoving their own beliefs down the throats of others, but turn the tables and it's a whole new ballgame.
That's what I was alluding to.
hmmm, I think you're jumping to conclusions here. The AC didn't say 'steal', they said 'find other ways to get it'.
That's what he meant, and I'm certain we both know that.
A lot of people really like your game, but $1000 per game is too expensive for them to buy it. So a few of them get together and make a copy of your game. It's got the same gameplay elements that they liked in your game, but uses different art and a new engine. They sell this version of the game for $10. People will probably buy their version rather than your version. The price for the product you spent all that time building is now $10, not $1000.
Bad analogy - in this case, no one stole anything; this hypothetical group saw something they liked, but didn't love, and improved upon it. That's called "Invention," and it drives social progress.
Piracy is the way the games market is introducing competition.
How, precisely? Are the pirates doing what your hypothetical group is - seeing a game they like but don't want to spend the money on, then designing their own, similar game, and selling it for a much more reasonable price? I'd love to see some examples, since the concept alone seems quite dubious.
Eliminating piracy is a matter of providing multiple methods of obtaining your product at multiple price points, not attempting to break the market by creating a monopoly through DRM.
Like how Microsoft will sell a legit copy of Windows 7 in Malaysia for $15, but in the US it charges $150? Great idea, except that we know that such a strategy doesn't work, because people in the US still pirate copies of Windows 7.
Of course, there's a chance I'm misinterpreting your stance here; if so, please correct me.