Then it wouldn't have been removed. They still had to make the patch.
but they removed a feature less than 1% of "gaming" PS3s used.
It's not a feature that you personally care about, so therefore it's objectively unimportant? I don't care if it was 1% of customers that were ripped off or 99%. I don't think that forcing people to choose between OtherOS and playing the newest games and being able to access PSN is anything but idiotic. And for what? Because they're overly paranoid?
I actually don't think anyone would have time to read huge walls of text filled with legalese every single time they went to buy a good or use a service...
If you mean they don't care about the indirect consequences of their actions, yes, I believe that to be an act of arrogance.
By "don't care," I meant that they simply do not care about the "indirect consequences of their actions." They don't care if the website eventually has to resort to a paywall. However, the kind of person I'm thinking of also doesn't feel that they're entitled to view the website. I don't feel that such a person, while you may not call them "nice," can be considered arrogant. I don't see where they're 'exaggerating' their own importance or feeling entitled to anything. They simply don't care and will use the service as long as it is available to them.
Or perhaps everyone is arrogant in some way. "I think what you're doing is wrong. Therefore, you're objectively arrogant!" Perhaps they wish to see another method other than advertisements used. Perhaps they simply have a different mindset than you. Since "arrogant" is subjective, what does it matter?
I don't really care about ads that are just static images and text. I'll block anything beyond that, though. And if that makes me "arrogant" in your eyes, then so be it.
It's incredibly arrogant of people to block ads simply because they dislike advertisements on an idealogical basis.
How is that arrogant? What if someone just doesn't care? Everyone that doesn't have the exact same priorities and mindset as you is automatically arrogant? Or just on this specific issue? Why?
No, with false advertising they are punishing you for violating an oral contract.
...Based on something you said. Your speech is what got you in trouble. You said something, and they deemed it in violation of some sort of 'contract'. If you would have said something else, then that wouldn't have happened. Therefore, the content of your speech is what got you in trouble.
Unless I'm missing something.
Don't you think contracts ought be enforcable?
I don't care for contracts.
If I'm not aiming the gun at you I'm not comitting a crime?
Indeed.
And why is it a crime to point my gun at everyone I see in case they try to kill me?
Is it? I would imagine it's because letting people walk around pointing guns at people would be somewhat dangerous (as guns can cause actual, direct harm to people). Then again, that's not really speech.
Are you saying that my opinions isn't 100% objective fact? Are you trying to say that forcing something on someone won't always make them like it? Please! My opinion reigns supreme! You're just resisting change!
It sure would be great if I was paid 24 hours a day. But I'm not. I do such things in my free time, and it's something that will waste my time now (unless it's fun for me to do), but give me enjoyment in the future.
No, it's anyone who abuses the law. Including those who send bogus take down orders because they know that it's difficult to do anything. Rather than making it extremely difficult for them to take anything down (website operators wouldn't have to unquestionably remove the material), we have a system that is ripe for abuse.
That's like saying that DRM (which often just inconveniences customers) is actually the fault of pirates, and not the people who actually implemented it. I'll blame the latter far more than the former. I don't care for using bogeymans as an excuse to inconvenience everyone (terrorists, pedophiles, pirates, etc).
What? I don't care if both of them are criminals. I still think something should be done. I do think DMCA abuse is a real problem (regardless of whether or not it was abused in this case).
the real issue who makes the laws and who enforces them.
And, from what I see, those who abuse the laws, as well.
That was used to demonstrate not that murder isn't as 'bad' as this situation, but that no matter what situation you're in, it probably could get worse. It was just an analogy, and analogies don't always imply that one situation is exactly like another one (but, as far as I've seen, many people believe that they do).
Re:EVERYONE IS SPECIAL! ALL LIFE IS MAGIC!!!!111
on
Is the Earth Special?
·
· Score: 1
but even those odds are hugely greater that the possibility that there is a God.
Who says that they do forget? Just because they can remove the videos for any reason they want doesn't mean that their decisions are exempt from criticism.
Seriously who gives a fuck? It's music and video since when did "entertainment" become so important as to occupy more than a passing moment of thought? Judging by your comments one would think it was great big deal worth fussing about, it isn't.
Subjective.
Ignorance is bliss, if you knew everything that went on in this world you would most likely curl up an die or outright kill yourself like the photographer of this picture did.
Depends on the person.
Part of your argument seems to be, "if your situation could be worse, then your situation is good!" What? Your wife was murdered? That's nothing! The criminals could've murdered your daughter, too! Stop complaining!
As if anything that one deems as an injustice should be overlooked merely because you say that worse things happen.
Perhaps employers should not be concentrating on such superficial things. "In my opinion, this person sounds stupid. Therefore, they are! Anyone who speaks in a way that I don't like is automatically stupid (even if the way they speak is not relevant at all)!"
Your wife was just murdered? Please! You don't need her.
That was assuming that the list is composed entirely of things that you need to survive.
If it is just composed of things that you want badly, then anything could qualify. That's subjective, after all.
I was really just questioning the fact that he acted as if complaining was bad and the fact that he used "unimportant things" as if such a thing doesn't vary from person to person.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony did not remove OtherOS.
Then it wouldn't have been removed. They still had to make the patch.
but they removed a feature less than 1% of "gaming" PS3s used.
It's not a feature that you personally care about, so therefore it's objectively unimportant? I don't care if it was 1% of customers that were ripped off or 99%. I don't think that forcing people to choose between OtherOS and playing the newest games and being able to access PSN is anything but idiotic. And for what? Because they're overly paranoid?
I actually don't think anyone would have time to read huge walls of text filled with legalese every single time they went to buy a good or use a service...
actually wrong with you
Subjective. "I don't like the way person X thinks. Therefore, there is something objectively wrong with them."
If you mean they don't care about the indirect consequences of their actions, yes, I believe that to be an act of arrogance.
By "don't care," I meant that they simply do not care about the "indirect consequences of their actions." They don't care if the website eventually has to resort to a paywall. However, the kind of person I'm thinking of also doesn't feel that they're entitled to view the website. I don't feel that such a person, while you may not call them "nice," can be considered arrogant. I don't see where they're 'exaggerating' their own importance or feeling entitled to anything. They simply don't care and will use the service as long as it is available to them.
Or perhaps everyone is arrogant in some way. "I think what you're doing is wrong. Therefore, you're objectively arrogant!" Perhaps they wish to see another method other than advertisements used. Perhaps they simply have a different mindset than you. Since "arrogant" is subjective, what does it matter?
I don't really care about ads that are just static images and text. I'll block anything beyond that, though. And if that makes me "arrogant" in your eyes, then so be it.
It's incredibly arrogant of people to block ads simply because they dislike advertisements on an idealogical basis.
How is that arrogant? What if someone just doesn't care? Everyone that doesn't have the exact same priorities and mindset as you is automatically arrogant? Or just on this specific issue? Why?
You gave no reasons why you think it's horrible.
Not really necessary.
Isn't loss of potential profit theft? Isn't it the exact same thing as breaking into consumers' homes and stealing some of their money?
Everyone knows that something being free completely exempts it from all criticism (somehow).
No, with false advertising they are punishing you for violating an oral contract.
...Based on something you said. Your speech is what got you in trouble. You said something, and they deemed it in violation of some sort of 'contract'. If you would have said something else, then that wouldn't have happened. Therefore, the content of your speech is what got you in trouble.
Unless I'm missing something.
Don't you think contracts ought be enforcable?
I don't care for contracts.
If I'm not aiming the gun at you I'm not comitting a crime?
Indeed.
And why is it a crime to point my gun at everyone I see in case they try to kill me?
Is it? I would imagine it's because letting people walk around pointing guns at people would be somewhat dangerous (as guns can cause actual, direct harm to people). Then again, that's not really speech.
Are you saying that my opinions isn't 100% objective fact? Are you trying to say that forcing something on someone won't always make them like it? Please! My opinion reigns supreme! You're just resisting change!
Time is money
It sure would be great if I was paid 24 hours a day. But I'm not. I do such things in my free time, and it's something that will waste my time now (unless it's fun for me to do), but give me enjoyment in the future.
No, it's anyone who abuses the law. Including those who send bogus take down orders because they know that it's difficult to do anything. Rather than making it extremely difficult for them to take anything down (website operators wouldn't have to unquestionably remove the material), we have a system that is ripe for abuse.
That's like saying that DRM (which often just inconveniences customers) is actually the fault of pirates, and not the people who actually implemented it. I'll blame the latter far more than the former. I don't care for using bogeymans as an excuse to inconvenience everyone (terrorists, pedophiles, pirates, etc).
What? I don't care if both of them are criminals. I still think something should be done. I do think DMCA abuse is a real problem (regardless of whether or not it was abused in this case).
the real issue who makes the laws and who enforces them.
And, from what I see, those who abuse the laws, as well.
Nope, you used a tired tactic to try to justify your position
What tired tactic? What justification? Are you claiming to know my intentions?
the truth is the issue in the article is actually a non-issue
Subjective.
it is irrelevant to anyone with an attention span longer than a mosquitoes.
It's irrelevant to anyone who doesn't care about it. Interesting generalization, though.
As I said: "Worse things happen! Therefore, you can't ever focus on issue X or I'll say that you're wrong for not adhering to my standards."
That was used to demonstrate not that murder isn't as 'bad' as this situation, but that no matter what situation you're in, it probably could get worse. It was just an analogy, and analogies don't always imply that one situation is exactly like another one (but, as far as I've seen, many people believe that they do).
but even those odds are hugely greater that the possibility that there is a God.
A greater possibility to who? You? Why?
Who says that they do forget? Just because they can remove the videos for any reason they want doesn't mean that their decisions are exempt from criticism.
Seriously who gives a fuck? It's music and video since when did "entertainment" become so important as to occupy more than a passing moment of thought?
Judging by your comments one would think it was great big deal worth fussing about, it isn't.
Subjective.
Ignorance is bliss, if you knew everything that went on in this world you would most likely curl up an die or outright kill yourself like the photographer of this picture did.
Depends on the person.
Part of your argument seems to be, "if your situation could be worse, then your situation is good!" What? Your wife was murdered? That's nothing! The criminals could've murdered your daughter, too! Stop complaining!
As if anything that one deems as an injustice should be overlooked merely because you say that worse things happen.
enter the selective service (for males)
That sounds awful.
"I lost my personal identification number."
Perhaps employers should not be concentrating on such superficial things. "In my opinion, this person sounds stupid. Therefore, they are! Anyone who speaks in a way that I don't like is automatically stupid (even if the way they speak is not relevant at all)!"
It is? I don't really care about it, and I don't think it's even relevant (it certainly doesn't determine whether someone is correct or not).
Why would that bother you?
While we're at it why don't we dispose of eye contact
Agreed. It's overrated, in my opinion.
Your wife was just murdered? Please! You don't need her.
That was assuming that the list is composed entirely of things that you need to survive.
If it is just composed of things that you want badly, then anything could qualify. That's subjective, after all.
I was really just questioning the fact that he acted as if complaining was bad and the fact that he used "unimportant things" as if such a thing doesn't vary from person to person.