What makes you think that the people you see on Slashdot "bitching that half the youngsters getting computer science degrees today are incompetent code monkeys" are the same ones who dislike the declining interest or falling numbers in comp-sci education? Or do they all think the same way?
Lack of food causes starvation. Human failure to procure food only helps. While yelling "fire" may help put people in danger, it is ultimately their own stupidity that does that (or other peoples' stupidity). The word itself does not cause any harm. After all, if no one went berserk upon hearing that word (I find it highly unlikely that such a thing would happen anyway), nothing would happen.
I'm sure even the "general public" can follow simple instructions.
This also why DRM doesn't need to provide 100% security - as long as it makes things harder for non-geeks.
Who are we talking about here? People that don't know how to use a computer at all? As far as I've seen, installing cracks is very, very easy. They often provide instructions if you seriously don't know how, even.
Apparently if they feel that a service is, more often than not (never mind the fact that with something as broad as someone merely using bittorrent it would likely be nearly impossible for them to determine this), used to infringe upon copyrights, it should be shut down. Even if, at most, copyright infringement only causes a potential loss of potential profit. Just shut those services down. Who cares if someone was using it legitimately?
How do you know that? Considering that it's likely nearly impossible to identify infringing content, I don't see how anyone could possibly come up with an accurate measurement.
That is because you cling to "correct" as having to be some kind of moral superiority.
When someone speaks of moral absolutes, they (in my experience) are usually referring to some kind of outside force dictating what set of morals are and aren't 'correct'. You might not have been talking about that, but that is what I usually see.
We can prove that freedom is advantageous to progress.
Go ahead, then. Taking into account the level of freedom that the people have would also help. Is absolute freedom advantageous? Is having no freedom disadvantageous? What level of freedom is preferred?
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater puts no one in danger. It's just a word, after all. Human stupidity puts people in danger; the willingness of people to believe whatever they hear and then react in a way that puts people in danger puts people in danger. If you, upon hearing the word "fire" in a crowded theater, immediately believe those words (without checking if it is true or reacting calmly) and then stampede over anyone in your way, I'd say any damage you cause is your own fault. If you hurt anyone whilst acting in this manner, I think you should be completely responsible. Of course, if the theater owner wants to kick out the person who screamed "fire," I also think they should be able to do that.
I do believe there are moral absolutes - evolution isn't relative. Some things are better for physical survival, and some things are better for the advancement of society.
What do those things have to do with moral absolutes? I don't see how any of those things indicate that there is a 'correct' set of morals.
objectively better
For physical survival? For the advancement of society? Because the magical moral fairy said so? Either way, prove it.
I wonder if people truly believe that comparing theft of physical objects that someone owns to the potential loss of potential profit (in this case, there is no loss of potential profit to begin with). One causes a loss of property to a person, the other causes a loss of... nothing (not even potential profit in this case).
How is that theft? If he can't get the movies/music/games anyway, then how could downloading them possibly cause a loss of potential profit (which I don't think is theft, anyway).
Not necessarily. Unless you can see into alternate dimensions, I don't see how you could possibly know whether or not systems that haven't even been tried (or even thought of yet) wouldn't work.
I'd say stealing is taking something that someone already owns away from that. Afterwards, they will no longer have it at all. Or, at least, that's what I think the average person thinks when they hear/read the word.
But I also think Steam is not wrong to accept DRM from publishers.
Steam itself is a form of DRM. Perhaps the problem is that some people would rather Steam act like GOG (just a place where you buy games and use its other features).
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think that the people you see on Slashdot "bitching that half the youngsters getting computer science degrees today are incompetent code monkeys" are the same ones who dislike the declining interest or falling numbers in comp-sci education? Or do they all think the same way?
Why can my son, very bright, in the 8th grade, tell me the layers of the atmosphere and the earths crust and evolution and basic physics
Pay that no mind. I'm sure he'll forget all of that by next year.
If true, that sounds like a good way to thin down the human population.
But they're taking our jobs! Think of the children!
Lack of food causes starvation. Human failure to procure food only helps. While yelling "fire" may help put people in danger, it is ultimately their own stupidity that does that (or other peoples' stupidity). The word itself does not cause any harm. After all, if no one went berserk upon hearing that word (I find it highly unlikely that such a thing would happen anyway), nothing would happen.
I'm sure even the "general public" can follow simple instructions.
This also why DRM doesn't need to provide 100% security - as long as it makes things harder for non-geeks.
Who are we talking about here? People that don't know how to use a computer at all? As far as I've seen, installing cracks is very, very easy. They often provide instructions if you seriously don't know how, even.
Apparently if they feel that a service is, more often than not (never mind the fact that with something as broad as someone merely using bittorrent it would likely be nearly impossible for them to determine this), used to infringe upon copyrights, it should be shut down. Even if, at most, copyright infringement only causes a potential loss of potential profit. Just shut those services down. Who cares if someone was using it legitimately?
But 99% of filesharing is infringing.
How do you know that? Considering that it's likely nearly impossible to identify infringing content, I don't see how anyone could possibly come up with an accurate measurement.
grabbing a pile of stuff
Copying a pile of stuff.
That is because you cling to "correct" as having to be some kind of moral superiority.
When someone speaks of moral absolutes, they (in my experience) are usually referring to some kind of outside force dictating what set of morals are and aren't 'correct'. You might not have been talking about that, but that is what I usually see.
We can prove that freedom is advantageous to progress.
Go ahead, then. Taking into account the level of freedom that the people have would also help. Is absolute freedom advantageous? Is having no freedom disadvantageous? What level of freedom is preferred?
All of your opinions are completely incorrect and mine reign supreme!
We ALL can imagine what is going on.
Really? And if someone has little/no imagination or can't hold a clear picture in their head without thinking about random things?
immoral
In your opinion?
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater puts no one in danger. It's just a word, after all. Human stupidity puts people in danger; the willingness of people to believe whatever they hear and then react in a way that puts people in danger puts people in danger. If you, upon hearing the word "fire" in a crowded theater, immediately believe those words (without checking if it is true or reacting calmly) and then stampede over anyone in your way, I'd say any damage you cause is your own fault. If you hurt anyone whilst acting in this manner, I think you should be completely responsible. Of course, if the theater owner wants to kick out the person who screamed "fire," I also think they should be able to do that.
I do believe there are moral absolutes - evolution isn't relative. Some things are better for physical survival, and some things are better for the advancement of society.
What do those things have to do with moral absolutes? I don't see how any of those things indicate that there is a 'correct' set of morals.
objectively better
For physical survival? For the advancement of society? Because the magical moral fairy said so? Either way, prove it.
because it _always_ hurts minorities
I'd say it only hurts minorities when the majority wants it to. Of course, that probably happens most of the time.
If you get fired for no reason, you loose ... nothing.
Other than your job? Right.
If a restaurant refuses to serve you, you loose ... nothing.
Other than the time you used getting there (but that's really your own fault)? Right.
I wonder if people truly believe that comparing theft of physical objects that someone owns to the potential loss of potential profit (in this case, there is no loss of potential profit to begin with). One causes a loss of property to a person, the other causes a loss of... nothing (not even potential profit in this case).
How is that theft? If he can't get the movies/music/games anyway, then how could downloading them possibly cause a loss of potential profit (which I don't think is theft, anyway).
4) Copyright is necessary.
Not necessarily. Unless you can see into alternate dimensions, I don't see how you could possibly know whether or not systems that haven't even been tried (or even thought of yet) wouldn't work.
which is absolutely wrong.
"Absolutely wrong"? Did the magical moral fairy tell you that? Perhaps that is justification enough for them to not pay for it.
It is extremely strange that people who will happily pay $30 on going to a movie
Which people? I would do no such thing.
It's still theft whether you agree or not.
I disagree. I don't think it should be deemed theft unless someone takes something away from someone and that person no longer has the original.
There's no debate on that issue.
I'm 100% correct. There's no debate on that issue. Therefore, everything that you just said is completely incorrect!
Piracy is not right
What is "right"? What is "wrong"? Seems subjective to me.
Stealing is denying someone just compensation.
I'd say stealing is taking something that someone already owns away from that. Afterwards, they will no longer have it at all. Or, at least, that's what I think the average person thinks when they hear/read the word.
But I also think Steam is not wrong to accept DRM from publishers.
Steam itself is a form of DRM. Perhaps the problem is that some people would rather Steam act like GOG (just a place where you buy games and use its other features).