Other people should create art, music, games, films, and entertainment for me as a favor and fund it out of their own pocket.
Not aware of any pirates who want to force or coerce other people into creating things for them for free.
10) Because I have never had to create, develop and market a game and I don't have a clue as to what it takes to run a business.
Never heard anyone use that as an excuse.
12) Pirating something NEVER results in a lost sale. Not even when spread over thousands of people.
Not really aware of any that think that, either (Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough?).
Of course, all pirates are evil little thieves that desire nothing more than to see developers starve. It's almost like how all people who like copyright are corporate shills.
What's the point of Steam for single player games? Why do they need to be bound to Steam (assuming that is the case)? I don't care about offline mode, either. Perhaps someone just doesn't want Steam installed at all.
I mean sure, there's a chance that the existence of a free or paid PC version might reduce your console sales a little, but not much. The experience of pirating PC games is generally pretty terrible - one most people avoid after trying a few desperate cracks and them failing or requiring too much effort to get going.
How are these people able to work a computer without completely destroying it?
Under what possible moral system would it be considered good to kick someone when they are down, just for a laugh?
A personal moral code, most likely. As for me, I don't really care about it. You're offended by a simple joke? Just as if you were offended by the fact that I'm an atheist, too bad for you. This isn't even necessarily the case of ongoing harassment. It's simply a case of one person thinking a certain joke is funny and another person thinking differently (and then using the mourning excuse as if it is factually wrong to have such a sense of humor).
Just because you don't care about hurting other people doesn't mean we are wrong to deride you for it.
I didn't say that it was wrong. I said that I disagree with it. I wouldn't say that you're factually wrong in doing so because I don't believe in absolute morals to begin with.
Get used to people with feelings telling you you're wrong for not understanding them.
What if someone has empathy for certain people but not for others? Does that mean they have no empathy for anyone at all merely because they feel differently for different people? Why is it a 'good' thing to have empathy for people who are mourning but not, say, someone who is offended by the fact that you openly proclaim that you are an atheist? Because you said so? Because most people believe so?
And if people say that I'm 'wrong', I'll merely ask them for proof that absolute morals exist.
If empathy means, "don't say anything that someone else doesn't like," then perhaps you should simply stop speaking altogether.
Someone made a joke that they thought was funny. Someone didn't like it. Therefore, it should never be done?
that saying mean things to people mourning someone who died about the dead person is wrong.
Define "mean" in a way that doesn't boil down to just disliking what someone said/did. Why are mourning people so special that they are completely exempt from reading another person's speech/criticism? Because you feel they are?
It's entirely possible for someone to have empathy for certain people, but not for others.
If you don't care, then don't post insults.
I said that I don't care if someone does post insults. Your post had nothing to do with that.
Also, I doubt that a person would go insane without any socialization. Depending on the person, that is. If you have someone who doesn't care about socializing (but doesn't mind doing it), and you place them in a world without any people (one that still has food, water, entertainment, etc), I think they'd be fine. I'd say it depends on the person, and I'd be hesitant to use the word "all."
The rest of what? People use the labels "communist," "hippie," and "socialist" as meaningless insults. Don't like what someone is saying/advocating? Call them one of those three ("pedophile" or "terrorist" might also suffice) names!
I think the real problem is that there aren't nearly enough voters who agree (or care enough about) that these things are problems. If we want change, we'll have to somehow convince the majority to vote differently than they are now.
A book publisher trying to stop people printing unauthorized copies of their book is NOT censorship, full stop.
Like the other poster said, yes it is. It's censoring certain information. It's still censorship even if the copies are unauthorized and you agree with the censorship.
I don't care about the emotional effects. I only care about what it actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
Other people should create art, music, games, films, and entertainment for me as a favor and fund it out of their own pocket.
Not aware of any pirates who want to force or coerce other people into creating things for them for free.
10) Because I have never had to create, develop and market a game and I don't have a clue as to what it takes to run a business.
Never heard anyone use that as an excuse.
12) Pirating something NEVER results in a lost sale. Not even when spread over thousands of people.
Not really aware of any that think that, either (Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough?).
Of course, all pirates are evil little thieves that desire nothing more than to see developers starve. It's almost like how all people who like copyright are corporate shills.
fsck
What could that word be, I wonder? It's a complete mystery!
What's the point of Steam for single player games? Why do they need to be bound to Steam (assuming that is the case)? I don't care about offline mode, either. Perhaps someone just doesn't want Steam installed at all.
I mean sure, there's a chance that the existence of a free or paid PC version might reduce your console sales a little, but not much. The experience of pirating PC games is generally pretty terrible - one most people avoid after trying a few desperate cracks and them failing or requiring too much effort to get going.
How are these people able to work a computer without completely destroying it?
Right now, anyway.
Under what possible moral system would it be considered good to kick someone when they are down, just for a laugh?
A personal moral code, most likely. As for me, I don't really care about it. You're offended by a simple joke? Just as if you were offended by the fact that I'm an atheist, too bad for you. This isn't even necessarily the case of ongoing harassment. It's simply a case of one person thinking a certain joke is funny and another person thinking differently (and then using the mourning excuse as if it is factually wrong to have such a sense of humor).
Just because you don't care about hurting other people doesn't mean we are wrong to deride you for it.
I didn't say that it was wrong. I said that I disagree with it. I wouldn't say that you're factually wrong in doing so because I don't believe in absolute morals to begin with.
Get used to people with feelings telling you you're wrong for not understanding them.
What if someone has empathy for certain people but not for others? Does that mean they have no empathy for anyone at all merely because they feel differently for different people? Why is it a 'good' thing to have empathy for people who are mourning but not, say, someone who is offended by the fact that you openly proclaim that you are an atheist? Because you said so? Because most people believe so?
And if people say that I'm 'wrong', I'll merely ask them for proof that absolute morals exist.
People with empathy
If empathy means, "don't say anything that someone else doesn't like," then perhaps you should simply stop speaking altogether.
Someone made a joke that they thought was funny. Someone didn't like it. Therefore, it should never be done?
that saying mean things to people mourning someone who died about the dead person is wrong.
Define "mean" in a way that doesn't boil down to just disliking what someone said/did. Why are mourning people so special that they are completely exempt from reading another person's speech/criticism? Because you feel they are?
It's entirely possible for someone to have empathy for certain people, but not for others.
If you don't care, then don't post insults.
I said that I don't care if someone does post insults. Your post had nothing to do with that.
You might care, but I certainly don't. I don't see the point in trying to ward off criticism/things you don't like by claiming that someone is dead.
The person is a worthless lump of meat now. Who cares?
Also, I doubt that a person would go insane without any socialization. Depending on the person, that is. If you have someone who doesn't care about socializing (but doesn't mind doing it), and you place them in a world without any people (one that still has food, water, entertainment, etc), I think they'd be fine. I'd say it depends on the person, and I'd be hesitant to use the word "all."
"Important" as in "valuable." Different people value different things. And even people who are constantly online get a tiny bit of socialization.
It's up to them to get more.
Socialization is only important to those who it is important to.
When content is removed even though it wasn't infringing material, that is censorship.
When any content whatsoever is removed, that is censorship. You might agree with the censorship in certain cases, but that doesn't change what it is.
The rest of what? People use the labels "communist," "hippie," and "socialist" as meaningless insults. Don't like what someone is saying/advocating? Call them one of those three ("pedophile" or "terrorist" might also suffice) names!
Except that they could be protesting to help other people. The fact that they continue to benefit from the current system means little to me.
And having a few things does not mean that they aren't poor or in debt.
Straw men and generalizations are fantastic.
hippie Marxist
Criticizing how our society currently works and demanding a bit of change doesn't necessarily make someone a "hippie Marxist."
I think the real problem is that there aren't nearly enough voters who agree (or care enough about) that these things are problems. If we want change, we'll have to somehow convince the majority to vote differently than they are now.
I mean, we'd need support either way.
I know. I somehow managed to miss that part. But, of course, I saw it right after I posted the comment...
And introducing laws like this, even if they fed your family (highly doubt it), is not a good solution, in my opinion.
I was just stating that I do not believe that introducing draconian legislation is a good solution.
A book publisher trying to stop people printing unauthorized copies of their book is NOT censorship, full stop.
Like the other poster said, yes it is. It's censoring certain information. It's still censorship even if the copies are unauthorized and you agree with the censorship.
I don't care about the emotional effects. I only care about what it actually is.
Does anyone actually have an alternative or better solution?
Not this. Stop worrying so much about the potential loss of potential profit. It's being treated as some kind of national security issue.
If you're going to rebut a video, have something more inspiring and concrete than "and yet you want to censor the Internet."
For me, that is about all I need to hear.
No, but they won't grow or learn
Socially? Maybe not. It's still possible to learn, though.
Anyway, I don't think that someone spending most of their time on a computer is that 'bad' of a thing, anyway.