So nothing happened? And the fact that they have to try to appear to be defending their trademarks by law doesn't mean that people have to agree with that law (or their actions). You just end up with things like this that a lot of people don't seem to agree with.
Really? It doesn't even make a difference to me. I can easily understand what someone is talking about either way. Using "an" in that way does sound strange to me, but I suspect it is because I'm not used to it.
You know that stupid argument people use to justify pot... like, "well, alcohol and cigarettes are way worse so weed should be allowed, too!" Just because we let one bad thing go on doesn't open the door for every other bad thing, even if it's objectively demonstrable to be less bad.
I agree with you that it doesn't automatically mean that it should be legalized. However, it does raise questions as to why we let those "problems" go on. We can see from prohibition why that is, actually. It didn't work well at all.
"Bad" is subjective. Even if it is a bit unhealthy, I couldn't care less. These people can kill themselves (though if they use marijuana, I find that unlikely) while using their drugs for all I care. I don't think we should waste massive amounts of time and resources just so that we can (fail to) restrict what people do with their own bodies.
I don't believe in a god, I don't believe in inalienable rights, and I don't believe in absolute morals. I believe in rights that the people want and that the law grants them.
I also think it's absolute garbage that that would somehow result in an even more evil government. They're violating our so-called "inalienable rights" right now (privacy, freedom of speech, etc) and it makes no difference to me whether those rights are temporarily gone or just violated. The end result is the same.
Only when you recognize that there is an authority greater than than government telling government essentially, "you may say that X is legal, but it's still wrong" can society truly be free. The alternative is, "well, that's wrong because I say it's wrong" or "that's wrong because we say it's wrong" - neither of which is a prescription for a free society for what should be obvious reasons.
To me, you're saying the exact same thing either way until you can prove that absolute morals exist. It's just that in one instance, you're pretending to have knowledge that you do not have. "Absolute morals exist because I said so. Therefore, what you're doing is still wrong!"
this model has worked quite well
Did it? If I claimed that it would have worked out either way, what evidence would you present to refute that? Would you peer into an alternate reality?
I don't believe in lying because it is convenient, either. "Absolute morals exist because they somehow strengthen my arguments! God exists because absolute morals are convenient for me! The magical moral fairy exists because it comforts me to know that it exists!"
The point is, if the people step up and defend the freedoms they want, then whether or not the nation accepts a god or absolute morals is rather irrelevant, I think. That's all that really happens in the end. People want these freedoms, so they try to defend them. They don't need to appeal to a magical moral fairy.
I don't think there's anything irrational about peoples' decisions. I would say, instead, that people act in a different way than economists thought they would.
Since the site clearly embodies the fact that they find the apple situation acceptable, clearly they have no problem with draconian, completely one-sided DRM. They have no problem with their computer obeying someone else's wishes over their own.
Yet this is supposedly what they're attacking.
That's rather irrelevant. They can attack draconian DRM while still using a product that has it.
I don't get how someone who uses *anything* apple can seriously criticize trusted computing. Why criticize the danger of the needle in a mean and smiling kids' hand when you've already got harpooned in the ass ?
Sounds like appeal to hypocrisy to me. Their criticism likely isn't invalid merely because you think they're hypocrites (or in the exact same situation as the ones they're criticizing).
Little credibility according to whom? According to you, maybe. I don't really care if someone posts anonymously or not since anyone could be wrong, anonymous or not. And this looked like little more than an opinion.
Besides, I don't know you anymore than I know some anonymous coward. Therefore, your credibility is nil (to me, of course).
TechLA either think childporn is good OR he just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of people fighting for a good cause.
False dilemma. Perhaps he just doesn't want to run the risk of vigilantes harming innocents (they may target the right people sometimes, but not always). Or some other reason that hasn't been thought of. Who knows?
Slashdot Mirror
freaking out over nothing
So nothing happened? And the fact that they have to try to appear to be defending their trademarks by law doesn't mean that people have to agree with that law (or their actions). You just end up with things like this that a lot of people don't seem to agree with.
It's easier to say and understand.
Really? It doesn't even make a difference to me. I can easily understand what someone is talking about either way. Using "an" in that way does sound strange to me, but I suspect it is because I'm not used to it.
That is exactly what he was saying. If something could be worse, the current situation must be good!
You know that stupid argument people use to justify pot... like, "well, alcohol and cigarettes are way worse so weed should be allowed, too!" Just because we let one bad thing go on doesn't open the door for every other bad thing, even if it's objectively demonstrable to be less bad.
I agree with you that it doesn't automatically mean that it should be legalized. However, it does raise questions as to why we let those "problems" go on. We can see from prohibition why that is, actually. It didn't work well at all.
"Bad" is subjective. Even if it is a bit unhealthy, I couldn't care less. These people can kill themselves (though if they use marijuana, I find that unlikely) while using their drugs for all I care. I don't think we should waste massive amounts of time and resources just so that we can (fail to) restrict what people do with their own bodies.
It sounds like those people are just stubborn/do not like the new designs.
Geeks claim to be all about change and innovation but in all honesty in many ways they're as set in their ways as anyone else.
Which ones? Not all of them believe the same things.
Something being free does not mean that it is exempt from criticism. That has nothing to do with the quality of the thing itself.
I don't believe in a god, I don't believe in inalienable rights, and I don't believe in absolute morals. I believe in rights that the people want and that the law grants them.
I also think it's absolute garbage that that would somehow result in an even more evil government. They're violating our so-called "inalienable rights" right now (privacy, freedom of speech, etc) and it makes no difference to me whether those rights are temporarily gone or just violated. The end result is the same.
Only when you recognize that there is an authority greater than than government telling government essentially, "you may say that X is legal, but it's still wrong" can society truly be free. The alternative is, "well, that's wrong because I say it's wrong" or "that's wrong because we say it's wrong" - neither of which is a prescription for a free society for what should be obvious reasons.
To me, you're saying the exact same thing either way until you can prove that absolute morals exist. It's just that in one instance, you're pretending to have knowledge that you do not have. "Absolute morals exist because I said so. Therefore, what you're doing is still wrong!"
this model has worked quite well
Did it? If I claimed that it would have worked out either way, what evidence would you present to refute that? Would you peer into an alternate reality?
I don't believe in lying because it is convenient, either. "Absolute morals exist because they somehow strengthen my arguments! God exists because absolute morals are convenient for me! The magical moral fairy exists because it comforts me to know that it exists!"
The point is, if the people step up and defend the freedoms they want, then whether or not the nation accepts a god or absolute morals is rather irrelevant, I think. That's all that really happens in the end. People want these freedoms, so they try to defend them. They don't need to appeal to a magical moral fairy.
It differs from an ordinary everyday fact by being my opinion, of course.
Because I said so. And my opinion is an absolute fact of the universe.
They're not wrong just because they're hypocrites. That doesn't make sense.
As I said, their character has nothing to do with it. You have to answer their individual arguments, not attack their character.
but they fail when people act in irrational ways.
I don't think there's anything irrational about peoples' decisions. I would say, instead, that people act in a different way than economists thought they would.
Inefficient humans are replaced. Oh, no! They're taking our jobs!
Because their character has nothing to do with the issue.
Yeah but you have to admit it hurts their credibility pretty badly.
I don't think it does.
You're mistaken. Those things exist. Therefore, they can be property. However, data cannot exist. It's all just an illusion!
I think it mostly is. But that isn't to say that the corporations don't sometimes cooperate with the government.
Those games? Those are imaginary. Even this comment is imaginary.
Property isn't just a concept, after all...
Hypocrisy is an argument! If it could be worse, that means your current situation is good!
Since the site clearly embodies the fact that they find the apple situation acceptable, clearly they have no problem with draconian, completely one-sided DRM. They have no problem with their computer obeying someone else's wishes over their own.
Yet this is supposedly what they're attacking.
That's rather irrelevant. They can attack draconian DRM while still using a product that has it.
I don't get how someone who uses *anything* apple can seriously criticize trusted computing. Why criticize the danger of the needle in a mean and smiling kids' hand when you've already got harpooned in the ass ?
Sounds like appeal to hypocrisy to me. Their criticism likely isn't invalid merely because you think they're hypocrites (or in the exact same situation as the ones they're criticizing).
Yeah. It's called having preferences. People have different likes and dislikes. Odd.
Or just don't download it at all. "I don't have a problem with it. Therefore, your criticism is invalid!"
Little credibility according to whom? According to you, maybe. I don't really care if someone posts anonymously or not since anyone could be wrong, anonymous or not. And this looked like little more than an opinion.
Besides, I don't know you anymore than I know some anonymous coward. Therefore, your credibility is nil (to me, of course).
TechLA either think childporn is good OR he just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of people fighting for a good cause.
False dilemma. Perhaps he just doesn't want to run the risk of vigilantes harming innocents (they may target the right people sometimes, but not always). Or some other reason that hasn't been thought of. Who knows?