In my opinion, that's irrelevant. I don't think someone should have to go around and look for something themselves every single time someone states something as a fact without citing a source.
I was responding to that guy because he implied that people who protest this law must be pirates. I felt that discussing the reasons that they might be protesting was rather irrelevant since I was making a point. Why all of those people are protesting (and when I say all of them, I mean all of them) is unknown unless they explicitly state it or you can do something like read minds. I don't think someone should say what everyone in a group believes and leave no room for error.
Be easy on them. After all, you can trust them to come up with the right amount of money that they potentially lost (they can see into alternate realities).
They might not understand what you said. Sorry, but if you want to 'ensure' that no one is ever the victim, you'll have to secure everything for them. Otherwise, too bad for you.
As for me, I think I'll advocate going after the real criminals.
What a great policy to implement considering the amount of people that are technologically inept. You downloaded some executable file off of the internet that made your computer participate in illegal activities? Your fault! Someone used your wifi to download something illegal? Your fault! You should be an expert in all subjects!
Or we could blame the people who actually commit the crime and stop acting as if stopping the potential loss of potential profit is of the utmost importance.
Yeah. Those pirates totally kill all the platforms (by making game developers potentially lose potential profit). Also, we know exactly how many pirates there are (we don't, but we do).
I'm just going to go ahead and say that consoles should never be hacked because people might be able to pirate because of the hacks (which is bad because is causes a potential loss of potential profit).
I don't care. As long as they do not actively discriminate against people through action, I think they can hold whatever opinion they please.
I'd be much angrier if they dared to so much as have an opinion about what i privately recorded for myself and my wife.
They'll have an opinion whether they voice it to you or not.
Cops have the law to judge people on.. judging others outside of this is completely inappropriate.
I don't think what you're asking is possible. They're human. Upon seeing something, they will likely form their own opinion about it. This opinion will be there even if they do not speak it out loud.
You do realize that the exact same thing could be said about anything (including the notion of god), right? That exact same argument could be used to "prove" anything. However, I don't see how that proved anything. I still see no convincing evidence of absolute morals (note that I did not ask for 100% proof of anything).
Arguments similar to yours are some of the only arguments that I've seen when I've asked for proof of absolute morals. They're essentially, "We don't have absolute knowledge of everything. Therefore, whatever I say exists does exist. If you question this, I will tell you that there are things you cannot prove exist; your ignorance clearly proves the existence of whatever I say!" Not very convincing, in my opinion.
If something like what you described were done, though, I suspect that the number of people jailbreaking would increase (even "mainstream" users can follow instructions).
Which isn't what I asked for. I basically just asked for evidence that would convince me that absolute morals exist. I don't believe you can prove many things with 100% accuracy (which isn't what it takes for me to believe in something). Just the usual evidence that "almost certainly" proves it.
When someone has faith in something, they don't need proof.
They'll need some degree of proof if they want to convince me, though.
This is imprecise and probably repugnant to your ultra-logical mindset, but it is the way the world works.
I see. Well, if anyone tries using the appeal to popularity fallacy on me, I will definitely mention that it is a logical fallacy and why I don't think that "reality" is magically altered because lots of people believe something.
So some people have priorities that say that they should have innocent people killed.
Possibly. But his statement was rather vague. He didn't list any reasons why someone would want to leak critical information about random people (or why someone was leaking the information that could get someone killed, for that matter). Someone could, for instance, believe that even though they could endanger the lives of the few by leaking the information in question, they could improve the lives of many other people (or at least expose corruption). For the "greater good" or something such as that.
You may disagree with that mentality, of course. And I'd say it's a false dilemma to say, "You either have to support leaking all information or leaking none at all." I don't believe the intention of leaking this information is to kill people, even if it puts them in danger.
Would you care to enlighten me by explaining your way of thinking?
Yes. I don't believe in absolute morals (nor do I believe that many people believing something makes the belief true). I suppose absolute morals could exist, but I have thus far seen no convincing evidence to prove it.
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion, that's irrelevant. I don't think someone should have to go around and look for something themselves every single time someone states something as a fact without citing a source.
If their results end up hurting people in the US then they should get angry.
"Should"? I think the individual "should" decide that for themselves. I'm not really angry either way.
It just indicates that he didn't present the basis, not that he doesn't have one at all.
You've decided and closed your mind.
I was responding to that guy because he implied that people who protest this law must be pirates. I felt that discussing the reasons that they might be protesting was rather irrelevant since I was making a point. Why all of those people are protesting (and when I say all of them, I mean all of them) is unknown unless they explicitly state it or you can do something like read minds. I don't think someone should say what everyone in a group believes and leave no room for error.
Be easy on them. After all, you can trust them to come up with the right amount of money that they potentially lost (they can see into alternate realities).
We say we learn our lesson
And then do the same thing with something else.
The most important thing is whether something is profitable or not. Everything else doesn't matter in the least.
The Xbox360 was hacked early on, but the hack only allowed you to run pirated games.
Are you sure that's all it allowed you to do? Could you potentially do anything else?
So the only reason to have a hacked 360 was basically piracy.
Not that I care even if that is true, but it would depend on the hack used.
Then I guess no one will be punished. Some criminals simply get away. That doesn't mean you need to punish someone in place of them.
They might not understand what you said. Sorry, but if you want to 'ensure' that no one is ever the victim, you'll have to secure everything for them. Otherwise, too bad for you.
As for me, I think I'll advocate going after the real criminals.
What a great policy to implement considering the amount of people that are technologically inept. You downloaded some executable file off of the internet that made your computer participate in illegal activities? Your fault! Someone used your wifi to download something illegal? Your fault! You should be an expert in all subjects!
Or we could blame the people who actually commit the crime and stop acting as if stopping the potential loss of potential profit is of the utmost importance.
But why are they protesting now and not before?
I don't know. And unless you can read everyone's mind, I don't think you do, either.
innocent people do not have to pay up.
It's possible that innocent people can be found guilty.
You mean it has generated protests because people want to complain that they can't get a free ride anymore?
Yes. Anyone who complains about this law must be a copyright infringer.
It would come down to what the reasonable person would do in that situation.
Now all we have to do is define "reasonable."
If you get three notices, then you have to go to court and defend yourself by proving that you didn't download the material.
So it's guilty unless proven innocent, then? For all they know, you weren't even the one doing it.
but it is very strong evidence that someone did something.
And unless they have very strong evidence that that someone was you, I think they should lose instantly.
A large number of slashdotters have reinforced that belief.
Why the hypocrisy all of a sudden?
Who? They needn't all have the same beliefs.
Yeah. Those pirates totally kill all the platforms (by making game developers potentially lose potential profit). Also, we know exactly how many pirates there are (we don't, but we do).
I'm just going to go ahead and say that consoles should never be hacked because people might be able to pirate because of the hacks (which is bad because is causes a potential loss of potential profit).
what if the little comment was "fucking nigger"?
I don't care. As long as they do not actively discriminate against people through action, I think they can hold whatever opinion they please.
I'd be much angrier if they dared to so much as have an opinion about what i privately recorded for myself and my wife.
They'll have an opinion whether they voice it to you or not.
Cops have the law to judge people on.. judging others outside of this is completely inappropriate.
I don't think what you're asking is possible. They're human. Upon seeing something, they will likely form their own opinion about it. This opinion will be there even if they do not speak it out loud.
don't we trust them not to have an opinion & remain impartial?
They're most likely going to have an opinion whether they say it or not. I don't really care what little comments they make.
You do realize that the exact same thing could be said about anything (including the notion of god), right? That exact same argument could be used to "prove" anything. However, I don't see how that proved anything. I still see no convincing evidence of absolute morals (note that I did not ask for 100% proof of anything).
Arguments similar to yours are some of the only arguments that I've seen when I've asked for proof of absolute morals. They're essentially, "We don't have absolute knowledge of everything. Therefore, whatever I say exists does exist. If you question this, I will tell you that there are things you cannot prove exist; your ignorance clearly proves the existence of whatever I say!" Not very convincing, in my opinion.
And how does it know what is and isn't copyrighted material?
If something like what you described were done, though, I suspect that the number of people jailbreaking would increase (even "mainstream" users can follow instructions).
Science does not have a concept of absolute truth
Which isn't what I asked for. I basically just asked for evidence that would convince me that absolute morals exist. I don't believe you can prove many things with 100% accuracy (which isn't what it takes for me to believe in something). Just the usual evidence that "almost certainly" proves it.
When someone has faith in something, they don't need proof.
They'll need some degree of proof if they want to convince me, though.
This is imprecise and probably repugnant to your ultra-logical mindset, but it is the way the world works.
I see. Well, if anyone tries using the appeal to popularity fallacy on me, I will definitely mention that it is a logical fallacy and why I don't think that "reality" is magically altered because lots of people believe something.
So some people have priorities that say that they should have innocent people killed.
Possibly. But his statement was rather vague. He didn't list any reasons why someone would want to leak critical information about random people (or why someone was leaking the information that could get someone killed, for that matter). Someone could, for instance, believe that even though they could endanger the lives of the few by leaking the information in question, they could improve the lives of many other people (or at least expose corruption). For the "greater good" or something such as that.
You may disagree with that mentality, of course. And I'd say it's a false dilemma to say, "You either have to support leaking all information or leaking none at all." I don't believe the intention of leaking this information is to kill people, even if it puts them in danger.
Would you care to enlighten me by explaining your way of thinking?
Yes. I don't believe in absolute morals (nor do I believe that many people believing something makes the belief true). I suppose absolute morals could exist, but I have thus far seen no convincing evidence to prove it.