But what if a child is killed by these robot cars? If it's not a perfect solution (which, of course, exist, and human drivers are perfect), then it's a bad solution! Think of the children!
Well then, I doubt that there will ever be robot cars. I don't believe that it's possible for humans to make something as complex as that to be 100% reliable.
Well, first of all, that would depend on whether or not the company that you work at even needs someone with those skills to begin with. I'm sure there are many instances where the company you work at simply doesn't need them. Anyway, your point is moot if everyone starts taking your advice.
intellectually
Some people simply don't believe that trying to understand things that are useless to them is a worthwhile endeavor.
How can you prove there isn't another copy ever? once you show it to someone it is copied into their memory. the only way to be sure is to kill the person.
I didn't claim that it makes sense. I only claimed that it was possible for someone to feel that way. They could take a less drastic approach and only believe that digital copies belong to them, for instance. Again, I myself think that intellectual property is ridiculous. I'm only claiming that "property" is just an idea itself.
It does seem to apply, but to many people, it is probably just confusing. When someone hears that someone "stole" something from someone else, most people would probably think that a piece of physical property was removed from the victim's possession. Using the word "thief" or "steal" doesn't make much sense to me because they are truly different scenarios.
Yes, well, what stops someone from believing that all copies are theirs and theirs alone? I don't agree with owning ideas, but I don't see why it's impossible when "ownership" is nothing more than a state of mind (you believe that something is yours and yours alone and the law agrees with you).
But, you didn't actually take anything; you copied it. Nothing was removed from the original owner's possession so that they do not have access to it any longer.
To me, an opinion can be more or less valid depending on how much careful, logical thought went into developing that opinion, and how much relevant education and experience the person has.
Yes, but we are talking about morality. Morality essentially boils down to liking or disliking certain behavior. When speaking of those types of opinions, I don't believe that anything more than liking or disliking something is necessary to have a "valid" opinion (since it's all just based on feelings anyway).
Of course, you don't have to agree with them, but isn't your statement that morals are subjective actually a subjective opinion in and of itself?
Yes, it is. Since there is no evidence either way, that is just my opinion. I recommend not stating either views as facts (as I did).
That isn't what I said at all. I said that justification isn't absolutely necessary for your opinion to be "valid" because morals are subjective to begin with. If you don't care about trying to "persuade" other people, then it's probably a waste of your time. Meaning that just because someone believes that piracy is "immoral," and you can't convince them otherwise, that does not necessarily mean that you are "wrong."
explain why their actions are the right thing to do
What is "the right thing to do"? Who defines what is "right"?
This isn't at all a surprising argument strategy for a pirate to use.
It was just a joke. And how did you come to the conclusion that I myself am I pirate? Just because of the arguments that I use?
Afterall, when the facts are so much against them
What facts? Don't you mean opinions on morality? It's interesting that you speak as if you know all about my opinions and how I think (unless I am misunderstanding you) when I haven't really said anything revealing in this article yet.
there's really no other strategy than trying to exaggerate reality and play mind games so that they can justify their self-serving actions.
Why would someone need to justify anything that they do when morals are subjective to begin with?
The supposed misconception that I had about affirmative action. Of course, now that you've explained what it is, the point is moot. Although, allegedly, some of my family members were turned down at job interviews merely because of their race (with the employer claiming that they are only allowed to hire members of certain races at this present point in time). If true, I wonder why that was.
but they've got a consistent ability to hold off piracy for two weeks
Unless "crackers" don't care about said games at all, I wonder how they would do that.
then they do have a reasonable expectation
Except that "reasonable" is subjective.
with the same level of quality
"Quality" is also subjective.
Again, two different scenarios. When it comes to how "good" or "reasonable" something is, people will have different opinions. It's simply an unknown scenario. Some people might find a correlation that they deem as "good enough," but not everyone will share that opinion.
What we need to do is use all of our resources to go after people who potentially cause a loss of potential profit. This is clearly a good use of our resources and money, so we should get as many FBI agents and policeman involved as possible (as well as politicians who rush through new laws because of how important these potential losses are).
Slashdot Mirror
Both. Mistakes happen (no matter who made them happen). It doesn't mean that someone always needs to go to jail.
But what if a child is killed by these robot cars? If it's not a perfect solution (which, of course, exist, and human drivers are perfect), then it's a bad solution! Think of the children!
Robot cars *do* have to be 100% reliable
Well then, I doubt that there will ever be robot cars. I don't believe that it's possible for humans to make something as complex as that to be 100% reliable.
who goes to jail?
How about no one? Why must someone go to jail for what would probably be perceived by most to be an unfortunate occurrence?
Well, first of all, that would depend on whether or not the company that you work at even needs someone with those skills to begin with. I'm sure there are many instances where the company you work at simply doesn't need them. Anyway, your point is moot if everyone starts taking your advice.
intellectually
Some people simply don't believe that trying to understand things that are useless to them is a worthwhile endeavor.
It's an invisible addition that can be used whenever it is convenient, of course!
Is saying "There's free stuff over there!" protected by the first amendment?
Well, if we're only talking about the first amendment here (which seems to be ignored often), I'd say so. It certainly doesn't mention otherwise.
Not that that matters all that much when you're talking about morals or personal opinions.
And honestly, raids against people doing that sort of thing is pretty justifiable.
Justifiable? Well, maybe to you.
How can you prove there isn't another copy ever? once you show it to someone it is copied into their memory. the only way to be sure is to kill the person.
I didn't claim that it makes sense. I only claimed that it was possible for someone to feel that way. They could take a less drastic approach and only believe that digital copies belong to them, for instance. Again, I myself think that intellectual property is ridiculous. I'm only claiming that "property" is just an idea itself.
It does seem to apply, but to many people, it is probably just confusing. When someone hears that someone "stole" something from someone else, most people would probably think that a piece of physical property was removed from the victim's possession. Using the word "thief" or "steal" doesn't make much sense to me because they are truly different scenarios.
Yes, well, what stops someone from believing that all copies are theirs and theirs alone? I don't agree with owning ideas, but I don't see why it's impossible when "ownership" is nothing more than a state of mind (you believe that something is yours and yours alone and the law agrees with you).
But, you didn't actually take anything; you copied it. Nothing was removed from the original owner's possession so that they do not have access to it any longer.
To me, an opinion can be more or less valid depending on how much careful, logical thought went into developing that opinion, and how much relevant education and experience the person has.
Yes, but we are talking about morality. Morality essentially boils down to liking or disliking certain behavior. When speaking of those types of opinions, I don't believe that anything more than liking or disliking something is necessary to have a "valid" opinion (since it's all just based on feelings anyway).
Of course, you don't have to agree with them, but isn't your statement that morals are subjective actually a subjective opinion in and of itself?
Yes, it is. Since there is no evidence either way, that is just my opinion. I recommend not stating either views as facts (as I did).
I don't see why you can't. You don't really "own" anything. You simply believe that you do (and laws may state that you do).
That isn't what I said at all. I said that justification isn't absolutely necessary for your opinion to be "valid" because morals are subjective to begin with. If you don't care about trying to "persuade" other people, then it's probably a waste of your time. Meaning that just because someone believes that piracy is "immoral," and you can't convince them otherwise, that does not necessarily mean that you are "wrong."
explain why their actions are the right thing to do
What is "the right thing to do"? Who defines what is "right"?
This isn't at all a surprising argument strategy for a pirate to use.
It was just a joke. And how did you come to the conclusion that I myself am I pirate? Just because of the arguments that I use?
Afterall, when the facts are so much against them
What facts? Don't you mean opinions on morality? It's interesting that you speak as if you know all about my opinions and how I think (unless I am misunderstanding you) when I haven't really said anything revealing in this article yet.
there's really no other strategy than trying to exaggerate reality and play mind games so that they can justify their self-serving actions.
Why would someone need to justify anything that they do when morals are subjective to begin with?
morally it's the exact same thing.
According to whose morals? Keep in mind that morality is probably subjective.
The supposed misconception that I had about affirmative action. Of course, now that you've explained what it is, the point is moot. Although, allegedly, some of my family members were turned down at job interviews merely because of their race (with the employer claiming that they are only allowed to hire members of certain races at this present point in time). If true, I wonder why that was.
Oh, right. I temporarily forgot that copying was the exact same thing as taking away someone's physical property without their permission.
but they've got a consistent ability to hold off piracy for two weeks
Unless "crackers" don't care about said games at all, I wonder how they would do that.
then they do have a reasonable expectation
Except that "reasonable" is subjective.
with the same level of quality
"Quality" is also subjective.
Again, two different scenarios. When it comes to how "good" or "reasonable" something is, people will have different opinions. It's simply an unknown scenario. Some people might find a correlation that they deem as "good enough," but not everyone will share that opinion.
"Don't discriminate against " (IOW, affirmative action) isn't unfair to other groups.
I didn't say that it was.
What we need to do is use all of our resources to go after people who potentially cause a loss of potential profit. This is clearly a good use of our resources and money, so we should get as many FBI agents and policeman involved as possible (as well as politicians who rush through new laws because of how important these potential losses are).
But you can't solve the problem without considering race
Can you prove this? What if there is a solution that has not been thought up that does not consider race? Do you know of every solution in existence?
And I didn't say otherwise, anyway. I just said that if it's going to make it unfair for other groups, then I do not want such a "solution" at all.
you can draw some general conclusions about lost sales
Not really. They're two different games and two different scenarios. All you can do is make assumptions.