Really? Do you even know what affirmative action is?
If what you stated in that post is true, then I guess not. But even if it's not true, I'll rephrase: if the only solution being proposed is to give minorities jobs simply because of their race, then I'd say so.
If the piracy is directly linked to review scores, it means that people just want the games for free and aren't that much interested in trying them out before actually buying them.
How did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps they want to try out these games because they've seen the reviews for them. It's quite difficult to accurately guess peoples' feelings and thoughts.
I don't think anyone said that. Rather, I think people were saying that affirmative action is unfair and does not help us reach true equality (at least when it comes to laws and such). I'm sure that many would say that it's a shame that people were treated that way, but that does not mean that we have to make it unfair for the rest of us because of what happened to them.
Who needs proof? Clearly anyone who disagrees with me is deluding themselves. The brain is very good at doing so, after all. Saying that is all the proof that I need...
Precisely. We need to fix this inequality by adding even more inequality and giving certain minorities more benefits than others have! The situation could be worse, so you have no right to complain about anything.
Not everyone plays games for realism (or think that it improves the game). I don't really have a problem with the palette, but not everyone agrees, and they aren't necessarily wrong for doing so.
Doing away with anonymity adds at least SOME accountability to your online life.
I don't see what the point of this "accountability" is. Someone's feelings got hurt because someone said mean things to them over the internet and now they want revenge? I don't care.
Whether or not they would act any "better" would depend on the person (as well as your definition of the word "good"). I don't care if someone hurt your feelings over the internet. I think it's far more entertaining for it to be relatively anonymous as it is now.
it's been consistently ruled over the years that these rights are not absolute.
That doesn't mean that those rulings are constitutional. I'm not saying that they are or that they are not, though.
And in this case, barring teachers from interacting with students via Facebook is the lesser of two evils, the other one being that suddenly the schools have to be monitoring Facebook and infringing upon students own free expression and free association to prevent matters from spilling over into the school environment.
The other option is to ignore it. Unless they can prove that it's a huge problem, of course.
What should the police have done according to all you complaining people? Kindly request that he refrains from building a nuclear reactor, and that he delivers the nuclear material before noon the next day, because although it's a grey area in the law, it's best not to play with it in a residential area?
Yes. That or came and got the material themselves. I absolutely do not agree with outright arresting him (and I believe that raiding him was also a bit much).
They wouldn't be hurt even if no one bought it because they never had the money to begin with. That said, they missed out on the opportunity for potential gain in some cases. Too bad they didn't miss out on more.
- I gave an example of how it is theoretically possible, but it's very unlikely, given that it never happened, so it's improbable, as good as physically impossible.
I believe that the right words should be used for the right situations. If it's not impossible, but just unlikely, then just say that. But, really, there's technically no way that I see to know that it's unlikely, either.
- USA 19 century was such a market, it's in the past for USA, but in Asia that's sort of what some countries have there. Even China has a freer market than any Western economy, and its wealth is increasing as its production capacity is growing.
But all of them have (or had) at least some regulation, correct? I was referring to a place where absolutely no regulation exists at all. That would be the way to truly test this theory.
- it's physically impossible, because it never happened.
So it's impossible because it hasn't happened yet? What? I also don't see any reason that it's "physically" (whatever that means in this context) impossible. But, then again, I think debating over something like this is rather pointless.
- when one person cannot start a business without lots of money, he needs to convince investors that he can make money starting that business, and if he convinces them, they'll provide the capital, this is not necessarily rocket science, it's called a business plan.
Someone could already have lots of money (enough to start it). Or drive out small businesses. Once they are established, competition may become difficult.
- there are no absolutes, and they are not necessary to have mostly free markets.
There are no absolutes? Well, that may be true, but getting rid of all regulations would get rid of all regulations.
And I thought we were talking about no regulation at all (I even asked you and you said that that is what you meant). The thing is, we currently have many regulations right now. So, anyone saying something to the effect of "an absolutely free market would be far better than what we have now" isn't going to be as convincing to me as if they had an example of it working to point to (so people would be able to better understand its advantages and disadvantages far more easily and believably). I think it should be tested.
There is no logical reason for prices to go up in ANY business today
Not everything that humans believe is logical, either.
Number of widely-successful global currencies created through bitcoin mining: 0
And bitcoin has only been around for so long. I don't care about bitcoin, nor do I plan to use it (or think that this will happen), but I don't think you should expect change to happen that quickly.
I'll stick with the one that earns me real money for my work.
It's either impossible or it isn't. I see no reason why it would be logically impossible (as unlikely as it may be).
as there are always new people being born, new people come to the market with new ideas, new stuff gets invented, old stuff becomes old, ideas and fashions change, technologies change, there is always movement.
Which could take quite a while.
You are thinking about the world in weird way, the way I thought of it when i was 4, and I thought that everything around me was stable and was that way forever and will stay that way forever.
I don't recall saying that (nor do I see what age has to do with anything).
- they do not end up as monopolies
I'm talking about businesses that are incredibly hard to start up (unless you have a lot of money). Competing with an established business is quite difficult (and the chances of someone trying to do so when it is incredibly risky lessen even more).
you lower the price a little here and there, you have more customers
Only if the ones you were previously cooperating with have no sense of business and don't follow your moves. The thing is, they probably know that that will happen, so they don't even bother. What's the point if it won't even help maximize their profits?
Name me one cartel that actually 'works' and that has no government protection besides DeBeers?
Not sure (I was just listing possibilities). I'd like to know the name of a country with an absolutely free market (no regulations for businesses whatsoever) that does well. That would help me far more.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Do you even know what affirmative action is?
If what you stated in that post is true, then I guess not. But even if it's not true, I'll rephrase: if the only solution being proposed is to give minorities jobs simply because of their race, then I'd say so.
There is no honor among thieves.
Too bad the article is about copyright infringement.
If the piracy is directly linked to review scores, it means that people just want the games for free and aren't that much interested in trying them out before actually buying them.
How did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps they want to try out these games because they've seen the reviews for them. It's quite difficult to accurately guess peoples' feelings and thoughts.
If the only solution being proposed is something similar to affirmative action, then I'd say so.
I don't think anyone said that. Rather, I think people were saying that affirmative action is unfair and does not help us reach true equality (at least when it comes to laws and such). I'm sure that many would say that it's a shame that people were treated that way, but that does not mean that we have to make it unfair for the rest of us because of what happened to them.
Who needs proof? Clearly anyone who disagrees with me is deluding themselves. The brain is very good at doing so, after all. Saying that is all the proof that I need...
So you have the audacity to tell someone that they need to buy a new computer to run your code?
What audacity? You're rude and disrespectful if you make platform-specific code? And since when do you need to buy a completely new computer?
Precisely. We need to fix this inequality by adding even more inequality and giving certain minorities more benefits than others have! The situation could be worse, so you have no right to complain about anything.
and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves
This is completely incorrect. If anyone says otherwise, they are clearly deluding themselves!
Not everyone plays games for realism (or think that it improves the game). I don't really have a problem with the palette, but not everyone agrees, and they aren't necessarily wrong for doing so.
That's like complaining that horror movies take place mostly at night, or cartoons aimed at young girls are mostly pink.
That's like expressing a particular opinion. I don't see the problem with any of them.
What, exactly, would you suggest you see in a post-apocalyptic world that would be colourful?
That depends on who you ask.
Doing away with anonymity adds at least SOME accountability to your online life.
I don't see what the point of this "accountability" is. Someone's feelings got hurt because someone said mean things to them over the internet and now they want revenge? I don't care.
Whether or not they would act any "better" would depend on the person (as well as your definition of the word "good"). I don't care if someone hurt your feelings over the internet. I think it's far more entertaining for it to be relatively anonymous as it is now.
it's been consistently ruled over the years that these rights are not absolute.
That doesn't mean that those rulings are constitutional. I'm not saying that they are or that they are not, though.
And in this case, barring teachers from interacting with students via Facebook is the lesser of two evils, the other one being that suddenly the schools have to be monitoring Facebook and infringing upon students own free expression and free association to prevent matters from spilling over into the school environment.
The other option is to ignore it. Unless they can prove that it's a huge problem, of course.
You do realize that parental supervision isn't a given, right.
That's really a problem with the parents. Too bad. I don't see the problem with friending them on some website.
What should the police have done according to all you complaining people? Kindly request that he refrains from building a nuclear reactor, and that he delivers the nuclear material before noon the next day, because although it's a grey area in the law, it's best not to play with it in a residential area?
Yes. That or came and got the material themselves. I absolutely do not agree with outright arresting him (and I believe that raiding him was also a bit much).
I didn't say that he should care.
I don't know why people insist on thinking that they are part of this huge group
If you're talking about the first post, then I don't see where it said that.
The internet is here.
Which has almost nothing to do with not having an offline mode for a game.
But not necessarily an absolute one.
They wouldn't be hurt even if no one bought it because they never had the money to begin with. That said, they missed out on the opportunity for potential gain in some cases. Too bad they didn't miss out on more.
Grow up
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, to be honest.
and acknowledge that your ideological opponents are not the 'bad guys' in some comic book fantasy.
Well, since "bad" is subjective in the first place, to some people, they may very well be the "bad guys." And they're not necessarily wrong.
- I gave an example of how it is theoretically possible, but it's very unlikely, given that it never happened, so it's improbable, as good as physically impossible.
I believe that the right words should be used for the right situations. If it's not impossible, but just unlikely, then just say that. But, really, there's technically no way that I see to know that it's unlikely, either.
- USA 19 century was such a market, it's in the past for USA, but in Asia that's sort of what some countries have there. Even China has a freer market than any Western economy, and its wealth is increasing as its production capacity is growing.
But all of them have (or had) at least some regulation, correct? I was referring to a place where absolutely no regulation exists at all. That would be the way to truly test this theory.
- it's physically impossible, because it never happened.
So it's impossible because it hasn't happened yet? What? I also don't see any reason that it's "physically" (whatever that means in this context) impossible. But, then again, I think debating over something like this is rather pointless.
- when one person cannot start a business without lots of money, he needs to convince investors that he can make money starting that business, and if he convinces them, they'll provide the capital, this is not necessarily rocket science, it's called a business plan.
Someone could already have lots of money (enough to start it). Or drive out small businesses. Once they are established, competition may become difficult.
- there are no absolutes, and they are not necessary to have mostly free markets.
There are no absolutes? Well, that may be true, but getting rid of all regulations would get rid of all regulations.
And I thought we were talking about no regulation at all (I even asked you and you said that that is what you meant). The thing is, we currently have many regulations right now. So, anyone saying something to the effect of "an absolutely free market would be far better than what we have now" isn't going to be as convincing to me as if they had an example of it working to point to (so people would be able to better understand its advantages and disadvantages far more easily and believably). I think it should be tested.
There is no logical reason for prices to go up in ANY business today
Not everything that humans believe is logical, either.
Number of widely-successful global currencies created through bitcoin mining: 0
And bitcoin has only been around for so long. I don't care about bitcoin, nor do I plan to use it (or think that this will happen), but I don't think you should expect change to happen that quickly.
I'll stick with the one that earns me real money for my work.
I agree.
- it's physically impossible
It's either impossible or it isn't. I see no reason why it would be logically impossible (as unlikely as it may be).
as there are always new people being born, new people come to the market with new ideas, new stuff gets invented, old stuff becomes old, ideas and fashions change, technologies change, there is always movement.
Which could take quite a while.
You are thinking about the world in weird way, the way I thought of it when i was 4, and I thought that everything around me was stable and was that way forever and will stay that way forever.
I don't recall saying that (nor do I see what age has to do with anything).
- they do not end up as monopolies
I'm talking about businesses that are incredibly hard to start up (unless you have a lot of money). Competing with an established business is quite difficult (and the chances of someone trying to do so when it is incredibly risky lessen even more).
you lower the price a little here and there, you have more customers
Only if the ones you were previously cooperating with have no sense of business and don't follow your moves. The thing is, they probably know that that will happen, so they don't even bother. What's the point if it won't even help maximize their profits?
Name me one cartel that actually 'works' and that has no government protection besides DeBeers?
Not sure (I was just listing possibilities). I'd like to know the name of a country with an absolutely free market (no regulations for businesses whatsoever) that does well. That would help me far more.