Seriously, this "omg he's a shill" shit on/. needs to stop.
Everyone that disagrees with me is obviously a shill.
At the same time I also understand (and acknowledge) that open source software has serious problems on desktop and especially with usability, because that is the truth.
if they were willing to pay $U used, they would've paid $U new too.
This is just an assumption. They could be boycotting the company that made the game (and thus do not wish to give them money but still want to play the game). Damn that potential loss of potential profit!
Just to make sure you understand: I agree with you. However, I merely meant that there is no absolute set of morals (as far as we know). So, despite the fact that you eventually paid for it, it would be possible for someone to believe that it was wrong to pirate it in the first place.
There's rational caution, and there's harmful overreaction.
"Rational" depending on who you ask. If you are able to take steps against something (even if there is a miniscule chance of it happening), and it is easy to do, why not do it?
It takes a lot of intelligence to become aware of this instinct and override it.
It does? I feel nothing about any of the things that you listed. Are you sure it actually takes that much intelligence, or do "most" people just not try?
Communism isn't the only alternative (and I'd think it would be difficult to determine if communism would always fail). It's possible that there is other alternatives that would work that have yet to be thought of, or alternatives someone has already thought up but have yet to be tested.
There are other exemptions that have been found to exist that were not worded in the Constitution. Slander/libel laws, for instance. Those things are not considered protected speech.
Then that doesn't sound constitutional to me. I probably wouldn't argue against it as much if they would go through the proper procedure (make a new amendment) to put that in place, but they did not. They treat it as an invisible exception in the constitution.
I didn't fail to realize it. Hence my reply to his comment. The reason I said "if the original poster was talking about little kids" is because I try not to state things as absolutes (when applicable).
I don't see where they're getting that. So instead of just following what is in the constitution (and amending it if necessary), they try to predict what people who are long since dead would have done in our situation (even though it is the constitution that is supposed to be the law of the land)? I'm sure that's an extremely accurate method (especially considering that there was more than one of them)...
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, this "omg he's a shill" shit on /. needs to stop.
Everyone that disagrees with me is obviously a shill.
At the same time I also understand (and acknowledge) that open source software has serious problems on desktop and especially with usability, because that is the truth.
That would depend on who you ask, would it not?
if they were willing to pay $U used, they would've paid $U new too.
This is just an assumption. They could be boycotting the company that made the game (and thus do not wish to give them money but still want to play the game). Damn that potential loss of potential profit!
Becuase that is the deal the copyright holder is offering you. If you don't like that deal then don't take it and don't watch the thing at all.
Alternatively, you could download it for free (like he did). That is also an option.
Just to make sure you understand: I agree with you. However, I merely meant that there is no absolute set of morals (as far as we know). So, despite the fact that you eventually paid for it, it would be possible for someone to believe that it was wrong to pirate it in the first place.
It does, however, invalidate every self-serving, self-righteous, and moralistic argument in support of said law.
It does? Well, I guess that would depend on who you ask (since not everyone has the same morals).
That is the most important thing.
There's rational caution, and there's harmful overreaction.
"Rational" depending on who you ask. If you are able to take steps against something (even if there is a miniscule chance of it happening), and it is easy to do, why not do it?
Not everyone believes that being "paranoid" is a bad thing. I usually take measures to prevent something if it's easy (if it is so easy, why not?).
basic human nature
I'd say that it's common, but not necessary. While I find it highly unlikely, there may exist people who act exactly as you describe.
That's a good feature.
That depends on who you ask. And I don't think that everyone will know how to bypass this (some might not ever figure it out).
Everyone thinks they're the good guy, everyone thinks they're doing the right thing.
No! They are factually the bad guys. My morals are factually correct and not subjective in the least.
It takes a lot of intelligence to become aware of this instinct and override it.
It does? I feel nothing about any of the things that you listed. Are you sure it actually takes that much intelligence, or do "most" people just not try?
ethical
That depends on who you ask.
Communism isn't the only alternative (and I'd think it would be difficult to determine if communism would always fail). It's possible that there is other alternatives that would work that have yet to be thought of, or alternatives someone has already thought up but have yet to be tested.
Except that "freedom of speech" implies all speech unless exemptions are specifically listed.
There are other exemptions that have been found to exist that were not worded in the Constitution. Slander/libel laws, for instance. Those things are not considered protected speech.
Then that doesn't sound constitutional to me. I probably wouldn't argue against it as much if they would go through the proper procedure (make a new amendment) to put that in place, but they did not. They treat it as an invisible exception in the constitution.
Not necessarily. That would only happen if you tell others about it.
is the ability to copy something an inaliable right?
Is anything an inalienable right?
if somebody else made something, they have a say over how it's used
According to current laws, yes.
I didn't fail to realize it. Hence my reply to his comment. The reason I said "if the original poster was talking about little kids" is because I try not to state things as absolutes (when applicable).
I meant the fact that people interpret things as they wish does not change the actual definition of the word (or at least, what it meant at the time).
I don't see where they're getting that. So instead of just following what is in the constitution (and amending it if necessary), they try to predict what people who are long since dead would have done in our situation (even though it is the constitution that is supposed to be the law of the land)? I'm sure that's an extremely accurate method (especially considering that there was more than one of them)...
The religions themselves aren't banned (as far as I'm aware). The act of killing others or harming them is.
Yes, because someone not liking something definitely proves that something is bad!
How often does that actually happen? How often can those occurrences be linked to sexual images/content?
If the original poster was talking about little kids, then I will indeed need to see some evidence of that.