No one cares about, much less bothers to check, the buyer's age.
Why would they, though? They're just fictional media. There's no real-world evidence that I've seen that proves they do anything more than make someone have temporary aggressive thoughts (which typically go away after they are finished with the video game/movie/music).
But it still appears to be useless and based on the assumption that fictional media somehow changes people. They should have to have real-world evidence that that is true before enacting any sort of "regulations," in my opinion.
What would be some examples of directly teaching children to think "flexibly and wisely"?
Actually, thinking about it again, it may be a wise move. I do think that there should also be some classes that teach about logical fallacies, though.
Also, I don't think the mathematically disinclined are showered with advanced math; math, yes, advanced, no. To be clear, I hesitate to call Calculus advanced math.
I see. Well, it's advanced enough that many people don't even use it.
If you want to teach them how to think "flexibly and wisely," then just do that directly. Showering them with only slightly relevant subjects that should be optional (advanced math, chess, etc) is rather inefficient when it comes to the amount of time used. I guess it might be a fun way to teach the skills, but I'd say the skills should also be taught in a more direct manner with this being an exercise. I still completely disagree with the act of showering people with advanced math classes merely to "teach" them these skills (which, for many people, it doesn't appear to work, anyway).
I know, but they can't prove that any of the people would have bought it in the first place. They merely assume that everyone would have and go off of that.
What? As the car/home owner, you can do whatever you please. If you want less security, alright. However, with DRM, you're hurting actually customers. People that bought the product. In other words, the product is entirely theirs, and the DRM is hurting them. It doesn't even affect the 'pirates' (installing a crack is far easier than getting past a lock). All this just to stop some people who copy data.
I said "seemingly" because, unlike you seem to be doing, I don't like to pretend that I am absolutely correct. I still admit that I may be wrong, even if I don't believe that I am.
but in reality they are harmed, because they are not paid what they ought to be paid.
You just repeated what you said a few comments ago. "Ought to be paid"? That is what is being debated. As I said, the file sharer hasn't used any of the author's time, money, or resources to make a copy. Development costs and time were incurred by the author(s) themselves. You can't "own" potential gain as far as I see. You can't touch it, use it (the gain, because you never even had it), predict if you would have had it, see it, and anyone could claim that you owe them money simply because you didn't give them all of your money (which would be a loss of potential gain).
The other is being some form of ideal adult, within which there can be broad variation but there are behaviors we expect in the ideal adult that are not present in the most annoying characteristics of children. Like name-calling.
I guess that is a characteristic of many children, yes. But, again, that also seems to be a characteristic of many adults. I guess those adults don't quite meet the second definition.
Shouldn't you be afraid that unrestricted access to the wrong information is just as bad - if not worse - than simply drinking the corporate Kool Aid on network television?
I'd rather take than chance than resort to idiotic methods to try to 'stop' it.
Good luck with that, but in the meantime, would you accept a jobs program as a stopgap solution?
As I said, if they are useful to society.
Only if it's reasonable to automate it.
When you say "reasonable," what do you mean? If it's more efficient, then I think it is "reasonable." If they're not doing it only because of money, then that is just another example of how money gets in the way of efficiency.
and the game had higher sales then normal in the first 2 months.
Compared to what? How did they know how many sales there would've been if it hadn't been for that? I admit it's kind of a clever tactic, but I'm interested in how they know this.
Not everyone is in a position where they can do that.
No, they're not. There is no perfect solution.
They may need training, which they cannot afford
Then they could acquire help (from the government or something).
If people are out of alternatives, surely giving them a job as a way to assist them would be better than just giving them a check or allowing them to starve in the streets?
No. Then we have a bunch of people who contribute nothing useful to society. This seems like a problem with capitalism to me. I'd suggest that instead of giving them checks or letting them starve, society go through a change so that none of these inefficient practices are required anymore.
And there's no reason why the job has to be useless.
If it's not useless, then that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about creating useless jobs just for the sake of creating them. For instance, people may be employed to press a button every once in a while. The process is already automated, but they hired these people merely to give them jobs. They're useless and not really contributing anything. The same applies to any job that can be automated.
Well, it's pretty bad to have a lot of unemployed people around.
Then they should find something useful to do. I don't think we should go around creating useless jobs for their sake. Then we would likely have a bunch of people who contribute nothing useful to society.
Money changes some people. Others can still remain the same. As for people wasting all of their money when they get rich, they sound like mere overconfident idiots.
I don't think it's exactly convenient to pay that much extra for something. All you have to do is wait a little while. That isn't too difficult, and can easily be done unless you need the item immediately.
Pretty soon, brick n mortar stores will die off and you'll never be able to see an item before you order it, and/or you'll be complaining about the walmartization of cities that destroy local mom n pop stores.
I'd only be complaining if they were useful. If many people decide that they aren't, then they probably won't survive. Employing people for the sake of employing people is rather idiotic, I think. They should actually be useful to society, in my opinion (not that I'm saying they're not).
Slashdot Mirror
No one cares about, much less bothers to check, the buyer's age.
Why would they, though? They're just fictional media. There's no real-world evidence that I've seen that proves they do anything more than make someone have temporary aggressive thoughts (which typically go away after they are finished with the video game/movie/music).
But it still appears to be useless and based on the assumption that fictional media somehow changes people. They should have to have real-world evidence that that is true before enacting any sort of "regulations," in my opinion.
What would be some examples of directly teaching children to think "flexibly and wisely"?
Actually, thinking about it again, it may be a wise move. I do think that there should also be some classes that teach about logical fallacies, though.
Also, I don't think the mathematically disinclined are showered with advanced math; math, yes, advanced, no. To be clear, I hesitate to call Calculus advanced math.
I see. Well, it's advanced enough that many people don't even use it.
If you want to teach them how to think "flexibly and wisely," then just do that directly. Showering them with only slightly relevant subjects that should be optional (advanced math, chess, etc) is rather inefficient when it comes to the amount of time used. I guess it might be a fun way to teach the skills, but I'd say the skills should also be taught in a more direct manner with this being an exercise. I still completely disagree with the act of showering people with advanced math classes merely to "teach" them these skills (which, for many people, it doesn't appear to work, anyway).
Instead of restating copyright law, why not actually respond to my arguments?
I know, but they can't prove that any of the people would have bought it in the first place. They merely assume that everyone would have and go off of that.
or cause more $1,000 in 'damages'
Even using their logic, how can they prove you caused $1,000 in "damages"?
What? As the car/home owner, you can do whatever you please. If you want less security, alright. However, with DRM, you're hurting actually customers. People that bought the product. In other words, the product is entirely theirs, and the DRM is hurting them. It doesn't even affect the 'pirates' (installing a crack is far easier than getting past a lock). All this just to stop some people who copy data.
I'm pretty sure it's a civil offense.
I said "seemingly" because, unlike you seem to be doing, I don't like to pretend that I am absolutely correct. I still admit that I may be wrong, even if I don't believe that I am.
but in reality they are harmed, because they are not paid what they ought to be paid.
You just repeated what you said a few comments ago. "Ought to be paid"? That is what is being debated. As I said, the file sharer hasn't used any of the author's time, money, or resources to make a copy. Development costs and time were incurred by the author(s) themselves. You can't "own" potential gain as far as I see. You can't touch it, use it (the gain, because you never even had it), predict if you would have had it, see it, and anyone could claim that you owe them money simply because you didn't give them all of your money (which would be a loss of potential gain).
The other is being some form of ideal adult, within which there can be broad variation but there are behaviors we expect in the ideal adult that are not present in the most annoying characteristics of children. Like name-calling.
I guess that is a characteristic of many children, yes. But, again, that also seems to be a characteristic of many adults. I guess those adults don't quite meet the second definition.
Being an adult also means responding to criticism without resorting to name-calling.
I thought that that's what being logical is about, not what being an adult is about. The two really aren't the same as far as I've seen.
I think what you're saying is correct, but I was just making the point that the existence of money causes this problem in the first place.
Shouldn't you be afraid that unrestricted access to the wrong information is just as bad - if not worse - than simply drinking the corporate Kool Aid on network television?
I'd rather take than chance than resort to idiotic methods to try to 'stop' it.
Good luck with that, but in the meantime, would you accept a jobs program as a stopgap solution?
As I said, if they are useful to society.
Only if it's reasonable to automate it.
When you say "reasonable," what do you mean? If it's more efficient, then I think it is "reasonable." If they're not doing it only because of money, then that is just another example of how money gets in the way of efficiency.
and the game had higher sales then normal in the first 2 months.
Compared to what? How did they know how many sales there would've been if it hadn't been for that? I admit it's kind of a clever tactic, but I'm interested in how they know this.
Well, would you prefer a more intrusive form of DRM?
I'd prefer none. It's a waste of effort on the part of the developers (usually, it is cracked), and it typically affects actual customers as well.
Not everyone is in a position where they can do that.
No, they're not. There is no perfect solution.
They may need training, which they cannot afford
Then they could acquire help (from the government or something).
If people are out of alternatives, surely giving them a job as a way to assist them would be better than just giving them a check or allowing them to starve in the streets?
No. Then we have a bunch of people who contribute nothing useful to society. This seems like a problem with capitalism to me. I'd suggest that instead of giving them checks or letting them starve, society go through a change so that none of these inefficient practices are required anymore.
And there's no reason why the job has to be useless.
If it's not useless, then that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about creating useless jobs just for the sake of creating them. For instance, people may be employed to press a button every once in a while. The process is already automated, but they hired these people merely to give them jobs. They're useless and not really contributing anything. The same applies to any job that can be automated.
Well, it's pretty bad to have a lot of unemployed people around.
Then they should find something useful to do. I don't think we should go around creating useless jobs for their sake. Then we would likely have a bunch of people who contribute nothing useful to society.
Money changes some people. Others can still remain the same. As for people wasting all of their money when they get rich, they sound like mere overconfident idiots.
First, it is call convenience.
I don't think it's exactly convenient to pay that much extra for something. All you have to do is wait a little while. That isn't too difficult, and can easily be done unless you need the item immediately.
Pretty soon, brick n mortar stores will die off and you'll never be able to see an item before you order it, and/or you'll be complaining about the walmartization of cities that destroy local mom n pop stores.
I'd only be complaining if they were useful. If many people decide that they aren't, then they probably won't survive. Employing people for the sake of employing people is rather idiotic, I think. They should actually be useful to society, in my opinion (not that I'm saying they're not).
Except that it usually doesn't scare anyone off, as far as I've seen. They might be more cautious about revealing their identity, though.
Then he shouldn't have pretended like he was going to fight them in the first place.
Change the laws. Regulate corporations tighter.
That's possible, but it would be difficult simply because of said corporations and their seemingly endless supplies of money.
something apparently foreign to people under the age of 25 nowadays
It seems to be foreign to plenty of people, regardless of age. When they think they've done nothing wrong, they will fight back.