But they're completely possible and it's not unreasonable (in my opinion) to expect it to happen. We've already seen an instance where Comcast blocked/throttled bittorrent in the US.
How is viewing all criticism as jealousy on the part of the critic, regardless of the criticism made, 100% correct? If a chef makes bad food and a customer criticizes him for it (while also giving reasons for criticizing him), why would he be jealous that the chef made bad food? As I said, take the person's argument into account, not just the fact that they are criticizing you. Dismissing all critics as "jealous" only proves how closed-minded, arrogant, and illogical you are.
What I tried to convey was that the arguments of "if you were in this situation, you'd have a different opinion" are rather pointless. It is more likely that you will not be able to take an objective standpoint if you are in the situation yourself (not that anyone who is in the situation is wrong, but that's not the point). The fact that someone would change their opinion if they were put into the situation is essentially irrelevant and does not mean that what they were incorrect.
It sounds like she left the invitation open (the first one). That isn't their fault. Also, police intervention for an account being hijacked on the internet? Really?
Well, it's your right to think that way, but I'm sure you'd feel differently if you were blind, and your computer's screen-reader program was unable to parse important emails from your professor.
Yes. The people affected do tend to have biased opinions (far more so than usual) on the matter more than not. What's your point?
Or, your car drives you into a river and you drown.. because computers crash and have bugs.
Much like humans. The number of accidents caused by human drivers is simply astounding (mostly because humans are panicky, irrational creatures). I've seen some people make points like this to argue against cars that drive themselves, but they always seem to come to the conclusion that they can magically process information faster than a computer (and conveniently forget how many accidents are caused by humans). Yes, this could happen. However, the chances of such a thing happening would be reduced even further if the human could also take over and drive it for themselves if something bad happened. You don't even technically need to be aware of the location of every car, child, or pet for such automated driving to work.
Aside from the argument that lack of privacy is the only way to enforce equality for all
I don't want "equality for all" if it comes at the price of allowing corrupt authority figures to abuse their authority (it would greatly increase the chances of such a thing happening). It would also increase the chances of mistakes.
It would help the government eliminate those that are against them and those who would dare challenge their authority. What a great idea! When can this be applied to all of society?
Of course you can, but an opinion can't be a definition.
I see nothing in the definition of art that isn't subjective in and of itself. If it was originally intended to mean paintings, books, movies, and statues, you'd have a point. But at this current point in time, it is a completely subjective definition up for someone's own interpretation.
Would you consider a pollock painting over a toilet with Bethoven music blasting out art?
Just because some people don't think something is art, that doesn't mean it is. It's completely subjective. I think that most pictures, statues, and other things generally regarded as art are boring and repetitive and I don't view them as art. That's just my opinion, and it's not a fact.
Most of what I've read have been observations made of various piracy channels, and reported via studies.
By "various" do you mean "all"? If not, the study was invalid. Even "most" would be an impossible task, as you'd have to determine the total amount of "pirate channels" to even make such a prediction (which would require you to visit every website in existence).
If they've only increased in certain websites, then you have to take into account the possibility that they merely moved from other websites (or they started using more than one). The rest of them are completely unknown, and it is incredibly hasty and foolish to merely say that the number of 'pirates' is increasing without knowing about every single 'pirate' in existence before and after.
I think one of the factors at work here is making people aware that they have to take active steps to do something wrong.
Which doesn't work on most 'pirates' (perhaps naive ones at schools, at best). "Wrong"? Many would disagree with that notion.
"Hey, I'm taking something without paying"
Actually, no. It's more like, "Hey, I'm copying data without paying the original developer! Some people believe that this amount to a loss of potential profit."
No. You're forgetting that customers have to do the exact same thing. Therefore, there's no benefit (other than taking two seconds to download a crack/keygen, but that doesn't even matter).
Do you think pirates would go for that?
Some of them might. There will always be people who just download the game for free, but it might lower that amount of people.
The beauty of this example is that the students *had* to use the software to do assignments.
Ah, I see. That does explain it then.
Over the years I've seen the same thing posted to forums over and over: "A friend brought his legit disc to school, we copied it but it did not work, so I bought a legit copy for myself."
In other words, it stops 'casual' 'pirates' who are likely technologically illiterate (actually, it hardly takes any effort in the first place). People who usually don't 'pirate' because they're idiots, anyway. It likely doesn't stop many others, though.
Slashdot Mirror
But they're completely possible and it's not unreasonable (in my opinion) to expect it to happen. We've already seen an instance where Comcast blocked/throttled bittorrent in the US.
How is viewing all criticism as jealousy on the part of the critic, regardless of the criticism made, 100% correct? If a chef makes bad food and a customer criticizes him for it (while also giving reasons for criticizing him), why would he be jealous that the chef made bad food? As I said, take the person's argument into account, not just the fact that they are criticizing you. Dismissing all critics as "jealous" only proves how closed-minded, arrogant, and illogical you are.
I don't follow your reasoning
What I tried to convey was that the arguments of "if you were in this situation, you'd have a different opinion" are rather pointless. It is more likely that you will not be able to take an objective standpoint if you are in the situation yourself (not that anyone who is in the situation is wrong, but that's not the point). The fact that someone would change their opinion if they were put into the situation is essentially irrelevant and does not mean that what they were incorrect.
It sounds like she left the invitation open (the first one). That isn't their fault. Also, police intervention for an account being hijacked on the internet? Really?
Yeah. A weak-minded person's feelings might get hurt. Can't have that!
I'm sorry, I guess I made a typo. I meant "accommodation".
Well, I meant to ask what that has to do with Google Apps.
if it's a place of public accomodation
Huh?
Well, it's your right to think that way, but I'm sure you'd feel differently if you were blind, and your computer's screen-reader program was unable to parse important emails from your professor.
Yes. The people affected do tend to have biased opinions (far more so than usual) on the matter more than not. What's your point?
I would have interpreted any criticism as jealousy.
What a great attitude to have! Interpreting any criticism, regardless of its content, as jealousy, is an absolute genius idea and not at all arrogant!
You have to admit that copyright infringement is a major problem that needs to be handled one way or another.
No, I don't.
And? I believe that was idiotic as well.
being part of the problem
Assuming there's a problem at all, that is.
Or, your car drives you into a river and you drown.. because computers crash and have bugs.
Much like humans. The number of accidents caused by human drivers is simply astounding (mostly because humans are panicky, irrational creatures). I've seen some people make points like this to argue against cars that drive themselves, but they always seem to come to the conclusion that they can magically process information faster than a computer (and conveniently forget how many accidents are caused by humans). Yes, this could happen. However, the chances of such a thing happening would be reduced even further if the human could also take over and drive it for themselves if something bad happened. You don't even technically need to be aware of the location of every car, child, or pet for such automated driving to work.
Are you insane? If lots of people believe something, that makes it true! Just like it's true that the world is flat...
Aside from the argument that lack of privacy is the only way to enforce equality for all
I don't want "equality for all" if it comes at the price of allowing corrupt authority figures to abuse their authority (it would greatly increase the chances of such a thing happening). It would also increase the chances of mistakes.
It would help the government eliminate those that are against them and those who would dare challenge their authority. What a great idea! When can this be applied to all of society?
Of course you can, but an opinion can't be a definition.
I see nothing in the definition of art that isn't subjective in and of itself. If it was originally intended to mean paintings, books, movies, and statues, you'd have a point. But at this current point in time, it is a completely subjective definition up for someone's own interpretation.
Would you consider a pollock painting over a toilet with Bethoven music blasting out art?
No. Others might, though.
In fact, why do you think that an AI would not be criminal or altruistic or jealous or power hungry or depressed or any of the things that humans do.
Unless it was programmed to be like a human, that wouldn't happen.
Why? I certainly can consider that. It's my opinion.
Just because some people don't think something is art, that doesn't mean it is. It's completely subjective. I think that most pictures, statues, and other things generally regarded as art are boring and repetitive and I don't view them as art. That's just my opinion, and it's not a fact.
Most of what I've read have been observations made of various piracy channels, and reported via studies.
By "various" do you mean "all"? If not, the study was invalid. Even "most" would be an impossible task, as you'd have to determine the total amount of "pirate channels" to even make such a prediction (which would require you to visit every website in existence).
If they've only increased in certain websites, then you have to take into account the possibility that they merely moved from other websites (or they started using more than one). The rest of them are completely unknown, and it is incredibly hasty and foolish to merely say that the number of 'pirates' is increasing without knowing about every single 'pirate' in existence before and after.
Oh, I see. I'll just spend money that I don't have while using knowledge that I don't have to create my own ISP. Be right back.
I think one of the factors at work here is making people aware that they have to take active steps to do something wrong.
Which doesn't work on most 'pirates' (perhaps naive ones at schools, at best). "Wrong"? Many would disagree with that notion.
"Hey, I'm taking something without paying"
Actually, no. It's more like, "Hey, I'm copying data without paying the original developer! Some people believe that this amount to a loss of potential profit."
No. You're forgetting that customers have to do the exact same thing. Therefore, there's no benefit (other than taking two seconds to download a crack/keygen, but that doesn't even matter).
Do you think pirates would go for that?
Some of them might. There will always be people who just download the game for free, but it might lower that amount of people.
Oh, I guess I'll just imagine that I have more than one option in my area, then.
They are not necessarily technically illiterate.
Well, I'm sorry, but if they gave up that quickly, it sounds like they are.
In reality its a cost benefit thing.
The thing is, most don't consider it a cost to take a few seconds to download a crack (or if it's easy to bypass yourself, do that).
If there is a modest technical barrier
This doesn't exist unless you're an idiot.
The beauty of this example is that the students *had* to use the software to do assignments.
Ah, I see. That does explain it then.
Over the years I've seen the same thing posted to forums over and over: "A friend brought his legit disc to school, we copied it but it did not work, so I bought a legit copy for myself."
In other words, it stops 'casual' 'pirates' who are likely technologically illiterate (actually, it hardly takes any effort in the first place). People who usually don't 'pirate' because they're idiots, anyway. It likely doesn't stop many others, though.