Well, if you're using a service like Good Old Games that doesn't tie the games to any account essentially owned by the company, then that would be fine as well. You can back up the games as many times as you please.
It strikes me as odd that so many people are so weak-minded that they can't even handle a somewhat insulting comment (mere words). Even if this were an MMO, such a punishment would, to me, be ridiculous. Really, if you're that afraid of words, you should lock yourself up in a location far, far away from other people and make sure you can communicate with no one.
I'm not saying that's good. But the gaming business is moving to 'integrate' online even into single player, and is going to put your saves in a cloud and so on, wrapped up together this significantly raises the barrier of entry to piracy, and makes used game sales nearly a thing of the past.
I guess the 'pirates' would have to 'acquire' a physical copy in that case. In any case, I wouldn't play any games that relied on such a defective system. Data completely controlled by the companies, the ability to mod the games likely reduced to zero, not being able to access the games if the server is down, likely having to pay a monthly fee, and just generally no longer having a physical copy of the game (I speak of 'services' like onlive). All this because the companies are paranoid idiots and feel they must rip off their own customers to 'get back' at a few 'pirates' while hiding behind the ruse that they are losing millions in nonexistent profit.
Not that that would do much at all (especially in the wake of people with money). The free market doesn't solve everything magically (especially not monopolies). This is why we have regulation (and why I believe we need net neutrality). Even if there were multiple providers, they would all probably pull the same stunts to maximize their profits. They would know that if one of them adhered to net neutrality and people started flocking to that one (not that lots of technologically illiterate people would do that anyway) , the rest of the ISPs would quickly follow and therefore nullifying the actions of the first.
If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government
Except if they change the rules, have malicious intentions, make a mistake, or a combination of those three (they're humans, too, so those are very possible). Privacy is important to reduce the chances of those three things happening.
They will now. And in the real world, there's going to be far too many coincidences and people who, accidentally or not, use a different writing style than usual. Doing so is even more simple than wearing a glove. 80% in the real world? Not at all.
So essentially, it sounds reasonable to some people, so that gives it a special status that elevates it above other crazy speculation in such a way that *everyone* is obligated to afford it more respect than unicorns and invisible leprechauns?
No. It's subjective in value (which is why I said that it was only their belief). All I was pointing out was that reasons do exist for some people.
Before this sentence, had you ever entertained the possibility that the earth is a shapeshifting walrus that is currently in the form of a planet?
I don't bother thinking about things that have no evidence to support them. You're right.
Essentially, how is it any different from saying "The universe is here because of *something* but we have no idea what it was"?
Because some people believe that only a being that is at least semi-intelligent could do such a thing. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that is their thought process. That is their "theory" to which they probably would like to prove.
People get really caught up here, as though the inability to falsify the unfalsifiable means that we must entertain the unfalsifiable.
You must have misinterpreted me. You don't have to "entertain" it so much as you have to "entertain" the possibility of it. All you have to say is "I don't know, but I don't believe in it and it's probably not real." That won't affect you in the slightest.
That's not a reason to believe in god.
I agree that it's not a reason to fill in the blanks and add characteristics to a hypothetical entity that we know nothing about, but it is one possible solution. Some people choose to believe in it (like with everything else). I don't really understand the point of religions themselves.
Would you find those "other characters" more reasonable if we added that they created the universe?
Sure. Then they would have god-like properties. When I say "god," I'm really only referring to the hypothetical being that may exist and may have sparked the creation of the universe. I do not claim to know anything about this entity.
You do realize that one of the reasons most abortion doctors kill the baby before they remove it from the mother's womb is because quite often the baby could survive the premature removal?
To be honest: no, I didn't. That's interesting (and unfortunate).
In both scenarios you're removing an unwanted being from your life at your own desire.
Yes, but in one scenario, that unwanted being is something lurking inside your own body and is completely dependent on you. I don't care if it was an adult. I believe that you should be able to remove unwanted entities from your own body as long as they are dependent upon you and have nowhere else to turn.
The fact that the entity being removed is fully dependent on the mother sounds like a justification for killing born babies, and heck even kids up to an age where they can care for themselves.
Not really. The being, at that point, is somewhat independent of the actual mother and can, at the very least, be taken care of by someone else (whether that be an orphanage or a different parent).
Sounds more like pro-convenience to me.
Well, of course. What else would it be? If your goals are fulfilled, that is indeed convenient for you. Of course, it also comes with the added benefit of there being one less child suffering in this already overpopulated world.
We are constantly dismiss non-probably events like invisible leprechauns hidden in the server room.
Stating with absolute certainty that something exists or doesn't exist when there's no evidence either way (unless there is supposed to be evidence for it, of course), no matter what it is, is quite foolish, I think.
God does not exist because you can't prove it
If you can't prove that a 'god' doesn't exist, then that statement contains an unknown truth value.
and the ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
The onus of proof is on whoever makes claims and states them as a fact, not just the person who came up with the original idea. Merely saying you believe or don't believe is an entirely different matter, however.
You're making an extraordianry claim with ZERO EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.
That's quite ironic.
If you accept god(s), then you must accept all fictional beings including Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
Not necessarily. For some, there is a reason to believe in a god. The reason being is that we exist, and they search for the catalyst which caused us to exist. Their belief, so far, is purely speculation, but the reason is there and I don't believe it to be entirely unreasonable (unlike with those other characters).
what is the fundamental difference between abortion and murder?
In one scenario, you're killing something for no reason (as far as society is concerned, anyway), and in the other, you're removing an unwanted being from someone's body at their own request. That being is just unfortunate enough to have its life depend on the person it is nesting in.
You're forgetting that someone is innocent unless/until proven guilty. I believe that any sensible person knows this. Otherwise, you'd likely have to go around refuting every inane claim that people spew forth.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I'd say that the vast majority of people in general are exactly like that. Not that I have any proof beyond anecdotal evidence and the way that the world currently works, of course.
Read TFA. Teacher does something student doesn't like, student retaliates by libeling the teacher as a pedophile, rapist and as being bipolar. This is not an appropriate response to being "mean."
Yes, but when you stated that, you were saying that if we give children the rights that adults have, being "mean" to them would have consequences. In this case, I do not see what this has to do with giving them the same rights as an adult would have. The situation has already happened and they do not have those rights.
but unless you're an adult I'm not going to knock your block off.
A quote comes to mind: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
I don't think that harming someone merely because you have a differing opinion is acceptable. If you resort to such barbaric measures, you probably don't have a counterargument, can't coherently express your counterargument, can't accept that other people have opinions that differ from your own, or a combination of those.
Not all/.'rs live in their parents' basements and don't see the sun, let alone have had enough stress over the past say, decade, to have lost tolerance for assholes, especially ones that are not even old enough to drive.
Even if that were true, that does not excuse illogical, barbaric behavior. It can, however, indicate that you may be biased.
All of them? If so, that's quite a nasty generalization. If not, then you should be judging them on an individual basis.
if every administrator and teacher had to worry about little Billy bitching to his parents about how Mr. Smith was mean to him at school.
Why would they have to worry about that? Being "mean" to someone is not a crime (not only that, but words themselves are almost never valid evidence).
I had this 9 year old (not mine) lipping off to me on the chairlift yesterday and if it hadn't been so high in the air I might have just pushed her off (of course into the soft fluffy snow near the top of the lift)...
You could say the same thing about any person who is insulting you, not just children. Age doesn't change this one single bit. It is unfortunate for those who cannot control their anger, however, that assaulting others is generally not accepted behavior.
But abusing them is? Reveal their lies for what they are: unvalidated claims. As far as I know, abusing your opponent for things you could take them to court over (if you can't, then attempt to get that fixed) isn't exactly accepted practice (even though I disagree with the actual practice anyway). They used words, and nothing more. If people are willing to believe such unvalidated claims (and, in this case, absolutely no one that I know of is), then the problem is with those people.
How is it not illogical to succumb to your anger (which in itself is illogical) and harm others because you disagree with them rather than attempting to talk it out?
Pain = bad and can't be ignored.
Yes, and inflicting pain upon others rather than being rational and discussing the problem can instill within them feelings of hatred (not to mention that it fails to ever address any actual reasons).
Also, pain doesn't necessarily have to be viewed as bad. It does mean that you are being wounded in some way, but not everyone views it in a negative light.
I'd tell that to anyone, regardless of their status. Unless you're actively defending others (or yourself) from incoming physical violence, there is absolutely no need to resort to such barbaric and illogical actions. It merely proves that you have no argument or that you're too incompetent to express it.
But I thought that kids were sub-humans! Abuse isn't abuse anymore if it's done to a child. The same goes for sexual harassment. Somehow, that makes complete sense. Besides, attempting to evaluate someone's worth based on their behavior, not their age, is completely out of the question. Administrators should just do as they please.
to "ink" words like pedophile, rapist, bi-polar as weapons.
The reason they are viewed as "weapons" is because many in our society seem to be such imbeciles that they would believe any unvalidated claim that came their way.
how about we take to task the parents that create children with little to know awareness of basic respect to adults.
I'd rather that we ask everyone in general to respect one another. This trait is not lacking just in many children, but in many adults as well. The person's status doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you're using a service like Good Old Games that doesn't tie the games to any account essentially owned by the company, then that would be fine as well. You can back up the games as many times as you please.
It strikes me as odd that so many people are so weak-minded that they can't even handle a somewhat insulting comment (mere words). Even if this were an MMO, such a punishment would, to me, be ridiculous. Really, if you're that afraid of words, you should lock yourself up in a location far, far away from other people and make sure you can communicate with no one.
I'm not saying that's good. But the gaming business is moving to 'integrate' online even into single player, and is going to put your saves in a cloud and so on, wrapped up together this significantly raises the barrier of entry to piracy, and makes used game sales nearly a thing of the past.
I guess the 'pirates' would have to 'acquire' a physical copy in that case. In any case, I wouldn't play any games that relied on such a defective system. Data completely controlled by the companies, the ability to mod the games likely reduced to zero, not being able to access the games if the server is down, likely having to pay a monthly fee, and just generally no longer having a physical copy of the game (I speak of 'services' like onlive). All this because the companies are paranoid idiots and feel they must rip off their own customers to 'get back' at a few 'pirates' while hiding behind the ruse that they are losing millions in nonexistent profit.
Not that that would do much at all (especially in the wake of people with money). The free market doesn't solve everything magically (especially not monopolies). This is why we have regulation (and why I believe we need net neutrality). Even if there were multiple providers, they would all probably pull the same stunts to maximize their profits. They would know that if one of them adhered to net neutrality and people started flocking to that one (not that lots of technologically illiterate people would do that anyway) , the rest of the ISPs would quickly follow and therefore nullifying the actions of the first.
If they say "we may filter or traffic shape your traffic", then you're free to accept that or find some other carrier with preferable terms.
Oh, alright. I'll just switch Comcast for... Comcast. Or how about Comcast? Comcast is also a good choice!
If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government
Except if they change the rules, have malicious intentions, make a mistake, or a combination of those three (they're humans, too, so those are very possible). Privacy is important to reduce the chances of those three things happening.
And people still don't bother most of the time;
They will now. And in the real world, there's going to be far too many coincidences and people who, accidentally or not, use a different writing style than usual. Doing so is even more simple than wearing a glove. 80% in the real world? Not at all.
The conflict would be resolved if you were to say that it is important to entertain the possibility of the existence of Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
It is, as long as evidence is not supposed to be presently available to us.
So essentially, it sounds reasonable to some people, so that gives it a special status that elevates it above other crazy speculation in such a way that *everyone* is obligated to afford it more respect than unicorns and invisible leprechauns?
No. It's subjective in value (which is why I said that it was only their belief). All I was pointing out was that reasons do exist for some people.
Before this sentence, had you ever entertained the possibility that the earth is a shapeshifting walrus that is currently in the form of a planet?
I don't bother thinking about things that have no evidence to support them. You're right.
Essentially, how is it any different from saying "The universe is here because of *something* but we have no idea what it was"?
Because some people believe that only a being that is at least semi-intelligent could do such a thing. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that is their thought process. That is their "theory" to which they probably would like to prove.
People get really caught up here, as though the inability to falsify the unfalsifiable means that we must entertain the unfalsifiable.
You must have misinterpreted me. You don't have to "entertain" it so much as you have to "entertain" the possibility of it. All you have to say is "I don't know, but I don't believe in it and it's probably not real." That won't affect you in the slightest.
That's not a reason to believe in god.
I agree that it's not a reason to fill in the blanks and add characteristics to a hypothetical entity that we know nothing about, but it is one possible solution. Some people choose to believe in it (like with everything else). I don't really understand the point of religions themselves.
Would you find those "other characters" more reasonable if we added that they created the universe?
Sure. Then they would have god-like properties. When I say "god," I'm really only referring to the hypothetical being that may exist and may have sparked the creation of the universe. I do not claim to know anything about this entity.
You do realize that one of the reasons most abortion doctors kill the baby before they remove it from the mother's womb is because quite often the baby could survive the premature removal?
To be honest: no, I didn't. That's interesting (and unfortunate).
In both scenarios you're removing an unwanted being from your life at your own desire.
Yes, but in one scenario, that unwanted being is something lurking inside your own body and is completely dependent on you. I don't care if it was an adult. I believe that you should be able to remove unwanted entities from your own body as long as they are dependent upon you and have nowhere else to turn.
The fact that the entity being removed is fully dependent on the mother sounds like a justification for killing born babies, and heck even kids up to an age where they can care for themselves.
Not really. The being, at that point, is somewhat independent of the actual mother and can, at the very least, be taken care of by someone else (whether that be an orphanage or a different parent).
Sounds more like pro-convenience to me.
Well, of course. What else would it be? If your goals are fulfilled, that is indeed convenient for you. Of course, it also comes with the added benefit of there being one less child suffering in this already overpopulated world.
We are constantly dismiss non-probably events like invisible leprechauns hidden in the server room.
Stating with absolute certainty that something exists or doesn't exist when there's no evidence either way (unless there is supposed to be evidence for it, of course), no matter what it is, is quite foolish, I think.
God does not exist because you can't prove it
If you can't prove that a 'god' doesn't exist, then that statement contains an unknown truth value.
and the ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
The onus of proof is on whoever makes claims and states them as a fact, not just the person who came up with the original idea. Merely saying you believe or don't believe is an entirely different matter, however.
You're making an extraordianry claim with ZERO EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.
That's quite ironic.
If you accept god(s), then you must accept all fictional beings including Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
Not necessarily. For some, there is a reason to believe in a god. The reason being is that we exist, and they search for the catalyst which caused us to exist. Their belief, so far, is purely speculation, but the reason is there and I don't believe it to be entirely unreasonable (unlike with those other characters).
what is the fundamental difference between abortion and murder?
In one scenario, you're killing something for no reason (as far as society is concerned, anyway), and in the other, you're removing an unwanted being from someone's body at their own request. That being is just unfortunate enough to have its life depend on the person it is nesting in.
it does not mean that I have to tolerate the bad behavior of the latter.
I suppose not. You could always work out a solution with them logically or enact some sort of peaceful deal.
How can you prove that you aren't a pedophile?
You're forgetting that someone is innocent unless/until proven guilty. I believe that any sensible person knows this. Otherwise, you'd likely have to go around refuting every inane claim that people spew forth.
The vast majority of them.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I'd say that the vast majority of people in general are exactly like that. Not that I have any proof beyond anecdotal evidence and the way that the world currently works, of course.
Read TFA. Teacher does something student doesn't like, student retaliates by libeling the teacher as a pedophile, rapist and as being bipolar. This is not an appropriate response to being "mean."
Yes, but when you stated that, you were saying that if we give children the rights that adults have, being "mean" to them would have consequences. In this case, I do not see what this has to do with giving them the same rights as an adult would have. The situation has already happened and they do not have those rights.
but unless you're an adult I'm not going to knock your block off.
A quote comes to mind: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
I don't think that harming someone merely because you have a differing opinion is acceptable. If you resort to such barbaric measures, you probably don't have a counterargument, can't coherently express your counterargument, can't accept that other people have opinions that differ from your own, or a combination of those.
Not all /.'rs live in their parents' basements and don't see the sun, let alone have had enough stress over the past say, decade, to have lost tolerance for assholes, especially ones that are not even old enough to drive.
Even if that were true, that does not excuse illogical, barbaric behavior. It can, however, indicate that you may be biased.
adolescents are total little shits
All of them? If so, that's quite a nasty generalization. If not, then you should be judging them on an individual basis.
if every administrator and teacher had to worry about little Billy bitching to his parents about how Mr. Smith was mean to him at school.
Why would they have to worry about that? Being "mean" to someone is not a crime (not only that, but words themselves are almost never valid evidence).
I had this 9 year old (not mine) lipping off to me on the chairlift yesterday and if it hadn't been so high in the air I might have just pushed her off (of course into the soft fluffy snow near the top of the lift)...
You could say the same thing about any person who is insulting you, not just children. Age doesn't change this one single bit. It is unfortunate for those who cannot control their anger, however, that assaulting others is generally not accepted behavior.
But abusing them is? Reveal their lies for what they are: unvalidated claims. As far as I know, abusing your opponent for things you could take them to court over (if you can't, then attempt to get that fixed) isn't exactly accepted practice (even though I disagree with the actual practice anyway). They used words, and nothing more. If people are willing to believe such unvalidated claims (and, in this case, absolutely no one that I know of is), then the problem is with those people.
You are using instincts to teach someone
How is it not illogical to succumb to your anger (which in itself is illogical) and harm others because you disagree with them rather than attempting to talk it out?
Pain = bad and can't be ignored.
Yes, and inflicting pain upon others rather than being rational and discussing the problem can instill within them feelings of hatred (not to mention that it fails to ever address any actual reasons).
Also, pain doesn't necessarily have to be viewed as bad. It does mean that you are being wounded in some way, but not everyone views it in a negative light.
So... where's your response to my actual argument?
I'd tell that to anyone, regardless of their status. Unless you're actively defending others (or yourself) from incoming physical violence, there is absolutely no need to resort to such barbaric and illogical actions. It merely proves that you have no argument or that you're too incompetent to express it.
But I thought that kids were sub-humans! Abuse isn't abuse anymore if it's done to a child. The same goes for sexual harassment. Somehow, that makes complete sense. Besides, attempting to evaluate someone's worth based on their behavior, not their age, is completely out of the question. Administrators should just do as they please.
to "ink" words like pedophile, rapist, bi-polar as weapons.
The reason they are viewed as "weapons" is because many in our society seem to be such imbeciles that they would believe any unvalidated claim that came their way.
how about we take to task the parents that create children with little to know awareness of basic respect to adults.
I'd rather that we ask everyone in general to respect one another. This trait is not lacking just in many children, but in many adults as well. The person's status doesn't matter.