It was likely declared to be a barbaric practice. I'd say that abusing someone else to get your way is far more 'childish' than the alternatives. If your argument is so weak that you're have to use violence to defend it, then you have already lost.
they would have been looked at as being childish and feeble-minded.
I'm fairly certain that they already were looked at like that no matter how they acted (or at least they definitely are now). Some people seem to view it as 'insulting' when they receive legitimate criticism or information from a child, evading it by insulting them based on their age.
Do you mean that the horribly inefficient school system that relies on grades instead of actual knowledge makes it desirable to cheat for higher grades? Really!? What a surprise!
It's a place where he has no expectation of privacy.
On his car (his private property)? If making physical contact with his private property with the intent of revealing what he is doing is not invading his privacy, then what is?
They made physical contact with his private property and installed a tracking device. How is that not invading his privacy? Does this suddenly become okay just because an authority figure did it instead of, for example, a random person?
Yes. That is what I mean. The problem is, the prison system is often used as a form of rehabilitation when it really isn't. It often worsens the person in question.
A better prison system. Or, at least, I'm criticizing the current one for locking a criminal up in a place where crime that hurts others is likely seen as 'okay' (which reinforces the behavior).
spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it.
Seriously? What he did may have been annoying (and in some cases, fairly bad), but it wasn't that bad (at least, I don't think so). There's no reason to think that he won't change compared to other 'criminals'.
If the political system is democracy, or a reasonable derivative such as a democratic republic, and the "large number" you speak of constitutes a majority of enfranchised citizens, then the people are most definitely 'in the right'.
I know you're speaking about laws, but that wasn't my point.
That is what majority rule means.
Tyranny of the majority? Also, we don't currently have "majority rule." The so-called 'representatives' get lobbied so easily that they can hardly call themselves as such.
Absolutely not. That's how a direct democracy works, and that leads to tyranny of the majority. That's why there are checks and balances and the people do not have absolute power (although, currently, I believe that they have less than they should).
Also, the law has nothing to do with whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'.
Democracy or not, they could easily be wrong. Second of all, the people don't currently have unchecked amounts of power, anyway (although they have less power than they should).
That's why laws should, for the most part, be written using facts, and not mere opinions. That's also why the people shouldn't receive complete power (more than they have currently, but the government would still have power that the people do not).
The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill.
I don't quite understand how a large number of people believing something makes it right. I mean, it might indicate that the government has angered them, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the people are 'in the right.'
So... If the brand doesn't indicate quality, then why do people pay more for the brand?
It could be that some people are merely imbeciles. I've seen a few people who buy normal things at absolutely ridiculous prices just because they have the mentality of, "if it costs more, it must be better!"
Sure, some brands are better than others, but just because many people buy it, that doesn't mean that it's good.
I still have (and use) my computer that I bought ten years ago. Sure, it might not be powerful enough to run the newest games (although, surprisingly, it can run quite a few games that I would expect that it couldn't), but it works for my needs. In this case, buying another computer just for the sake of buying one is rather pointless.
All I'm asking for is the same meter of judgement to be applied to all corporations, besides Sony, who are imposing DRM schemes to their cusomers. That is, sadly, every one.
Not everyone. Many, but not all. However, I agree. It should be applied to everyone.
Often we can satisfy our needs with less accuracy.
Not when it's completely inaccurate. Can you point me in the location of a study that has pinpointed the exact amount of 'pirates' on this planet, or anywhere close to that? If the study is incomplete, its accuracy cannot be measured.
To obtain a rough measurement of piracy the could base their expectations on the number of pirate copies confiscated by the police.
What of the ones not confiscated by the police? An unknown amount. Such is the same with all of your other 'solutions'. They all have an unmeasurable factor to them that could mean the difference between being accurate and inaccurate. In fact, the chances of them being accurate are abysmally small.
Of course honest buyers will turn away from the "products" by whose DRM they feel they've been damaged
Hopefully, but many people are ignorant of what DRM really is and why they shouldn't support companies that utilize it to a harmful degree. It takes time to inform such people, and even then there's no guarantee that they'll change their ways (perhaps they just don't care), leaving people that do care almost powerless.
And my very personal one says to play by the rules even while you're fighting to change them.
I'm going to respond to this as if it was a general statement. What about civil disobedience? Some rules simply cannot be followed. But, you're correct in that you should expect there to be consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
It was likely declared to be a barbaric practice. I'd say that abusing someone else to get your way is far more 'childish' than the alternatives. If your argument is so weak that you're have to use violence to defend it, then you have already lost.
they would have been looked at as being childish and feeble-minded.
I'm fairly certain that they already were looked at like that no matter how they acted (or at least they definitely are now). Some people seem to view it as 'insulting' when they receive legitimate criticism or information from a child, evading it by insulting them based on their age.
Do you mean that the horribly inefficient school system that relies on grades instead of actual knowledge makes it desirable to cheat for higher grades? Really!? What a surprise!
Yes. Sony is going after the big fish. That's why they are going after viewers and visitors!
It's a place where he has no expectation of privacy.
On his car (his private property)? If making physical contact with his private property with the intent of revealing what he is doing is not invading his privacy, then what is?
That's not what they were doing though.
They made physical contact with his private property and installed a tracking device. How is that not invading his privacy? Does this suddenly become okay just because an authority figure did it instead of, for example, a random person?
I have no problem with everyone knowing this.
Others disagree.
Seems sensible to check him out.
If they have a warrant (which was granted to them because they had evidence beyond him "seeming" like a 'terrorist').
Why would they have got a warrant?
Because they were messing with his private property (and thereby invading his privacy), perhaps?
Yes. That is what I mean. The problem is, the prison system is often used as a form of rehabilitation when it really isn't. It often worsens the person in question.
A better prison system. Or, at least, I'm criticizing the current one for locking a criminal up in a place where crime that hurts others is likely seen as 'okay' (which reinforces the behavior).
Then he gets involved in something really serious
Yes. And hurts someone. It's too late at that point.
and does a few decades.
While consuming tax dollars and clogging the legal system.
To be willing to irritate, effectively, EVERYBODY requires a certain kind of sociopathy.
Most of the population actually has "a certain kind of sociopathy" to a certain extent.
If he were capable of his own self-interest, he wouldn't have gone to jail.
He may be capable now.
I wouldn't be surprised if prison just made him a 'hardened criminal'.
spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it.
Seriously? What he did may have been annoying (and in some cases, fairly bad), but it wasn't that bad (at least, I don't think so). There's no reason to think that he won't change compared to other 'criminals'.
If the political system is democracy, or a reasonable derivative such as a democratic republic, and the "large number" you speak of constitutes a majority of enfranchised citizens, then the people are most definitely 'in the right'.
Really?
I know you're speaking about laws, but that wasn't my point.
That is what majority rule means.
Tyranny of the majority? Also, we don't currently have "majority rule." The so-called 'representatives' get lobbied so easily that they can hardly call themselves as such.
Absolutely not. That's how a direct democracy works, and that leads to tyranny of the majority. That's why there are checks and balances and the people do not have absolute power (although, currently, I believe that they have less than they should).
Also, the law has nothing to do with whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'.
I've heard "low self esteem" described as a cause for everything from gang violence to sex addiction.
You heard wrong! It's video games and pornography now!
This is only true for people who actually care about such 'petty' things.
Democracy or not, they could easily be wrong. Second of all, the people don't currently have unchecked amounts of power, anyway (although they have less power than they should).
That's why laws should, for the most part, be written using facts, and not mere opinions. That's also why the people shouldn't receive complete power (more than they have currently, but the government would still have power that the people do not).
The appearance of a fairly large number of vigilantes, operating with at least the tacit support of the general population, means they're serving a need for justice (whether poorly or well) that the government has failed to fill.
I don't quite understand how a large number of people believing something makes it right. I mean, it might indicate that the government has angered them, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the people are 'in the right.'
So... If the brand doesn't indicate quality, then why do people pay more for the brand?
It could be that some people are merely imbeciles. I've seen a few people who buy normal things at absolutely ridiculous prices just because they have the mentality of, "if it costs more, it must be better!"
Sure, some brands are better than others, but just because many people buy it, that doesn't mean that it's good.
Funny..when I hire, we look at grades, and then course selection. That's basically used as an indicator of how self motivated a person is.
Not necessarily. The classes could have been easy and uninformative or they could have cheated, etc. I'd test their knowledge before I hired anyone.
I still have (and use) my computer that I bought ten years ago. Sure, it might not be powerful enough to run the newest games (although, surprisingly, it can run quite a few games that I would expect that it couldn't), but it works for my needs. In this case, buying another computer just for the sake of buying one is rather pointless.
All I'm asking for is the same meter of judgement to be applied to all corporations, besides Sony, who are imposing DRM schemes to their cusomers. That is, sadly, every one.
Not everyone. Many, but not all. However, I agree. It should be applied to everyone.
Often we can satisfy our needs with less accuracy.
Not when it's completely inaccurate. Can you point me in the location of a study that has pinpointed the exact amount of 'pirates' on this planet, or anywhere close to that? If the study is incomplete, its accuracy cannot be measured.
To obtain a rough measurement of piracy the could base their expectations on the number of pirate copies confiscated by the police.
What of the ones not confiscated by the police? An unknown amount. Such is the same with all of your other 'solutions'. They all have an unmeasurable factor to them that could mean the difference between being accurate and inaccurate. In fact, the chances of them being accurate are abysmally small.
Of course honest buyers will turn away from the "products" by whose DRM they feel they've been damaged
Hopefully, but many people are ignorant of what DRM really is and why they shouldn't support companies that utilize it to a harmful degree. It takes time to inform such people, and even then there's no guarantee that they'll change their ways (perhaps they just don't care), leaving people that do care almost powerless.
And my very personal one says to play by the rules even while you're fighting to change them.
I'm going to respond to this as if it was a general statement. What about civil disobedience? Some rules simply cannot be followed. But, you're correct in that you should expect there to be consequences.