but that doesn't mean he has to be educated about those topics at an age where such knowledge might negatively impact his psychological development.
When does this happen? I've known about violence, sex, nudity, and war for as long as I can remember, and it didn't harm me in any way, shape, or form. Young or not, keeping kids in a bubble is a terrible, terrible thing to do. It's very difficult to damage someone psychologically merely by educating them (even if they are weak-minded).
Because this has been such a big problem to date that it demands government action?
It's always nice to prevent something before it happens. Sadly, many humans seem to disagree. While I think we should be wary about either side, doing nothing will solve, well, nothing. Besides that, Comcast throttled the bittorrent protocol (and possibly a few other ISPs did as well, not sure).
If they found out who he was in the first place, apparently he wasn't very good either.
But... didn't you see all of those numbers in his name!? Didn't you see all of that reckless gloating!? Clearly he is a master of computers (though he's not nearly as good as Komen Bryce)!
Yet, there seems to be a great many of politicians that are labeling Assange as a 'terrorist'. While they aren't America either, they are the ones in power. It's an absolute disgrace.
Never insult someone when they've publicly stated they agree with you.
So, in other words, don't call them out on something that you think is incorrect because (supposedly) people are so very petty and illogical that they would retain their current opinion simply because of you? The answer is likely yes, because there seem to be a lot of people who would refrain from changing their opinion merely because they don't like someone that holds the other opinion, even if that is a completely illogical reason to do so..
When artificial scarcity has to be introduced to combat the copying of ideas just so someone can profit off of them, chances are the system itself is broken and is in need of reform.
That's your opinion, but it's someone else's rights you are talking about.
Sorry, no, but I don't consider creating artificial scarcity a 'right', even if the law does. It's worthless, and it's a detriment to the rest of society.
one definitely should have a thought about whether this law actually makes sense or not.
I agree, but all I'm saying is that that shouldn't be the only reason.
Just "look at the law and examine if it's past its due date."
Then, I agree.
You try to use the number as a reason, while in reality it's a symptom.
I didn't try to use them as a reason, I was merely saying that numbers alone don't matter. But, I agree that it should be thought of more in depth if so many people are being thought of as criminals.
Yeah, but in no case does it make sense, not even in the case of piracy. That fact alone should not determine if something is legal/illegal. There has to be other reasons (which, in this case, I believe there is).
Whoa, slow down there! There's nothing broken about having to introduce artificial scarcity in order for a few artists and corporations to make money! There's nothing broken about criminalizing people who do nothing more than copy data (this is especially horrible because it 'robs' them of potential future gain, which couldn't at all be applied to everyone in existence)! That's just an insane claim. Clearly we need to be tougher on piracy!
Wouldn't doing that be a sign of defeat? A sign that you have admitted that what you were doing was 'wrong'? Whether it would be or not, it probably would be interpreted that way, and nothing would change.
don't support companies that engage in this behavior.
Besides piracy, this is also a valid option. However, even though no one really needs entertainment, chances are if they have no other choice, they'll end up supporting these people. I'd rather see them pirate it (which does no damage to them anyway) than support them. If they somehow get caught, don't pay these idiots a single cent.
I'm pretty sure the first 10 amendments sufficiently covered that topic already, but were conveniently ignored. So, for some reason, it had to be restated that slaves were, in fact, humans, and therefore had rights. Good amendment, but stupidity knows no bounds.
I disagree. I believe he was merely saying that the fact that most people support/hate something doesn't mean it should be legalized/illegalized. Which is true. Nothing should be legal/illegal based on that fact alone.
if I torrent something, there is no guarantee I would pay for it, even if it were merely a penny.
Not only that, but 'loss' of 'potential' future gain is not theft, because you never had that 'gain' in the first place! Also, if 'loss' of potential future gain somehow equated to harm, everyone would be guilty of harming everyone else, as merely choosing not to give someone your money would be considered 'harm' since they lost the potential for future gain because of you.
Maybe 90+% of the population should not be engaging in an illegal activity.
Maybe they should just fix the broken system instead of trying to 'fix' the people.
It is really bad, but when we know we are doing something highly illegal, and then we get busted, we get all up in arms when the penalty comes through.
Probably because many people don't believe that 'loss' of potential future gain actually equates to harm, mostly because they never had that 'gain' in the first place, so there was no theft, and therefore no damages to repay. But I see what you're saying. Just because a lot of people do something, that doesn't make it right/wrong.
The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work.
Which, for some reason, is far more costly. She might as well have just stole the extra copies instead of copying them (that's what I think he was saying).
Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter.
While I support piracy, ignorance is a pretty poor excuse.
I know what you meant, but what do you suggest be done? I know it's not all or nothing, but I just don't see the 'damage' or 'harm' that you're talking about. I'd say more damage and harm will come about from taking your time with these idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but this game isn't either.
but that doesn't mean he has to be educated about those topics at an age where such knowledge might negatively impact his psychological development.
When does this happen? I've known about violence, sex, nudity, and war for as long as I can remember, and it didn't harm me in any way, shape, or form. Young or not, keeping kids in a bubble is a terrible, terrible thing to do. It's very difficult to damage someone psychologically merely by educating them (even if they are weak-minded).
Because this has been such a big problem to date that it demands government action?
It's always nice to prevent something before it happens. Sadly, many humans seem to disagree. While I think we should be wary about either side, doing nothing will solve, well, nothing. Besides that, Comcast throttled the bittorrent protocol (and possibly a few other ISPs did as well, not sure).
If they found out who he was in the first place, apparently he wasn't very good either.
But... didn't you see all of those numbers in his name!? Didn't you see all of that reckless gloating!? Clearly he is a master of computers (though he's not nearly as good as Komen Bryce)!
Yet, there seems to be a great many of politicians that are labeling Assange as a 'terrorist'. While they aren't America either, they are the ones in power. It's an absolute disgrace.
Never insult someone when they've publicly stated they agree with you.
So, in other words, don't call them out on something that you think is incorrect because (supposedly) people are so very petty and illogical that they would retain their current opinion simply because of you? The answer is likely yes, because there seem to be a lot of people who would refrain from changing their opinion merely because they don't like someone that holds the other opinion, even if that is a completely illogical reason to do so..
Alright, good points.
C) Continuously saying "How?" is not a valid defensive argument.
It wasn't supposed to be a defensive argument. I was asking a legitimate question. But, now I actually see what you're talking about.
The story of the road trip is a series of ideas.
Now that you put it that way, I agree.
The entire story is an idea, though. While we might separate the two scenarios, the fact remains that both of them are still ideas.
No. Gravity just is. Art has to be created.
When artificial scarcity has to be introduced to combat the copying of ideas just so someone can profit off of them, chances are the system itself is broken and is in need of reform.
You can't copyright ideas
But then...
You can, however, copyright a body of text or an individual artistic work.
Those are ideas.
That's your opinion, but it's someone else's rights you are talking about.
Sorry, no, but I don't consider creating artificial scarcity a 'right', even if the law does. It's worthless, and it's a detriment to the rest of society.
Where is the CORRUPTION in that?
I was mainly referring to their overall goal more so than anything else. I could care less about little things such as this.
one definitely should have a thought about whether this law actually makes sense or not.
I agree, but all I'm saying is that that shouldn't be the only reason.
Just "look at the law and examine if it's past its due date."
Then, I agree.
You try to use the number as a reason, while in reality it's a symptom.
I didn't try to use them as a reason, I was merely saying that numbers alone don't matter. But, I agree that it should be thought of more in depth if so many people are being thought of as criminals.
Yeah, but in no case does it make sense, not even in the case of piracy. That fact alone should not determine if something is legal/illegal. There has to be other reasons (which, in this case, I believe there is).
It won't end anything except their broken model
Whoa, slow down there! There's nothing broken about having to introduce artificial scarcity in order for a few artists and corporations to make money! There's nothing broken about criminalizing people who do nothing more than copy data (this is especially horrible because it 'robs' them of potential future gain, which couldn't at all be applied to everyone in existence)! That's just an insane claim. Clearly we need to be tougher on piracy!
Just. don't. pirate. music.
Wouldn't doing that be a sign of defeat? A sign that you have admitted that what you were doing was 'wrong'? Whether it would be or not, it probably would be interpreted that way, and nothing would change.
don't support companies that engage in this behavior.
Besides piracy, this is also a valid option. However, even though no one really needs entertainment, chances are if they have no other choice, they'll end up supporting these people. I'd rather see them pirate it (which does no damage to them anyway) than support them. If they somehow get caught, don't pay these idiots a single cent.
I'm pretty sure the first 10 amendments sufficiently covered that topic already, but were conveniently ignored. So, for some reason, it had to be restated that slaves were, in fact, humans, and therefore had rights. Good amendment, but stupidity knows no bounds.
Pretty intellectually dishonest, if you ask me.
I disagree. I believe he was merely saying that the fact that most people support/hate something doesn't mean it should be legalized/illegalized. Which is true. Nothing should be legal/illegal based on that fact alone.
if I torrent something, there is no guarantee I would pay for it, even if it were merely a penny.
Not only that, but 'loss' of 'potential' future gain is not theft, because you never had that 'gain' in the first place! Also, if 'loss' of potential future gain somehow equated to harm, everyone would be guilty of harming everyone else, as merely choosing not to give someone your money would be considered 'harm' since they lost the potential for future gain because of you.
Maybe 90+% of the population should not be engaging in an illegal activity.
Maybe they should just fix the broken system instead of trying to 'fix' the people.
It is really bad, but when we know we are doing something highly illegal, and then we get busted, we get all up in arms when the penalty comes through.
Probably because many people don't believe that 'loss' of potential future gain actually equates to harm, mostly because they never had that 'gain' in the first place, so there was no theft, and therefore no damages to repay. But I see what you're saying. Just because a lot of people do something, that doesn't make it right/wrong.
The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work.
Which, for some reason, is far more costly. She might as well have just stole the extra copies instead of copying them (that's what I think he was saying).
Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter.
While I support piracy, ignorance is a pretty poor excuse.
write/speak to your congress (wo)man.
The same ones bowing down to large corporations? It likely won't work.
If the situation gets out of hand, causing a panic and forcing the banks collapse
How?
I know what you meant, but what do you suggest be done? I know it's not all or nothing, but I just don't see the 'damage' or 'harm' that you're talking about. I'd say more damage and harm will come about from taking your time with these idiots.