"so I assumed that you would be able to comprehend the fact that I was not referring to permitted and/or required collaborative efforts."
No, I was talking about projects that were originally meant to be done alone but you asked for the help of another to show you how to do it, not projects specifically intended to be group projects.
"Unless you have actually worked at a particular job, you don't really know whether you like it or not."
Uh, if you know what the job entails it's pretty easy to decide if you'll like it or not. Of course, he probably doesn't know what the job entails since it doesn't seem he knows.NET.
Why? What if someone is actually helping you and explaining to you how to do the work so that you can later do it yourself? If they are cheating and merely copying answers without learning the material, it will show. It's their education and their own fault.
"Deciding not to learn something because you have an uniformed preconceived opinion about it"
He simply said that he doesn't like it. But, if you think it's "closed-minded," then I guess I should go out and memorize every piece of information available (even if I'm not going to use it) and work at jobs that I don't even like (happiness is less important than pieces of paper, after all).
"Americans should be vigilant against corrupt use of government power and the promises of politicians."
Yes, they should. But the fact remains that they aren't. This is how there's actually people that support bills/laws/treaties such as the Patriot Act. That's how there are actually people that support the blatant invasions of privacy and freedom at airports. The average indoctrinated drone believes that they are making a difference by voting in the same two parties over and over.
"Our government is founded on the very idea that men should not be trusted with power and it would serve us well to remember why."
Well, it failed seeing as how the rich currently control the government. When they don't, a tyrant does. Giving the people such little power turned out to be a great idea! I mean, it's an all or nothing scenario right? Majority controls everything or the government does! Those are the only choices!
"This guy broke the law trying to subvert the legitimate functioning of democracy."
What...? How so? By reading emails he somehow stopped 'democracy' (I wouldn't call a country where the rich can simply bribe politicians to get what they want a democracy) from functioning?
"She didn't decide what security questions Yahoo is going to use."
No, but she didn't have to use such an obvious answer. She could have made it simply impossible to answer by using unintelligible garbage. At least that way no random person could answer it.
"I know I would hate to have anyone snooping in my private e-mails"
If someone did that, what do you think would happen to them? Nothing. Only 'important' (read: useless, corrupt politicians) are protected from actions such as this.
No one has actually been hurt. If words hurt them, then that is their own problem. In reality, merely saying words to someone can't hurt them (unless they let it hurt them).
"Being offended is a different scale altogether, a scale where violence is not being suggested"
Yes, but ultimately it boils down to whiny, indoctrinated idiots who want to punish people for speaking/writing mere words (strings of imaginary letters).
"How much incitement to violence does a legal system tolerate, given the tradition of free speech within that system?"
They should wait until something actually happens or until they are going to carry out what they said (note: this doesn't happen very often at all) before they do anything. 99% of the time these are just idle threats or jokes, anyway.
"Consider that, then try posting something more thoughtful."
Thoughtful in what sense? You may not have found what I previously said 'thoughtful', but I still disagree with what happened.
"But, this politician still sounds like a jerk who make a joke which crosses the legal line"
Oh, right. The highly offensive text (not really) that he released on the internet should get him punished! Free speech? Nope! I'm offended by it, therefore it's bad!
Apologized? What did he apologize for? Even if he meant it, whatever happened to freedom of speech? Forget it. I already know the answer. The corrupt governments of the world are abolishing it and/or never implementing it in the first place.
"The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs."
They must be talking about the 'terror' that they use to manipulate the average sheep into believing that these blatant invasions of privacy and freedom are a good idea.
"The vast majority of people are semi-intelligent sheep."
I don't know about that. I don't see how anyone with even a single shred of intelligence could be an indoctrinated drone, as the people who seem to resist being one are usually the ones who are at least a little bit intelligent. Too bad there aren't many of those people.
Which really has nothing to do with being a teenager. Anyone can be caught with the assistance of cameras. Now all that's left to do is install security cameras in every home (anyone who objects is obviously a criminal) and anyone who removes them will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That'll get rid of those criminals!
No, I just meant that censorship is idiotic in all forms and that I'd rather it not exist.
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 1
"Some people will be annoyed. Most won't care."
Somehow I doubt this. A game is one thing, but this is no little restriction. Even people who have no idea what they are doing will likely be affected by this (when trying to use certain software), and there will be no escape from it, unlike a game. The people who play that game can always play another game later, but you can't just use another version of the internet. I highly doubt that they could ever get away with this.
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 1
I suspect then that people would migrate to alternatives for their pirating needs, whatever those alternatives may be.
I sure know that I wouldn't want to have to put a server in a datacenter merely to receive incoming connections. Wouldn't that pretty much stop me from creating game servers hosted on my home connection and using programs that, for whatever reason, want to receive incoming connections? I realize that you're not saying that you support this, but I really don't think that this is something that they would ever attempt.
This is just like with DRM. DRM that is so invasive and annoying that it actually manages to somewhat stop piracy will inherently be annoying, invasive, and harmful to the consumer as well.
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 1
"There is a cost associated with supply, which is development."
Which pirates don't pay for. Guess what? Neither do people who simply decide not to buy the product. If either the pirate or the non-pirate had bought the product, these artists would have been better off. Since the only possible conclusion that you can come to is that pirates 'steal' potential profit, non-pirates are just as 'guilty'. Although, I don't really believe that objects that don't exist (potential profit, which only exists in a future that never was) can be stolen, since that goes against basic logic.
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 1
"They just need to block incoming connections to every consumer, requiring every connection to pass through a server"
Wow, that would be a viable option! Not only would they still need to monitor masses upon masses of connections, but they'd also have to deal with the possibility of encryption and such. There is always a way.
"Civil disobedience pertains only to unjust laws, which copyright is not."
Or so you think.
"Copyright provides a benefit to people who worked to produce something, at the expense of freeloaders who are mere consumers of copyright works."
Which is a fundamental problem with our capitalistic society. People don't work because they like doing the work, they work because they get money for it (most of the time). Even if they do like the work, many artists (specifically those who produce digital media) suffer because the capitalistic society requires that they have money, which in turn leads to them charging (understandably, I can't really blame them) for goods that are in an infinite supply and people who do not pay for these goods, even if they are not harming the artist (which pirates aren't), are labeled as 'freeloaders' or 'thieves'. Instead of trying to fix the capitalistic society, the limitations of it are blamed on people who do no harm and take nothing.
"Counterfeiting currency --- copying money... just the same as copying music, right?"
I really don't care. I see money as worthless and as an overall detriment to society. A limitation of a species with some degree of potential but also one that is too shallow to fully realize it.
It may or may not hurt society due to how our economical system currently works. Not really the same as copying music here though, as not only is it a physical object, but there's no theoretical 'loss' of potential profit (which again, doesn't exist) going on here.
"Copying your tickets to sporting events and movies, copies that are undetectable forgeries, sharing convincing clones to friends. As long as the theater's not full, noone's harmed, right?"
Of course no one is harmed.
"Cheating on tests -- this is really just a special type of copying (copying other people's answers surreptitiously over their shoulder) - doesn't harm anyone, right?"
Oh, no. Someone is indeed harmed. The person who copied the information is likely to not realize their full potential as long as they merely copy off of others. Besides that, I really don't care for the school system or standardized testing.
But, yes, it's copying, but it only hurts the person doing the copying in the end.
"Fabricating a resume -- getting people to serve for you as 'fake references', by copying a friend's and having fake records made, to convince an employer to hire you... just another form of harmless copying, right?"
It will likely only hurt you in the end. Once the employer realizes that you're not qualified for the job, they will likely dispose of you.
"there's a thread of deception in all of them."
In those examples, yes. Copying data, no. You're not really deceiving anyone as far as I know. But even if you did, that really has little to do with 'loss' and the nonexistent action of 'stealing' objects which do not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
"so I assumed that you would be able to comprehend the fact that I was not referring to permitted and/or required collaborative efforts."
No, I was talking about projects that were originally meant to be done alone but you asked for the help of another to show you how to do it, not projects specifically intended to be group projects.
"Unless you have actually worked at a particular job, you don't really know whether you like it or not."
Uh, if you know what the job entails it's pretty easy to decide if you'll like it or not. Of course, he probably doesn't know what the job entails since it doesn't seem he knows .NET.
"Similarly, if a person obtains employment on the strength of academic results which aren't valid"
If an employer is hiring people based on the imaginary grading scales present in the school systems, that is their first error.
"It's this last which should motivate educational institutions to ensure that their students complete their qualifications honestly."
Banning all collaboration whether good or 'bad' isn't the answer.
"Likewise, school work is to be done on ones own"
Why? What if someone is actually helping you and explaining to you how to do the work so that you can later do it yourself? If they are cheating and merely copying answers without learning the material, it will show. It's their education and their own fault.
"Deciding not to learn something because you have an uniformed preconceived opinion about it"
He simply said that he doesn't like it. But, if you think it's "closed-minded," then I guess I should go out and memorize every piece of information available (even if I'm not going to use it) and work at jobs that I don't even like (happiness is less important than pieces of paper, after all).
"Americans should be vigilant against corrupt use of government power and the promises of politicians."
Yes, they should. But the fact remains that they aren't. This is how there's actually people that support bills/laws/treaties such as the Patriot Act. That's how there are actually people that support the blatant invasions of privacy and freedom at airports. The average indoctrinated drone believes that they are making a difference by voting in the same two parties over and over.
"Our government is founded on the very idea that men should not be trusted with power and it would serve us well to remember why."
Well, it failed seeing as how the rich currently control the government. When they don't, a tyrant does. Giving the people such little power turned out to be a great idea! I mean, it's an all or nothing scenario right? Majority controls everything or the government does! Those are the only choices!
"This isn't Wikipedia. Grow up!"
Exactly! Citations are only useful on Wikipedia. Who needs those silly things anywhere else?
"Is it your position that assault should not be a crime?"
Yes.
"If you are willing to say that you think assault should not be a crime, are you also willing to say that incitement should not be a crime?"
Yes.
"I mean, specifically where would you draw the line?"
All speech is fine.
"For instance, if I hire a hit man to kill someone, should that be a crime?"
Wait until something actually happens or they start going after the person before taking action. That's how it usually happens anyway.
"This guy broke the law trying to subvert the legitimate functioning of democracy."
What...? How so? By reading emails he somehow stopped 'democracy' (I wouldn't call a country where the rich can simply bribe politicians to get what they want a democracy) from functioning?
"She didn't decide what security questions Yahoo is going to use."
No, but she didn't have to use such an obvious answer. She could have made it simply impossible to answer by using unintelligible garbage. At least that way no random person could answer it.
"I know I would hate to have anyone snooping in my private e-mails"
If someone did that, what do you think would happen to them? Nothing. Only 'important' (read: useless, corrupt politicians) are protected from actions such as this.
"Do you think assault is either good or neutral?"
I think being able to speak freely is good.
"If so, what makes you think that?"
No one has actually been hurt. If words hurt them, then that is their own problem. In reality, merely saying words to someone can't hurt them (unless they let it hurt them).
"Being offended is a different scale altogether, a scale where violence is not being suggested"
Yes, but ultimately it boils down to whiny, indoctrinated idiots who want to punish people for speaking/writing mere words (strings of imaginary letters).
"How much incitement to violence does a legal system tolerate, given the tradition of free speech within that system?"
They should wait until something actually happens or until they are going to carry out what they said (note: this doesn't happen very often at all) before they do anything. 99% of the time these are just idle threats or jokes, anyway.
"Consider that, then try posting something more thoughtful."
Thoughtful in what sense? You may not have found what I previously said 'thoughtful', but I still disagree with what happened.
"But, this politician still sounds like a jerk who make a joke which crosses the legal line"
Oh, right. The highly offensive text (not really) that he released on the internet should get him punished! Free speech? Nope! I'm offended by it, therefore it's bad!
Apologized? What did he apologize for? Even if he meant it, whatever happened to freedom of speech? Forget it. I already know the answer. The corrupt governments of the world are abolishing it and/or never implementing it in the first place.
"And technically you never own software."
Or at least that's what the silly law says. Needless to say, I heavily disagree with such garbage.
"The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs."
They must be talking about the 'terror' that they use to manipulate the average sheep into believing that these blatant invasions of privacy and freedom are a good idea.
"The vast majority of people are semi-intelligent sheep."
I don't know about that. I don't see how anyone with even a single shred of intelligence could be an indoctrinated drone, as the people who seem to resist being one are usually the ones who are at least a little bit intelligent. Too bad there aren't many of those people.
Which really has nothing to do with being a teenager. Anyone can be caught with the assistance of cameras. Now all that's left to do is install security cameras in every home (anyone who objects is obviously a criminal) and anyone who removes them will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That'll get rid of those criminals!
No, I just meant that censorship is idiotic in all forms and that I'd rather it not exist.
"Some people will be annoyed. Most won't care."
Somehow I doubt this. A game is one thing, but this is no little restriction. Even people who have no idea what they are doing will likely be affected by this (when trying to use certain software), and there will be no escape from it, unlike a game. The people who play that game can always play another game later, but you can't just use another version of the internet. I highly doubt that they could ever get away with this.
I suspect then that people would migrate to alternatives for their pirating needs, whatever those alternatives may be.
I sure know that I wouldn't want to have to put a server in a datacenter merely to receive incoming connections. Wouldn't that pretty much stop me from creating game servers hosted on my home connection and using programs that, for whatever reason, want to receive incoming connections? I realize that you're not saying that you support this, but I really don't think that this is something that they would ever attempt.
This is just like with DRM. DRM that is so invasive and annoying that it actually manages to somewhat stop piracy will inherently be annoying, invasive, and harmful to the consumer as well.
"There is a cost associated with supply, which is development."
Which pirates don't pay for. Guess what? Neither do people who simply decide not to buy the product. If either the pirate or the non-pirate had bought the product, these artists would have been better off. Since the only possible conclusion that you can come to is that pirates 'steal' potential profit, non-pirates are just as 'guilty'. Although, I don't really believe that objects that don't exist (potential profit, which only exists in a future that never was) can be stolen, since that goes against basic logic.
"They just need to block incoming connections to every consumer, requiring every connection to pass through a server"
Wow, that would be a viable option! Not only would they still need to monitor masses upon masses of connections, but they'd also have to deal with the possibility of encryption and such. There is always a way.
"Civil disobedience pertains only to unjust laws, which copyright is not."
Or so you think.
"Copyright provides a benefit to people who worked to produce something, at the expense of freeloaders who are mere consumers of copyright works."
Which is a fundamental problem with our capitalistic society. People don't work because they like doing the work, they work because they get money for it (most of the time). Even if they do like the work, many artists (specifically those who produce digital media) suffer because the capitalistic society requires that they have money, which in turn leads to them charging (understandably, I can't really blame them) for goods that are in an infinite supply and people who do not pay for these goods, even if they are not harming the artist (which pirates aren't), are labeled as 'freeloaders' or 'thieves'. Instead of trying to fix the capitalistic society, the limitations of it are blamed on people who do no harm and take nothing.
"Counterfeiting currency --- copying money... just the same as copying music, right?"
I really don't care. I see money as worthless and as an overall detriment to society. A limitation of a species with some degree of potential but also one that is too shallow to fully realize it.
It may or may not hurt society due to how our economical system currently works. Not really the same as copying music here though, as not only is it a physical object, but there's no theoretical 'loss' of potential profit (which again, doesn't exist) going on here.
"Copying your tickets to sporting events and movies, copies that are undetectable forgeries, sharing convincing clones to friends. As long as the theater's not full, noone's harmed, right?"
Of course no one is harmed.
"Cheating on tests -- this is really just a special type of copying (copying other people's answers surreptitiously over their shoulder) - doesn't harm anyone, right?"
Oh, no. Someone is indeed harmed. The person who copied the information is likely to not realize their full potential as long as they merely copy off of others. Besides that, I really don't care for the school system or standardized testing.
But, yes, it's copying, but it only hurts the person doing the copying in the end.
"Fabricating a resume -- getting people to serve for you as 'fake references', by copying a friend's and having fake records made, to convince an employer to hire you... just another form of harmless copying, right?"
It will likely only hurt you in the end. Once the employer realizes that you're not qualified for the job, they will likely dispose of you.
"there's a thread of deception in all of them."
In those examples, yes. Copying data, no. You're not really deceiving anyone as far as I know. But even if you did, that really has little to do with 'loss' and the nonexistent action of 'stealing' objects which do not exist.