"Classic mistake: just because the currency's materials have no innate value, doesn't mean the currency is worthless"
I find it worthless. The only reason I use it is because other people don't and I live in an illogical capitalistic society.
"It also does not follow that without currency, piracy becomes harmless. Without currency, you revert back to trading objects/services of similar value."
Which wouldn't be artificial and wouldn't needlessly limit the amount of resources that can be consumed when more are still available. However, the system that I mentioned was the one proposed by The Venus Project.
"That means, everyone who wants to trade with the artist can trade nothing instead"
Trade what? Pirates aren't trading anything, they're copying. The artist isn't spending his time making the copies for the pirates, the pirates just effortlessly copy it and use the software for free. There's no 'trading' going on here. No 'taking', either.
"He has already used plenty of time"
Plenty of time to make the original product, yes. However, that doesn't change the fact that the pirate effortlessly copied his software and it didn't hurt him in the slightest. No 'taking' and 'trading' involved.
"Because everybody wins"
Except people that don't have money. Also, what demand are you speaking of? No matter how high the demand is for software, software is always in an infinite supply. That is highly irrelevant. You've just replaced "potential profit" with "demand," and it still doesn't change the fact that the pirate effortlessly copied the artists software and didn't actually take anything that he/she already had.
"Piracy is different, since the act of not buying and pirating actually harms demand."
So does someone who just doesn't buy it but also doesn't pirate it.
"People who want it enough to buy it can obtain it without buying it"
Yes, they can. At no cost to the artist, too. What's your point?
"So, the potential profit that the seller is entitled to (the demand), is reduced through actions not within his control."
You mean people who do not buy or pirate his product, and pirates?
"Piracy doesn't have the same advantage, since the pirated works don't actually substitute the work of the artist in the long term"
Nothing was taken, so I'm failing to see your point. Are they by chance 'taking' potential profit, is that what you're trying to say?
"It's just a hollow stopgap while the real deal goes out of business."
That's a real shame, but it is no more the fault of the pirate than it is a normal person who just didn't buy the product. Perhaps if more normal people had bought it...
"1) Piracy is harmful 2) Piracy is still harmful, even if you remove the artificial, (so called) "worthless" currency 3) "Potential profit" is useless, the concept you want is "demand""
I still don't understand what your point was. You still didn't prove that pirates are taking anything or damaging anyone more than a normal person who simply didn't buy the product. You basically just replaced "potential profit" with the word "demand" and preached the same illogical argument that I've heard so many times before.
"You might not have claimed to be moral but you have said all of this:"
You're misunderstanding me time and time again. All of that was said because humans usually consider themselves 'moral' and 'intelligent', and I merely said that if that was true, it seems to me that they wouldn't do such pointless things.
"I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that we can't go meatless."
I don't know how hard it is for you to understand that vegetarians exist and that if there is no other food available, like in the situations you describe, I have no problem with eating meat. The only time that I'm opposed to it is if there is an abundance of other food available and there's no need to slaughter another animal (even a human). I've been saying this the entire time.
Ah yes, the "potential profit" argument. Who doesn't steal potential profit?
"How will Media companies recuperate the huge investments they put into creating that Media."
Uh, I don't know. I guess they won't. However, normal people who just didn't buy the product but also didn't pirate it are just as guilty of the pirates for this. Neither of them bought the product, and in the companies' eyes, they may as well all be pirates. So, how will the company recuperate the huge investments they put into creating that media if there's people who don't pirate their product but also don't buy it?
You also cannot take profit that exists only in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (which is what happens when you supposedly 'steal' potential profit).
Pirates are merely symptoms of an illogical capitalistic society. That is what is making these artists 'suffer', if anything. Pirates haven't actually taken anything, so they haven't hurt anyone, and the "potential profit" argument is highly illogical.
"See your not understanding. Even with eating both meat and veggies/fruits we do not have enough to go around. So if you take meat out of the equation we would just have more people starving to death. In other words we are already at the point that we have to eat meat to keep people from dying. We don't eat meat just for the fun of it but to survive."
You're not understanding me. Plants can easily be grown, and at least in countries such as the US, seem to be abundant, as well. Many people overeat and consume more than they need to, as well. They have no reason to eat meat. Also, this is the fault of the human race. More specifically, overpopulation. If these idiots didn't decide to have babies 'naturally' all the time instead of adopting, this wouldn't be such a problem. I wonder how much effort is actually going into in vitro meat.
"Unfortunately we have to have a capitalistic society until we reach a point where there is enough of all basic needs to let all people live comfortably."
Not necessarily. Money only WORSENS scarcity. If you don't have enough money, you can't have more resources, even if they exist.
"Those kind of Marxist utopias cannot exist until everyone can live happy healthy lives."
No one claims to know of an idea to make society 'perfect'. No one claims that a society without money would mean that absolutely no one suffers. It would merely eliminate the people who thrive off of making other people suffer (large corporations, etc). As such, governmental corruption would be reduced as well (if implemented correctly).
No one claims to be perfect. That is a common misconception when people consider these systems.
"All that does is point out that you think your way is the right way no matter what."
I don't think that.
"Your claiming the only way to be moral or intelligent is to stop eating meat."
Ha. I never claimed to be 'moral' myself, I'm far from that. That is a term that illogical idiots invented to describe 'good' humans. Personally, if I knew that the human race would soon be eliminated with nothing else on the planet going with it, I wouldn't be too sad. They cause far too much destruction for their own good, or for the good of anything else on the planet.
"but morality does have to do with the way the animal is treated when slaughtered."
Not really. Morality has little to do with anything. That is just what some people claim to be, you obviously not being one of them. Odd though how even if I was starving, I couldn't slaughter and eat a human. They are animals, after all. It's survival!
"Do you not understand they many humans die already from starvation and getting rid of meat will only further hunger?"
Do you not understand that that's what I meant the entire time? If someone is starving, I believe that eating meat would be fine in that case, even if that meat came from a human. I never said otherwise.
"That is still only done in the lab but you don't seem to understand that breakthroughs in science takes years to become commercial."
No, I understand it perfectly. I merely said that I think it would be best if it was used in the future.
"Do you think you would manage to keep that opinion while starving?"
If I took my chances, at least I'd have a chance at long term survival, whereas if I went with them to be fed, I'd be slaughtered for sure.
"What about those in the 3rd world who take jobs they know are going to kill them through poisons / poor safety etc. just so they can survive / feed their family etc."
Ignorance, possibly? Oh, and, those people *choose* this. Are members of other species asked for their opinion (no, they can't be, but we know that they don't like being slaughtered).
"After all, desperation has driven people to do all sorts of things."
Certain people.
"My key point (whether you think its valid or not) is that this is not a choice in isolation"
It's not a choice at all.
" it is an alternative to what would be conceivably be their "normal life"."
The same would go for humans.
"What I am saying is that animals face such desperate conditions in their normal life that it might actually make this choice the more "moral" choice of the two."
You're right! When do we start making the human farms?
Oh, and, Battlefield? That's just another generic shooter that is plastered with 'realistic' colors such as brown. Mass Effect is pretty good in my opinion, and I haven't really played anything else on that list.
"You may see that as a bad thing but Just like Windows 7 is better than Windows Vista, Starcraft 2 is better than Starcraft."
Wait, what? What is so great about Windows 7? Just because something is new, that does not mean that it's better than its predecessors. I'm still using Windows XP (I know that you said Windows Vista, though), and I see absolutely no reason to upgrade to Windows 7. It doesn't add anything groundbreaking. This isn't like the days when operating systems with GUIs were some new thing. There's not a whole lot of difference, and certainly not enough to call Windows 7 "better." The same goes for Starcraft 2 and such. Newer doesn't mean better. Besides, that is just an opinion.
You're an idiot. Don't you care about anyone other than yourself at all? All you care about is the fact that you wouldn't die by playing such a game, and you disregard the fact that everyone else is clearly an idiot so that they'll die from it. If even a single person dies from using a product or playing a game, it must be banned. No exceptions.
Ugh, too often I see this statement. If everyone followed this advice, *nothing* would ever be improved simply because it isn't completely broke. Don't bother with that new groundbreaking invention that you just thought up, what we have now isn't broke, so don't bother! Sorry, not too much to do with your comment, but I just don't like that sentence.
I don't know about that. There truly are people who don't mind playing the same thing again and again, with the only changes being new levels, and maybe some new characters.
"You are ignoring the very real fact that living a "free and normal life" for animals is almost constant suffering."
The same thing goes for humans, yet we can't raise and slaughter them, even if we give them a 'happy' life up until they are slaughtered. They wouldn't have been born otherwise, so that makes it completely fine!
"Unless you are a apex predator life is very scary, even if you are, you are cold in the winter, constantly hungry and you best hope you dont get sick or injured as its all over in a very nasty way."
Humans have a very difficult life, as well. You have to work for money, and sometimes there's no jobs available. There might not even be food available in some areas or countries! Maybe not even water. Would I prefer to be fed? Yes. Would I prefer to be fed if I'd just be slaughtered later? No.
"The life they have on farms etc, it a lot better than this and the death they get at the end is better than almost any way you can die in the wild. Its nice and all to talk about "freedom and a normal life" but are you sure that is what they would want?"
Would you want to be raised on a farm for the sole purpose of being slaughtered later? Or is that not okay just because we're humans?
"You people forget how cunning a government is by making your believe that you are getting more with each bill signed into law, having only been taken!"
I'm aware. However, what would you suggest be done? Leave it alone? That won't accomplish anything, either.
Yeah, really. I shop at Newegg to get cheaper computer parts (before I knew about it, I was going to places like Walmart, and I've seen 120GB external hard drives for over $100 there!).
"We desperately need solutions, but nuking copyright just creates more problems."
We've never done so before, how do you know that? Also, pretending that pirates are hurting anyone by merely effortlessly copying something just creates more problems. They've taken nothing that someone already had, and as such, didn't hurt them.
Once the product as been made, it takes zero effort to copy it. They make the first product, but not the copies that pirates use. Pirates aren't actually hurting them by effortlessly copying their software.
"Ask me again when successful artists using P2P distribution exclusively are the norm instead of a vanishing exception."
It matters little, as that is the fault of our illogical capitalistic society that requires that you have worthless artificial currency to survive (at the moment). Pirates, in reality, don't actually hurt anyone. They don't deprive anyone of anything that they already had. If it's about potential profit, then everyone is guilty of 'taking' that (even though it only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money, making 'taking' it impossible), as you're guilty of 'stealing' someones potential profit just by not buying their product.
I've said time and time again that unless there is nothing else to eat *except* meat, there's no point in eating it. An intelligent being wouldn't mindlessly slaughter another being for no reason, unless they *have* to.
"And as I pointed out that you failed to even comment on in order to eat an entirely meatless diet that has everything you need in it costs way too much for most people."
Not really. There's cheap diets where you can still get your nutrition. Meat isn't exactly cheap, either. This would also a problem with our current capitalistic society.
"I mean when have humans as a whole or even as a majority ever said its immoral to eat animals?"
If everyone on earth said something incorrect, it would still be incorrect. What the majority says or thinks is irrelevant.
"If the human race stopped eating meat we would starve."
Have you read my comments at all? I said that *if someone is going to starve*, then that would be a reason to eat meat. If it's just to satisfy their taste buds (as it is in many cases in many countries), then there's no point.
"We can't even feed everyone on the planet right now with meat."
I think it would be best if that in vitro meat that you linked to was used, instead. As far as I read, there'd be no need to slaughter animals to make it or eat it.
"You're so greedy you don't even realize it. If you don't like a corporation, don't buy their products. How do you think large corporations get so large?"
By people buying their products, of course. I realize this. What I'm trying to say is that until most people or everyone stop buying their products, there's not much more that I can do besides not buy their products and get others to do the same. *Until then*, they will remain powerful.
"Great. Everybody is an idiot except for you. I can't imagine why you're not getting more support..."
I meant the large corporations and those whose sole intentions are to make money at the expense of everyone else. I didn't mean that everyone was an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
"Classic mistake: just because the currency's materials have no innate value, doesn't mean the currency is worthless"
I find it worthless. The only reason I use it is because other people don't and I live in an illogical capitalistic society.
"It also does not follow that without currency, piracy becomes harmless. Without currency, you revert back to trading objects/services of similar value."
Which wouldn't be artificial and wouldn't needlessly limit the amount of resources that can be consumed when more are still available. However, the system that I mentioned was the one proposed by The Venus Project.
"That means, everyone who wants to trade with the artist can trade nothing instead"
Trade what? Pirates aren't trading anything, they're copying. The artist isn't spending his time making the copies for the pirates, the pirates just effortlessly copy it and use the software for free. There's no 'trading' going on here. No 'taking', either.
"He has already used plenty of time"
Plenty of time to make the original product, yes. However, that doesn't change the fact that the pirate effortlessly copied his software and it didn't hurt him in the slightest. No 'taking' and 'trading' involved.
"Because everybody wins"
Except people that don't have money. Also, what demand are you speaking of? No matter how high the demand is for software, software is always in an infinite supply. That is highly irrelevant. You've just replaced "potential profit" with "demand," and it still doesn't change the fact that the pirate effortlessly copied the artists software and didn't actually take anything that he/she already had.
"Piracy is different, since the act of not buying and pirating actually harms demand."
So does someone who just doesn't buy it but also doesn't pirate it.
"People who want it enough to buy it can obtain it without buying it"
Yes, they can. At no cost to the artist, too. What's your point?
"So, the potential profit that the seller is entitled to (the demand), is reduced through actions not within his control."
You mean people who do not buy or pirate his product, and pirates?
"Piracy doesn't have the same advantage, since the pirated works don't actually substitute the work of the artist in the long term"
Nothing was taken, so I'm failing to see your point. Are they by chance 'taking' potential profit, is that what you're trying to say?
"It's just a hollow stopgap while the real deal goes out of business."
That's a real shame, but it is no more the fault of the pirate than it is a normal person who just didn't buy the product. Perhaps if more normal people had bought it...
"1) Piracy is harmful
2) Piracy is still harmful, even if you remove the artificial, (so called) "worthless" currency
3) "Potential profit" is useless, the concept you want is "demand""
I still don't understand what your point was. You still didn't prove that pirates are taking anything or damaging anyone more than a normal person who simply didn't buy the product. You basically just replaced "potential profit" with the word "demand" and preached the same illogical argument that I've heard so many times before.
"You might not have claimed to be moral but you have said all of this:"
You're misunderstanding me time and time again. All of that was said because humans usually consider themselves 'moral' and 'intelligent', and I merely said that if that was true, it seems to me that they wouldn't do such pointless things.
"I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that we can't go meatless."
I don't know how hard it is for you to understand that vegetarians exist and that if there is no other food available, like in the situations you describe, I have no problem with eating meat. The only time that I'm opposed to it is if there is an abundance of other food available and there's no need to slaughter another animal (even a human). I've been saying this the entire time.
Ah yes, the "potential profit" argument. Who doesn't steal potential profit?
"How will Media companies recuperate the huge investments they put into creating that Media."
Uh, I don't know. I guess they won't. However, normal people who just didn't buy the product but also didn't pirate it are just as guilty of the pirates for this. Neither of them bought the product, and in the companies' eyes, they may as well all be pirates. So, how will the company recuperate the huge investments they put into creating that media if there's people who don't pirate their product but also don't buy it?
You also cannot take profit that exists only in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (which is what happens when you supposedly 'steal' potential profit).
Pirates are merely symptoms of an illogical capitalistic society. That is what is making these artists 'suffer', if anything. Pirates haven't actually taken anything, so they haven't hurt anyone, and the "potential profit" argument is highly illogical.
Precisely!
"See your not understanding. Even with eating both meat and veggies/fruits we do not have enough to go around. So if you take meat out of the equation we would just have more people starving to death. In other words we are already at the point that we have to eat meat to keep people from dying. We don't eat meat just for the fun of it but to survive."
You're not understanding me. Plants can easily be grown, and at least in countries such as the US, seem to be abundant, as well. Many people overeat and consume more than they need to, as well. They have no reason to eat meat. Also, this is the fault of the human race. More specifically, overpopulation. If these idiots didn't decide to have babies 'naturally' all the time instead of adopting, this wouldn't be such a problem. I wonder how much effort is actually going into in vitro meat.
"Unfortunately we have to have a capitalistic society until we reach a point where there is enough of all basic needs to let all people live comfortably."
Not necessarily. Money only WORSENS scarcity. If you don't have enough money, you can't have more resources, even if they exist.
"Those kind of Marxist utopias cannot exist until everyone can live happy healthy lives."
No one claims to know of an idea to make society 'perfect'. No one claims that a society without money would mean that absolutely no one suffers. It would merely eliminate the people who thrive off of making other people suffer (large corporations, etc). As such, governmental corruption would be reduced as well (if implemented correctly).
Here's the system that I'm talking about: http://thevenusproject.com/
No one claims to be perfect. That is a common misconception when people consider these systems.
"All that does is point out that you think your way is the right way no matter what."
I don't think that.
"Your claiming the only way to be moral or intelligent is to stop eating meat."
Ha. I never claimed to be 'moral' myself, I'm far from that. That is a term that illogical idiots invented to describe 'good' humans. Personally, if I knew that the human race would soon be eliminated with nothing else on the planet going with it, I wouldn't be too sad. They cause far too much destruction for their own good, or for the good of anything else on the planet.
"but morality does have to do with the way the animal is treated when slaughtered."
Not really. Morality has little to do with anything. That is just what some people claim to be, you obviously not being one of them. Odd though how even if I was starving, I couldn't slaughter and eat a human. They are animals, after all. It's survival!
"Do you not understand they many humans die already from starvation and getting rid of meat will only further hunger?"
Do you not understand that that's what I meant the entire time? If someone is starving, I believe that eating meat would be fine in that case, even if that meat came from a human. I never said otherwise.
"That is still only done in the lab but you don't seem to understand that breakthroughs in science takes years to become commercial."
No, I understand it perfectly. I merely said that I think it would be best if it was used in the future.
After. Just a few years ago, actually. 2007, I believe.
What are they thinking? Also, what kind of hunter can't hit an insulator? Amateurs...
"Do you think you would manage to keep that opinion while starving?"
If I took my chances, at least I'd have a chance at long term survival, whereas if I went with them to be fed, I'd be slaughtered for sure.
"What about those in the 3rd world who take jobs they know are going to kill them through poisons / poor safety etc. just so they can survive / feed their family etc."
Ignorance, possibly? Oh, and, those people *choose* this. Are members of other species asked for their opinion (no, they can't be, but we know that they don't like being slaughtered).
"After all, desperation has driven people to do all sorts of things."
Certain people.
"My key point (whether you think its valid or not) is that this is not a choice in isolation"
It's not a choice at all.
" it is an alternative to what would be conceivably be their "normal life"."
The same would go for humans.
"What I am saying is that animals face such desperate conditions in their normal life that it might actually make this choice the more "moral" choice of the two."
You're right! When do we start making the human farms?
I didn't care too much for it... but if other people like it, I don't really care.
Oh, and, Battlefield? That's just another generic shooter that is plastered with 'realistic' colors such as brown. Mass Effect is pretty good in my opinion, and I haven't really played anything else on that list.
"You may see that as a bad thing but Just like Windows 7 is better than Windows Vista, Starcraft 2 is better than Starcraft."
Wait, what? What is so great about Windows 7? Just because something is new, that does not mean that it's better than its predecessors. I'm still using Windows XP (I know that you said Windows Vista, though), and I see absolutely no reason to upgrade to Windows 7. It doesn't add anything groundbreaking. This isn't like the days when operating systems with GUIs were some new thing. There's not a whole lot of difference, and certainly not enough to call Windows 7 "better." The same goes for Starcraft 2 and such. Newer doesn't mean better. Besides, that is just an opinion.
You're an idiot. Don't you care about anyone other than yourself at all? All you care about is the fact that you wouldn't die by playing such a game, and you disregard the fact that everyone else is clearly an idiot so that they'll die from it. If even a single person dies from using a product or playing a game, it must be banned. No exceptions.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Ugh, too often I see this statement. If everyone followed this advice, *nothing* would ever be improved simply because it isn't completely broke. Don't bother with that new groundbreaking invention that you just thought up, what we have now isn't broke, so don't bother! Sorry, not too much to do with your comment, but I just don't like that sentence.
What should it be known for, exactly?
I don't know about that. There truly are people who don't mind playing the same thing again and again, with the only changes being new levels, and maybe some new characters.
Because it's still profitable.
"You are ignoring the very real fact that living a "free and normal life" for animals is almost constant suffering."
The same thing goes for humans, yet we can't raise and slaughter them, even if we give them a 'happy' life up until they are slaughtered. They wouldn't have been born otherwise, so that makes it completely fine!
"Unless you are a apex predator life is very scary, even if you are, you are cold in the winter, constantly hungry and you best hope you dont get sick or injured as its all over in a very nasty way."
Humans have a very difficult life, as well. You have to work for money, and sometimes there's no jobs available. There might not even be food available in some areas or countries! Maybe not even water. Would I prefer to be fed? Yes. Would I prefer to be fed if I'd just be slaughtered later? No.
"The life they have on farms etc, it a lot better than this and the death they get at the end is better than almost any way you can die in the wild. Its nice and all to talk about "freedom and a normal life" but are you sure that is what they would want?"
Would you want to be raised on a farm for the sole purpose of being slaughtered later? Or is that not okay just because we're humans?
"You people forget how cunning a government is by making your believe that you are getting more with each bill signed into law, having only been taken!"
I'm aware. However, what would you suggest be done? Leave it alone? That won't accomplish anything, either.
Alternatively, work to find a clean, renewable, and efficient energy source.
Yeah, really. I shop at Newegg to get cheaper computer parts (before I knew about it, I was going to places like Walmart, and I've seen 120GB external hard drives for over $100 there!).
"We desperately need solutions, but nuking copyright just creates more problems."
We've never done so before, how do you know that? Also, pretending that pirates are hurting anyone by merely effortlessly copying something just creates more problems. They've taken nothing that someone already had, and as such, didn't hurt them.
Once the product as been made, it takes zero effort to copy it. They make the first product, but not the copies that pirates use. Pirates aren't actually hurting them by effortlessly copying their software.
"Ask me again when successful artists using P2P distribution exclusively are the norm instead of a vanishing exception."
It matters little, as that is the fault of our illogical capitalistic society that requires that you have worthless artificial currency to survive (at the moment). Pirates, in reality, don't actually hurt anyone. They don't deprive anyone of anything that they already had. If it's about potential profit, then everyone is guilty of 'taking' that (even though it only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money, making 'taking' it impossible), as you're guilty of 'stealing' someones potential profit just by not buying their product.
"Eating is for survival."
I've said time and time again that unless there is nothing else to eat *except* meat, there's no point in eating it. An intelligent being wouldn't mindlessly slaughter another being for no reason, unless they *have* to.
"And as I pointed out that you failed to even comment on in order to eat an entirely meatless diet that has everything you need in it costs way too much for most people."
Not really. There's cheap diets where you can still get your nutrition. Meat isn't exactly cheap, either. This would also a problem with our current capitalistic society.
"I mean when have humans as a whole or even as a majority ever said its immoral to eat animals?"
If everyone on earth said something incorrect, it would still be incorrect. What the majority says or thinks is irrelevant.
"If the human race stopped eating meat we would starve."
Have you read my comments at all? I said that *if someone is going to starve*, then that would be a reason to eat meat. If it's just to satisfy their taste buds (as it is in many cases in many countries), then there's no point.
"We can't even feed everyone on the planet right now with meat."
I think it would be best if that in vitro meat that you linked to was used, instead. As far as I read, there'd be no need to slaughter animals to make it or eat it.
"You're so greedy you don't even realize it. If you don't like a corporation, don't buy their products. How do you think large corporations get so large?"
By people buying their products, of course. I realize this. What I'm trying to say is that until most people or everyone stop buying their products, there's not much more that I can do besides not buy their products and get others to do the same. *Until then*, they will remain powerful.
"Great. Everybody is an idiot except for you. I can't imagine why you're not getting more support..."
I meant the large corporations and those whose sole intentions are to make money at the expense of everyone else. I didn't mean that everyone was an idiot.