They NEED that skill so that they can build on it later
The only thing that's built on top of it is yet more rote memorization. Or do you think the mere memorization of equations is the same as understanding said equations, for instance? Because that's what happens, and things such as No Child Left Behind aren't helping.
and do the more sophisticated critical thinking stuff when they get into junior high and high school.
The thing that doesn't seem to happen?
"rote sucks" BS, and now we've got whole crops of kids who reach high school, can't multiply or divide
That's not a result of people trying to encourage the US education system to teach critical thinking. It's a result of people not getting an education.
You see, not everyone who wants critical thinking to be introduced in US schools hates all forms of memorization. You couldn't do anything if you retained no memories. As such, I have no idea who you're arguing with.
We do, however, know that US education leaves students bitter and cynical about schools, that many feel they went to school for indoctrination, to learn useless factoids or to be out of the way of adults until grown up.
Many? I doubt that. From what I've seen, many people don't seem to realize that they didn't receive much of an education from US schools. You see, we seem to live in a 'jeopardy society' where merely having a good memory or drilling before a test and succeeding is thought to show that someone is intelligent.
but the US Educational system does reasonably well to quite well
If its purpose is to give people an education, then I would disagree. There is far too much rote memorization and teaching to the test for that to occur.
If, on the other hand, its purpose is to have students memorize material and then spew it all back on a piece of paper, then I'm sure it does a reasonably good job.
Even if this was correct, test scores don't mean much to me. Schools seem to be all about teaching to the test and rote memorization, and I couldn't care less about test scores because of that.
I probably didn't phrase it correctly. I meant to say that I think the statutory damages for copyright are just ridiculous, and that sometimes the excuse that people make for unjust laws is "it's too hard to punish people any other way." Or at least, it seems that way. It's just a convenient way to ruin someone's life if the corporations can't prove actual 'damages.'
What are you talking about? You don't receive an education in public schools anyway. More importantly, you certainly don't lose your opportunity to be educated. You still have books, the Internet, tutors, etc.
It's an absolute statement, but it's not an absolute moral statement. You are not talking about any particular moral code. In fact, you could apply the same logic to any sort of assertion that anything at all is subjective to 'prove' that subjectivity doesn't exist at all.
"Whether red is a good color or not is subjective." "That's an absolute statement!"
It doesn't matter either way. As long as you have money and would have bought the official product had the cheaper version not been available, they lost potential profit. They gain no less than they would have if someone just shared the product for free.
but it's $5 that belongs to the publisher.
Huh? The same could be said of normal copyright infringement. Any money not given to the publisher 'belongs' to them.
Of course, I disagree. I think the money belongs to the seller.
It was proven that the people were willing to pay for it.
"That's true, if the counterfeiter charged $5 for photoshop it's a pretty good bet the buyer wouldn't have paid full price. $75 for office? Maybe."
No, it wasn't. Just because a small amount of money exchanged hands doesn't mean they're wildly different scenarios. Potential profit was all that was lost.
At no point did that $5 belong to the publisher. The customer never gave it to them to begin with.
My nutty religion is better than your new nutty religion! You can claim to believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. It's all the same nonsense. I don't see why people should be able to get around rules just because they state that it's against their religion.
Well, I think what you consider actual harm and what I consider actual harm may differ.
but these people spent money on the product
But the amount of money they spent is still relevant. If the real product costs more money, and there are no 'illegitimate' ways to get it at a cheaper price, then people may simply decide not to buy it at all.
money the producers should have gotten but never saw.
"should have gotten"? That doesn't sound much different from the usual copyright infringement.
The only difference between selling it and giving it away is that the probability of the original artists losing potential profit most likely increases when someone illegitimately sells their product. If you believe that loss of potential profit causes harm, then it would seem that you should believe that both selling the product and allowing others to copy it for free causes harm.
you'll find it's pretty vague and amounts to "disturbing the peace" or being a nuisance.
Exactly what I suspected, then.
or you can recognize that the main duty of law enforcement is to protect the peace and maintain the standards of their community.
I don't think that the police harassing people for such a thing fulfills the first goal. The second goal is extremely ambiguous, so I don't care for it. In fact, the first can be ambiguous as well.
The only kids who have to worry about carrying those RFID cards are the kids who want to do bad stuff. If the kid isnt doing anything wrong then it doesnt effect them.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. I don't think I need to say anything more.
Did carrying that paper effect your life?
And to people who don't fly by plane, people getting molested at airports doesn't affect them at all. What does that mean? That it's not wrong?
Ruin your civil liberties?
No, because it's just a piece of paper you put in your pocket yourself. That's an absolutely terrible analogy, in my opinion.
I'd be happy to talk with sane, reasoned people who don't generally have a problem with authority and reasonable tracking
But this is "reasonable tracking" according to some people. In fact, both the TSA and the Patriot Act are completely "reasonable" to a startling number of people. "Reasonable" is not nearly as objective as you make it out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
They NEED that skill so that they can build on it later
The only thing that's built on top of it is yet more rote memorization. Or do you think the mere memorization of equations is the same as understanding said equations, for instance? Because that's what happens, and things such as No Child Left Behind aren't helping.
and do the more sophisticated critical thinking stuff when they get into junior high and high school.
The thing that doesn't seem to happen?
"rote sucks" BS, and now we've got whole crops of kids who reach high school, can't multiply or divide
That's not a result of people trying to encourage the US education system to teach critical thinking. It's a result of people not getting an education.
You see, not everyone who wants critical thinking to be introduced in US schools hates all forms of memorization. You couldn't do anything if you retained no memories. As such, I have no idea who you're arguing with.
We do, however, know that US education leaves students bitter and cynical about schools, that many feel they went to school for indoctrination, to learn useless factoids or to be out of the way of adults until grown up.
Many? I doubt that. From what I've seen, many people don't seem to realize that they didn't receive much of an education from US schools. You see, we seem to live in a 'jeopardy society' where merely having a good memory or drilling before a test and succeeding is thought to show that someone is intelligent.
but the US Educational system does reasonably well to quite well
If its purpose is to give people an education, then I would disagree. There is far too much rote memorization and teaching to the test for that to occur.
If, on the other hand, its purpose is to have students memorize material and then spew it all back on a piece of paper, then I'm sure it does a reasonably good job.
to make sure their failure to educate the students goes unnoticed.
It actually just proves that the teacher failed to teach to the test properly, not that tests have much to do with education.
Even if this was correct, test scores don't mean much to me. Schools seem to be all about teaching to the test and rote memorization, and I couldn't care less about test scores because of that.
Nobody got rid of actual copyright damages.
I probably didn't phrase it correctly. I meant to say that I think the statutory damages for copyright are just ridiculous, and that sometimes the excuse that people make for unjust laws is "it's too hard to punish people any other way." Or at least, it seems that way. It's just a convenient way to ruin someone's life if the corporations can't prove actual 'damages.'
X is worse than Y. Therefore, Y isn't bad.
Hypocrisy as an argument is great.
That's a lot harder than just collecting statutory damages.
Due process is also hard and costly. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if corporations and the government wanted to get rid of that, too...
You'll lose the opportunity to be educated
What are you talking about? You don't receive an education in public schools anyway. More importantly, you certainly don't lose your opportunity to be educated. You still have books, the Internet, tutors, etc.
You'll understand why you're wrong when you're older.
it's quite likely I would have dropped out
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I won't lie. I voted for him the first time. What was that quote? Fool me once, shame on me, won't get fooled again. Something like that...
Shame on you for being fooled the first time.
you have this warped belief that if the justice system is actually doing it's job... it's in the wrong.
But there are people who don't think it was doing its job.
You only believe in it when the outcome agrees with preconceived notions, based on politics and philosophy
Why is that surprising? If a law is deemed to be unjust, of course the people who think it's unjust are going to oppose it.
Like a spoiled child
Yes, everyone who disagrees is like a spoiled child.
let alone that they have rights to be respected as well.
And what rights are you referring to here?
"Morality is relative" is an absolute statement
It's an absolute statement, but it's not an absolute moral statement. You are not talking about any particular moral code. In fact, you could apply the same logic to any sort of assertion that anything at all is subjective to 'prove' that subjectivity doesn't exist at all.
"Whether red is a good color or not is subjective."
"That's an absolute statement!"
So we know that there exist some moral absolutes
I don't know any such thing.
Lots of people have been faced with worse time than this and don't kill themselves
Everyone reacts differently.
It was immoral and wrong for him to commit suicide.
That's subjective.
and that includes yours.
Why?
The difference is there's money involved.
It doesn't matter either way. As long as you have money and would have bought the official product had the cheaper version not been available, they lost potential profit. They gain no less than they would have if someone just shared the product for free.
but it's $5 that belongs to the publisher.
Huh? The same could be said of normal copyright infringement. Any money not given to the publisher 'belongs' to them.
Of course, I disagree. I think the money belongs to the seller.
It was proven that the people were willing to pay for it.
"That's true, if the counterfeiter charged $5 for photoshop it's a pretty good bet the buyer wouldn't have paid full price. $75 for office? Maybe."
No, it wasn't. Just because a small amount of money exchanged hands doesn't mean they're wildly different scenarios. Potential profit was all that was lost.
At no point did that $5 belong to the publisher. The customer never gave it to them to begin with.
My nutty religion is better than your new nutty religion! You can claim to believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. It's all the same nonsense. I don't see why people should be able to get around rules just because they state that it's against their religion.
there was actual harm
Well, I think what you consider actual harm and what I consider actual harm may differ.
but these people spent money on the product
But the amount of money they spent is still relevant. If the real product costs more money, and there are no 'illegitimate' ways to get it at a cheaper price, then people may simply decide not to buy it at all.
money the producers should have gotten but never saw.
"should have gotten"? That doesn't sound much different from the usual copyright infringement.
The only difference between selling it and giving it away is that the probability of the original artists losing potential profit most likely increases when someone illegitimately sells their product. If you believe that loss of potential profit causes harm, then it would seem that you should believe that both selling the product and allowing others to copy it for free causes harm.
you'll find it's pretty vague and amounts to "disturbing the peace" or being a nuisance.
Exactly what I suspected, then.
or you can recognize that the main duty of law enforcement is to protect the peace and maintain the standards of their community.
I don't think that the police harassing people for such a thing fulfills the first goal. The second goal is extremely ambiguous, so I don't care for it. In fact, the first can be ambiguous as well.
in which case that's what disorderly conduct is for
People doing/saying things that you don't like, apparently.
Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business.
Unless, of course, it's the government installing security cameras everywhere. Then it becomes a major problem for me.
The only kids who have to worry about carrying those RFID cards are the kids who want to do bad stuff. If the kid isnt doing anything wrong then it doesnt effect them.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. I don't think I need to say anything more.
Did carrying that paper effect your life?
And to people who don't fly by plane, people getting molested at airports doesn't affect them at all. What does that mean? That it's not wrong?
Ruin your civil liberties?
No, because it's just a piece of paper you put in your pocket yourself. That's an absolutely terrible analogy, in my opinion.
I'd be happy to talk with sane, reasoned people who don't generally have a problem with authority and reasonable tracking
But this is "reasonable tracking" according to some people. In fact, both the TSA and the Patriot Act are completely "reasonable" to a startling number of people. "Reasonable" is not nearly as objective as you make it out to be.
They are not getting paid for those copies
But they've directly lost nothing. The only thing they've potentially 'lost' is potential profit, and I lose that all the time just by existing.