I love my right to privacy, and I love YOUR right to privacy, in our homes and on our computers. But not while barreling around on public roads.
Okay, well, I've arbitrarily decided that your right to privacy in your home isn't important because people do commit crimes in their homes. You should have no problem with this; it's for your own safety.
Well another way to look at it (and I AM a pirate btw, a very serial offender too, see my last post) is that when you shoplift from a store, all you're really doing is depriving them of profit.
You're completely depriving them of something that they had previously. When you infringe upon someone's copyright, not even that happens; instead, you, at most, deprive them of potential profit.
Some people only wish that copyright infringement had the ability to actually take money away from content creators! Why, if it did, they could download the content over and over until the MPAA, RIAA, and all those other guys died off!
How do you he did? That said, I believe we were talking about the majority of the population, and seeing as how plenty of people keep voting for the same guys that keep the TSA around...
That might be true in a few cases, but the grand majority of the time, it's not. Furthermore, as I said, it's likely more difficult for a doctor to get actual training if they're self-taught. With a programmer, you merely have to evaluate their skills.
However, ask yourself, when you next go see your doctor. Imagine they say to you: well I studied in a couple of books, sure I can diagnose your condition.
When it comes to doctors, surgeons, and the like, lives are on the line; it's quite a bad analogy. Furthermore, I suspect it would be quite difficult for self-taught doctors to actually get real training that isn't just reading out of a book, but if you're teaching yourself how to programmer, for instance, it's quite easy to start making things yourself.
One thing college proves is that you have the drive to stick with something for 4 years and succeed.
I personally think self-educated people are more impressive, but alright. If employers wanted to see drive, they could just ask people to dig giant holes in the ground using only a spoon.
Does Microsoft / Apple software get written by people who learned to program from "Teach your self in 7 days"
When people say that self-educated people can be successful, they're probably talking about people who actually, you know, truly know what they're doing.
Talking about billionaires only brings responses such as the ones here. You can be successful without being a billionaire, and you do not need a degree for that (even if one would make it more probable that you'd be hired).
This is the problem with mentioning Bill Gates and such; people seem to assume that the only way to be successful as someone who doesn't have a degree is to be a millionaire. There are employers who will hire you if you have the skills required to do the job even if you don't have a degree, and there are plenty of ways to educate yourself that don't involve going to college. Although, there are also employers who will toss out your resume if you don't have a degree.
Once you've willingly handed over your papers to a third party, though, it's now up to that third party, not you, what to do with them.
Sure, but we can still decide whether any evidence the government collects from these third parties is applicable in court if it collected it without a warrant. As it is, they can simply get all of the information they want from third parties as long as the third parties willingly give it to them, and I'm not sure if it's wise to allow the government to have such a power.
That's correct; I cared about replying to that guy's comment. I don't, however, care if someone violates the GPL. Using your logic, you can't ever say that you don't care about something.
It's hypocritical if you take a stand against DRM and say "I won't pay to support DRM", but then you go and download the cracked game and play it anyway.
What? "I won't pay to support DRM" is clearly different than "I won't use cracked copies of software that previously had DRM without paying the developers/companies that made it." It's only hypocrisy if they directly contradict what they said, and in this case, that isn't true.
Are people being convicted of crimes using information from warrant less wiretapping?
It doesn't matter to me whether they are or aren't; I feel that people's rights are being violated simply because the government is spying. But I somewhat doubt that the government would give itself these powers and then not even use them.
Like I said before the system is certainly not perfect
It is far from perfect.
As far as I know no provisions or protections in the constitution or bill of rights has been removed.
They do not need to remove them.
There are precedents of the government suspending or ignoring certain laws and rights.
And...? Something being old doesn't make it good.
It is the "people" who had conniption fits after 9/11 because the government did not prevent the attack. All the people complaining about airport security today would crucify the airlines and government if the scanning and searching procedures were halted or relaxed and an airplane gets blown up.
Immoral, you say? You stated that as a fact, but it sounds awfully subjective to me.
The penalty you pay for that is that you don't get to play a game that you thought was good.
Apparently not, since you can just give all the money to charity and avoid paying the developers!
Because the developer said those were the terms.
Uh... what? When it comes to information, it doesn't really matter to some individuals what the developers say. But if the developers really didn't want it to happen, then why is it apparently possible to give 100% of the money to charity?
Second, judges throw out such claims in court all the time. The evidence should not have been permisable as the agent should be the one in trouble here for interfering with school property. If any evidence was obtained illegally then it needs to be thrown out.
Slashdot Mirror
Safety, safety, safety. Thanks for the TSA!
Recording someone's every move is different than someone spotting you in a public place.
I love my right to privacy, and I love YOUR right to privacy, in our homes and on our computers. But not while barreling around on public roads.
Okay, well, I've arbitrarily decided that your right to privacy in your home isn't important because people do commit crimes in their homes. You should have no problem with this; it's for your own safety.
Ben Franklin was NOT proposing anarchy.
Neither was anyone else. Nice try, though.
Well another way to look at it (and I AM a pirate btw, a very serial offender too, see my last post) is that when you shoplift from a store, all you're really doing is depriving them of profit.
You're completely depriving them of something that they had previously. When you infringe upon someone's copyright, not even that happens; instead, you, at most, deprive them of potential profit.
That's true, but if it took money away from them, they'd die off all the same.
Some people only wish that copyright infringement had the ability to actually take money away from content creators! Why, if it did, they could download the content over and over until the MPAA, RIAA, and all those other guys died off!
*How do you know he did?
How do you he did? That said, I believe we were talking about the majority of the population, and seeing as how plenty of people keep voting for the same guys that keep the TSA around...
People care about safety after a host of different attributes, such as: convenience, sex appeal, price, social status, etc...
Well, the TSA sure as hell isn't convenient, and it wastes our tax dollars, at that.
Even if they weren't lying when they said it was a temporary measure, I believe violating people's freedoms is unacceptable.
So don't tell me you don't need a degree to work.
Not in all cases you don't. It really depends on the employer.
That might be true in a few cases, but the grand majority of the time, it's not. Furthermore, as I said, it's likely more difficult for a doctor to get actual training if they're self-taught. With a programmer, you merely have to evaluate their skills.
However, ask yourself, when you next go see your doctor. Imagine they say to you: well I studied in a couple of books, sure I can diagnose your condition.
When it comes to doctors, surgeons, and the like, lives are on the line; it's quite a bad analogy. Furthermore, I suspect it would be quite difficult for self-taught doctors to actually get real training that isn't just reading out of a book, but if you're teaching yourself how to programmer, for instance, it's quite easy to start making things yourself.
One thing college proves is that you have the drive to stick with something for 4 years and succeed.
I personally think self-educated people are more impressive, but alright. If employers wanted to see drive, they could just ask people to dig giant holes in the ground using only a spoon.
Does Microsoft / Apple software get written by people who learned to program from "Teach your self in 7 days"
When people say that self-educated people can be successful, they're probably talking about people who actually, you know, truly know what they're doing.
Talking about billionaires only brings responses such as the ones here. You can be successful without being a billionaire, and you do not need a degree for that (even if one would make it more probable that you'd be hired).
This is the problem with mentioning Bill Gates and such; people seem to assume that the only way to be successful as someone who doesn't have a degree is to be a millionaire. There are employers who will hire you if you have the skills required to do the job even if you don't have a degree, and there are plenty of ways to educate yourself that don't involve going to college. Although, there are also employers who will toss out your resume if you don't have a degree.
Do whatever works for you.
Once you've willingly handed over your papers to a third party, though, it's now up to that third party, not you, what to do with them.
Sure, but we can still decide whether any evidence the government collects from these third parties is applicable in court if it collected it without a warrant. As it is, they can simply get all of the information they want from third parties as long as the third parties willingly give it to them, and I'm not sure if it's wise to allow the government to have such a power.
That's correct; I cared about replying to that guy's comment. I don't, however, care if someone violates the GPL. Using your logic, you can't ever say that you don't care about something.
It's hypocritical if you take a stand against DRM and say "I won't pay to support DRM", but then you go and download the cracked game and play it anyway.
What? "I won't pay to support DRM" is clearly different than "I won't use cracked copies of software that previously had DRM without paying the developers/companies that made it." It's only hypocrisy if they directly contradict what they said, and in this case, that isn't true.
and we only have your word for it.
And? That's true of a lot of things.
Are people being convicted of crimes using information from warrant less wiretapping?
It doesn't matter to me whether they are or aren't; I feel that people's rights are being violated simply because the government is spying. But I somewhat doubt that the government would give itself these powers and then not even use them.
Like I said before the system is certainly not perfect
It is far from perfect.
As far as I know no provisions or protections in the constitution or bill of rights has been removed.
They do not need to remove them.
There are precedents of the government suspending or ignoring certain laws and rights.
And...? Something being old doesn't make it good.
It is the "people" who had conniption fits after 9/11 because the government did not prevent the attack. All the people complaining about airport security today would crucify the airlines and government if the scanning and searching procedures were halted or relaxed and an airplane gets blown up.
I know that already.
It's not hypocritical, but it is immoral.
Immoral, you say? You stated that as a fact, but it sounds awfully subjective to me.
The penalty you pay for that is that you don't get to play a game that you thought was good.
Apparently not, since you can just give all the money to charity and avoid paying the developers!
Because the developer said those were the terms.
Uh... what? When it comes to information, it doesn't really matter to some individuals what the developers say. But if the developers really didn't want it to happen, then why is it apparently possible to give 100% of the money to charity?
What would you say to someone violating the GPL?
Absolutely nothing because I just don't care.
It was left on deliberately in an attempt to spy on random U.S. citizens and collect data.
More delicious loopholes to exploit left and right!
Second, judges throw out such claims in court all the time. The evidence should not have been permisable as the agent should be the one in trouble here for interfering with school property. If any evidence was obtained illegally then it needs to be thrown out.
Yeah, but... child porn! It's for the children!
I won't lie: any day one of these child porn scumbags is caught is a good day.
But the real question is... are you super mega anti-child porn?