But it's pretty clear that you really don't "get" this whole people-life-emotions business.
Having emotions does not mean always acting irrational or treating those who are more in control of their emotions as sociopaths. The former seems to be expected behavior (or you're a sociopath), the latter is simply preposterous. I "get" emotions, it's just that I try not to use them to arrive at conclusions I find positively insane. What some people don't seem to "get," however, is that different people exist, and not everyone is the same. Shocking, huh?
If someone loves their children the same as they would love a pet (or vice versa), they are not merely "different"; they are insane.
"insane" for liking something in a different way that you do? Interesting. And who, exactly, gets to decide that they're "insane"? Why are they "insane"? Why is it even bad to be labeled "insane" by one such as you?
Out of all the people in the entire world, are you saying, without a single piece of evidence, that not a single one of those people love a pet as much as a child? Calling the idea "insane" because you don't like it doesn't prove anything.
It's the people who think the love of a pet can equal the love of a parent for a child, and vice versa, that need to back up their claims IMHO.
There is nothing impossible about it. I just think it's ridiculous that someone could state that as a fact as if they knew everyone's feelings.
If you really don't like children to the extent that you think you might as well have a pet, it is you who is "different."
Uh, well, yes. If I say that person X is different from person Y, then that's the same as saying that person Y is different from person X. It's not that you have to dislike children, either. Your feelings for an animal just have to exist in a certain way.
Anyone who thinks this has clearly never had children.
Or perhaps they're simply different from you? Or do you plan to back that up? I have a hard time believing that you're magically able to know how everyone else feels.
Exactly. These people are supposedly guilty of the heinous crime of... copying! Totally worth extraditing someone over, and why not waste taxpayer money doing so? It's not our money!
Often we would have to explain in plain language what a program would do and how.
Everyone should be able to communicate, at the very least. Doesn't mean they have to like it or do it on their own time, though. Just when necessary.
That takes social skills.
Actually, it depends completely on the person. Some people are so oversensitive that merely implying that they're wrong will get you fired. Speaking to such people is a waste of time.
I don't have a tinfoil hat; I simply look have the entire history of the human race as evidence that those given power (not even necessarily the government) will almost inevitably abuse them and they therefore should only be given powers that they need (and they do not need this ability). I certainly hope you weren't defending the Patriot Act or the TSA, here. I care if any innocent person is affected by this, even if that person is not myself.
Anyhow, when did "don't stand up in front of a crowd telling the world you're stealing things" become bad advice?
That's not what you said. You used a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument and said that no innocent person would be affected by this. Sorry, but that's simply untrue when all it takes is an accusation. There is no due process involved here. If you're not disturbed by this, I believe you're incredibly naive.
Either one of those will keep you from getting caught.
Except that it won't. An ip address (worse, a mere accusation!) alone is not evidence of much of anything. Especially when the data can be poisoned with fake ip addresses.
how likely is it going to be that you not just get one false strike against but a total of six? Extremely unlikely.
Why is it unlikely? Do you know the specific method every single copyright holder is using to 'identify' (ip addresses don't mean much) the copyright infringer? If not (and even if so), it is 100% possible. And to make matters worse, all it takes is an accusation, and there is no due process involved whatsoever. I don't know why anyone would ever defend this nonsense.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Just like you have nothing to fear from the TSA or the Patriot Act! Those in power can never make mistakes or do anything wrong.
Really? Commercials didn't seem to have any effect on me whatsoever as a child. I wouldn't care about anything the commercials were saying. I'm not really surprised that they could have a different effect on others, though.
Slashdot Mirror
English evolves, man.
What was that sound? It was the sound of English evolving such that copyright infringement is now also known as rape! 'Pirates' are now rapists, too!
But it's pretty clear that you really don't "get" this whole people-life-emotions business.
Having emotions does not mean always acting irrational or treating those who are more in control of their emotions as sociopaths. The former seems to be expected behavior (or you're a sociopath), the latter is simply preposterous. I "get" emotions, it's just that I try not to use them to arrive at conclusions I find positively insane. What some people don't seem to "get," however, is that different people exist, and not everyone is the same. Shocking, huh?
If someone loves their children the same as they would love a pet (or vice versa), they are not merely "different"; they are insane.
"insane" for liking something in a different way that you do? Interesting. And who, exactly, gets to decide that they're "insane"? Why are they "insane"? Why is it even bad to be labeled "insane" by one such as you?
You're insane for disagreeing with me, my friend.
Out of all the people in the entire world, are you saying, without a single piece of evidence, that not a single one of those people love a pet as much as a child? Calling the idea "insane" because you don't like it doesn't prove anything.
There is the slight drawback that if no one had kids, the human race would die out rather quickly.
There is next to no danger of that happening. I don't think the person was suggesting that everyone stop having children.
But as you sound like the typical slashdot teenage socially inadequate sociopathic cynic
I think you forget to add in "rapist," "thief," "murderer," and "psychopath." I don't think your version had enough meaningless, random insults.
It's the people who think the love of a pet can equal the love of a parent for a child, and vice versa, that need to back up their claims IMHO.
There is nothing impossible about it. I just think it's ridiculous that someone could state that as a fact as if they knew everyone's feelings.
If you really don't like children to the extent that you think you might as well have a pet, it is you who is "different."
Uh, well, yes. If I say that person X is different from person Y, then that's the same as saying that person Y is different from person X. It's not that you have to dislike children, either. Your feelings for an animal just have to exist in a certain way.
Loving an animal is almost entirely a one way street.
I don't know how true that is, but that wasn't what was said.
Anyone who thinks this has clearly never had children.
Or perhaps they're simply different from you? Or do you plan to back that up? I have a hard time believing that you're magically able to know how everyone else feels.
*No. No you cannot.
Sure you can. There is nothing that makes it impossible. Of course, it depends on the person.
Exactly. These people are supposedly guilty of the heinous crime of... copying! Totally worth extraditing someone over, and why not waste taxpayer money doing so? It's not our money!
I love how everyone is so quick to claim 'obvious' yet no one patented it before the fact. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Perhaps no one patented it because it's garbage.
Begging companies to let you play games while never actually owning anything yourself is the future!
You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call.
The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not corruption.
Often we would have to explain in plain language what a program would do and how.
Everyone should be able to communicate, at the very least. Doesn't mean they have to like it or do it on their own time, though. Just when necessary.
That takes social skills.
Actually, it depends completely on the person. Some people are so oversensitive that merely implying that they're wrong will get you fired. Speaking to such people is a waste of time.
There is no 'correct' way to socialize.
They have families, participate in sports.
That's magnificently generic.
and I'd like to remind everyone that the concept of "rights" is not the same everywhere.
I don't know about that one. The magical rights fairy is pretty consistent.
I think your tinfoil is on just a bit tight.
I don't have a tinfoil hat; I simply look have the entire history of the human race as evidence that those given power (not even necessarily the government) will almost inevitably abuse them and they therefore should only be given powers that they need (and they do not need this ability). I certainly hope you weren't defending the Patriot Act or the TSA, here. I care if any innocent person is affected by this, even if that person is not myself.
Anyhow, when did "don't stand up in front of a crowd telling the world you're stealing things" become bad advice?
That's not what you said. You used a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument and said that no innocent person would be affected by this. Sorry, but that's simply untrue when all it takes is an accusation. There is no due process involved here. If you're not disturbed by this, I believe you're incredibly naive.
Either one of those will keep you from getting caught.
Except that it won't. An ip address (worse, a mere accusation!) alone is not evidence of much of anything. Especially when the data can be poisoned with fake ip addresses.
The vast majority of people who get caught are guilty.
How do you know that, anyway? Care to prove it?
how likely is it going to be that you not just get one false strike against but a total of six? Extremely unlikely.
Why is it unlikely? Do you know the specific method every single copyright holder is using to 'identify' (ip addresses don't mean much) the copyright infringer? If not (and even if so), it is 100% possible. And to make matters worse, all it takes is an accusation, and there is no due process involved whatsoever. I don't know why anyone would ever defend this nonsense.
It's essentially collective punishment, and it's ridiculous that it's going to a company.
The US legal system is a travesty of justice.
Agreed, but I don't believe that justifies this six strikes nonsense.
alleged infringers
This is the best part of all. Who needs evidence or due process? They're guilty until proven innocent!
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Just like you have nothing to fear from the TSA or the Patriot Act! Those in power can never make mistakes or do anything wrong.
Really? Commercials didn't seem to have any effect on me whatsoever as a child. I wouldn't care about anything the commercials were saying. I'm not really surprised that they could have a different effect on others, though.
And we would agree. However, I don't believe that something being illegal makes it objectively wrong.
a Playboy magazine was found under his mattress.
Thus began his downfall...
Proof that pornography turns well-adjusted individuals into sex offenders!