What distinguishes my opinion from yours (or mine some 30 years ago for that matter) is simply my greater wisdom.
Oh, I see. You're making assumptions about my age, are you? Interesting "wisdom."
There is nothing distinguishing your opinion from mine (unless you wish to appeal to a higher power). Even if you are more "wise" than me, as you claim, that is quite irrelevant. My (and your) feelings exist in a certain way, and our priorities are simply different.
I would go further and point out that in truth the presumption that one opinion carries as much weight as any other is itself as much an opinion as it is a nonsense.
I see. I disagree with your opinion, then. I have no idea if there is a magical opinion fairy, but I certainly don't believe in one.
And why ask "who"?
If their answer was simply "someone who is a human," I would've asked them how they can decide what someone "needs" to do and expect it to be anything more than an opinion.
It simply means that what is appropriate behaviour for a 5 year old when manifested in a 50 year old will be regarded as developmental retardation.
What is "appropriate"? Define it. And then tell me why your version is the "correct" one (if that is what you believe).
Perhaps, in my view, you're the one suffering from "developmental retardation."
But look, if you are still in your early 20s chronologically, pay us no heed, you just go... sock it to the man!
Well, if that's what you believe my current thought process is, then it shouldn't matter whether I'm 20, 30, or some other age.
Simple solutions and overconfidence in their application are completely appropriate at that developmental stage.
"Simple"? "overconfidence"? Now, where did I say I was confident about anything?
Of course, I do not see anything wrong with my "solutions" even if you deem them "simple." My priorities simply lie in a different place than yours.
Then... learn to deal with me... not having to get a prescription? Or at least that would be the case if such laws weren't in place, and laws can be changed.
I think the point is that the angry young libertarian males need to grow up
And what does that even mean? Who decided that they "need" to grow up? What does "grow up" even refer to? Agree with someone else's opinion? Because that's all it is. An opinion. It sounds awfully arrogant to me.
older men who persist in imagining that political utopia is to be found in their unresolved familial issues seem slightly pathetic.
Older men who disagree with some, I suppose. But I wouldn't call it a "utopia" by any means. I think it's a bit too much of a harsh world to be considered a "utopia."
And what does the TSA and Patriot Act have to do with motorcycle helmet laws?
I considered the possibility that you'd ask, but I thought it was obvious. Risk. Casualties. In those cases, terrorist attacks. In your case, accidents. Of course, helmets are more effective at stopping casualties than the other two, but I believe the point is obvious. I would much rather accept casualties than limit everyone's freedom simply because someone's actions may or may not inadvertently affect someone else in some way if something goes wrong. In most cases. I do not believe in collective punishment (or anything similar).
No, the don't "need" to grow up. But if they happen to do so, they will learn that "free country" does not mean the right to piss in the public swimming pool.
Right. Any True Grownup would agree with you. Anyone who doesn't isn't a True Grownup.
Nobody's behavior is unconnected to other peoples' lives.
Suddenly we're limiting people's freedom simply because something may inadvertently affect others in some way if something goes wrong. I'd much rather accept the occasional casualties just like I'd much rather accept the risk of terrorist attacks than resort to idiocy like the Patriot Act and the TSA (which, most likely, don't accomplish anything, anyway).
The "this is a free country and if I want to kill myself I will" argument makes a lot more sense before you grow up than after.
Right. They just need to grow up if they don't agree with you.
Meth should be illegal because 99.9% of meth users eventually start stealing or killing to support their habit.
That's simply collective punishment. Throw the ones who commit crimes in prison (or whatever it is you wish to do with them), but don't punish the rest. It's simply a waste of time, manpower, and money.
Sure it is, because you are ignoring a fair amount of technical benefit and don't really have rational grounds for fear.
Sorry, but I find my personal desires to be very "rational." Call it whatever you please, though. It will change nothing. As long as we're calling other people's desires irrational, I'll say the same about yours.
There is NO DIFFERENCE. These recordings are going no-where.
But that's just it: I don't believe the recordings should exist at all. I don't wish to live in a society where my every move in public places is recorded. Especially by the government. I do not see any benefits to this. At least not any worth the government having such a power and all the wasted taxpayer money that goes along with it.
In fact you should EMBRACE the government cameras because it's a lot easier to open them all up to public access.
I just don't care for cameras watching me wherever I go. That's hardly a "luddite mentality."
That said, I replied to the part of his comment that mentioned a trade off between security and privacy and was more so referring to government cameras than cameras inside private buildings. I find the former to be simply disgusting, and the latter can get annoying if every building has them.
Believe it or not, it's reality. If you don't want people to do this, try making it extremely simple to get it legitimately (at the time it airs somewhere). It may or may not be difficult to do that, but people likely don't care about your difficulties.
I wasn't aware that it taught math at all. Well, it teaches students how to memorize formulas, but that's about it. Let's try to improve schools before we "accelerate" any of the material.
I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools.
More than that needs to be done. Such as fixing the public education system so that it teaches more than just how to do well on tests and how to memorize things. And then we need to figure out a way to get people to not completely forget things they don't use. Otherwise, I can't say I expect good results.
Some must enjoy collective punishment, then. Those that don't care about freedom, probably.
I don't care for the analogy, though. File sharing isn't anything like bank robbery. That wasn't the point being made, but it is something to consider.
Slashdot Mirror
What distinguishes my opinion from yours (or mine some 30 years ago for that matter) is simply my greater wisdom.
Oh, I see. You're making assumptions about my age, are you? Interesting "wisdom."
There is nothing distinguishing your opinion from mine (unless you wish to appeal to a higher power). Even if you are more "wise" than me, as you claim, that is quite irrelevant. My (and your) feelings exist in a certain way, and our priorities are simply different.
I would go further and point out that in truth the presumption that one opinion carries as much weight as any other is itself as much an opinion as it is a nonsense.
I see. I disagree with your opinion, then. I have no idea if there is a magical opinion fairy, but I certainly don't believe in one.
And why ask "who"?
If their answer was simply "someone who is a human," I would've asked them how they can decide what someone "needs" to do and expect it to be anything more than an opinion.
It simply means that what is appropriate behaviour for a 5 year old when manifested in a 50 year old will be regarded as developmental retardation.
What is "appropriate"? Define it. And then tell me why your version is the "correct" one (if that is what you believe).
Perhaps, in my view, you're the one suffering from "developmental retardation."
But look, if you are still in your early 20s chronologically, pay us no heed, you just go ... sock it to the man!
Well, if that's what you believe my current thought process is, then it shouldn't matter whether I'm 20, 30, or some other age.
Simple solutions and overconfidence in their application are completely appropriate at that developmental stage.
"Simple"? "overconfidence"? Now, where did I say I was confident about anything?
Of course, I do not see anything wrong with my "solutions" even if you deem them "simple." My priorities simply lie in a different place than yours.
meth can be stopped by simply regulating the ingredients necessary to make it.
What would prevent them from creating it in another country and bringing it here? You'd need nearly universal regulations.
And I don't care too much for that solution, anyway. I say if someone wants to take drugs, let them. If they then commit a crime, punish those people.
Then... learn to deal with me... not having to get a prescription? Or at least that would be the case if such laws weren't in place, and laws can be changed.
I think the point is that the angry young libertarian males need to grow up
And what does that even mean? Who decided that they "need" to grow up? What does "grow up" even refer to? Agree with someone else's opinion? Because that's all it is. An opinion. It sounds awfully arrogant to me.
older men who persist in imagining that political utopia is to be found in their unresolved familial issues seem slightly pathetic.
Older men who disagree with some, I suppose. But I wouldn't call it a "utopia" by any means. I think it's a bit too much of a harsh world to be considered a "utopia."
And what does the TSA and Patriot Act have to do with motorcycle helmet laws?
I considered the possibility that you'd ask, but I thought it was obvious. Risk. Casualties. In those cases, terrorist attacks. In your case, accidents. Of course, helmets are more effective at stopping casualties than the other two, but I believe the point is obvious. I would much rather accept casualties than limit everyone's freedom simply because someone's actions may or may not inadvertently affect someone else in some way if something goes wrong. In most cases. I do not believe in collective punishment (or anything similar).
No, the don't "need" to grow up. But if they happen to do so, they will learn that "free country" does not mean the right to piss in the public swimming pool.
Right. Any True Grownup would agree with you. Anyone who doesn't isn't a True Grownup.
It's the only way to stop the evil pirates! People who copy copyrighted material illegally will bring about the end of the world!
Nobody's behavior is unconnected to other peoples' lives.
Suddenly we're limiting people's freedom simply because something may inadvertently affect others in some way if something goes wrong. I'd much rather accept the occasional casualties just like I'd much rather accept the risk of terrorist attacks than resort to idiocy like the Patriot Act and the TSA (which, most likely, don't accomplish anything, anyway).
The "this is a free country and if I want to kill myself I will" argument makes a lot more sense before you grow up than after.
Right. They just need to grow up if they don't agree with you.
Meth should be illegal because 99.9% of meth users eventually start stealing or killing to support their habit.
That's simply collective punishment. Throw the ones who commit crimes in prison (or whatever it is you wish to do with them), but don't punish the rest. It's simply a waste of time, manpower, and money.
Sure it is, because you are ignoring a fair amount of technical benefit and don't really have rational grounds for fear.
Sorry, but I find my personal desires to be very "rational." Call it whatever you please, though. It will change nothing. As long as we're calling other people's desires irrational, I'll say the same about yours.
There is NO DIFFERENCE. These recordings are going no-where.
But that's just it: I don't believe the recordings should exist at all. I don't wish to live in a society where my every move in public places is recorded. Especially by the government. I do not see any benefits to this. At least not any worth the government having such a power and all the wasted taxpayer money that goes along with it.
In fact you should EMBRACE the government cameras because it's a lot easier to open them all up to public access.
Or we could just get rid of them...
What does "should" mean? Who decided that?
Because going after them all is hard!
I just don't care for cameras watching me wherever I go. That's hardly a "luddite mentality."
That said, I replied to the part of his comment that mentioned a trade off between security and privacy and was more so referring to government cameras than cameras inside private buildings. I find the former to be simply disgusting, and the latter can get annoying if every building has them.
As an acceptable tradeoff between security and privacy, we may be okay with security cameras monitoring us
Sadly, there are some people that really do find this acceptable.
The world also wouldn't end if I punched you in the face. Doesn't mean getting punched in the face isn't an unpleasant experience, though.
as if you wouldn't do the exact same thing in their shoes.
The fact that you'd act differently if you were in another situation (in this case, theirs) is irrelevant to whether or not you're correct.
You would.
You don't know him, and you don't know that.
Believe it or not, it's reality. If you don't want people to do this, try making it extremely simple to get it legitimately (at the time it airs somewhere). It may or may not be difficult to do that, but people likely don't care about your difficulties.
High School just doesn't teach enough Math
I wasn't aware that it taught math at all. Well, it teaches students how to memorize formulas, but that's about it. Let's try to improve schools before we "accelerate" any of the material.
I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools.
More than that needs to be done. Such as fixing the public education system so that it teaches more than just how to do well on tests and how to memorize things. And then we need to figure out a way to get people to not completely forget things they don't use. Otherwise, I can't say I expect good results.
You haven't spoken to the magical rights fairy, have you?
Technocratically-minded people idealize such a system until that system starts dictating their lives.
Yeah, I'm having so much fun being dictated by the current system.
I'm not disagreeing that it sucks
I see. My mistake.
Mind you, it'd suck if you created a "local only" character and got an awesome drop that you could have sold for $100s on the AH.
It would, but that's the player's own decision in the end.
I strongly suspect that Blizzard didn't go down this route not for nefarious "stop the pirates/hackers" reasons
I believe that it was at least part of the reason.
Since Blizz gets a cut of every transaction this is obviously in their interest.
It doesn't at all surprise me that they'd do it for this reason.
I can guarantee he's much, much smarter than you.
Since when is someone else more intelligent than someone else merely because they can do something the other can't? Computers included.
It's difficult, so just give up. That'll solve the problem.
I don't think anyone ever said "nothing."
But its destination is the same. "Better" doesn't mean "good."
Some must enjoy collective punishment, then. Those that don't care about freedom, probably.
I don't care for the analogy, though. File sharing isn't anything like bank robbery. That wasn't the point being made, but it is something to consider.