Erm... what? It boggles my mind that people would keep buying that nonsense after it broke so many times (the second time would be the limit for me). In fact, just the restricted nature of the consoles would keep me away. Especially Sony's (not to mention their rootkit nonsense).
At the very least, I wouldn't ever buy a future product from them again.
And it's not that I don't see your point about cars being useful (I do think they're useful), it's just that I think that different people find different things useful. It's not just about usefulness, either. It's about freedom.
I can't find a good reason to ban something that certain people don't find "useful" merely because certain people abuse that something. This, to me, is a very, very slippery slope. There are many things that could be banned using this logic. "First they came..."
Talk about bad logic. We don't ban cars despite their bad effects because they are very useful.
It's not bad logic. I demonstrated that it is absurd to ban things because of the fact that a few people could abuse it. Are you a fan of collective punishment?
Also, I find it extremely arrogant that you seem to think that you get to decide what is and isn't useful. Different things are useful to different people.
I could easily change my example to argue that we should ban children's toys because some people could abuse them or get hurt in some way. To most people (not a fan of tyranny of the majority, here), they might not be "useful," but to some people, they are. And children are typically involved, too. All logic is instantly thrown out the window when that happens.
Child pornography doesn't have this sort of thing going for it.
In fact it's silly to argue that a handler would lie about it because frankly if the police wanted to search without cause they wouldn't bother with a dog
I'd like to point out both violent and non-violent criminals start out as human beings, so if we just get DNA from all human beings, we will have it when they become violent criminals.
I've actually seen people who said they want this to happen. Not really a surprise. Typical "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude.
Some (most?) people don't seem to care about collateral damage. As long as the stated intention is to "get the criminals," all is well. Perhaps until something happens to them.
That just shows the Patriot Act and the TSA are working! If you ignore the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation, that we've improved cockpit security, and that citizens are now more aware of the dangers of hijackings, of course.
And those don't sound like mere pedophiles, but child molesters (not all pedophiles are child molesters, and the amount of pedophiles is very likely unknown).
Again, even if true, I don't think that "for the children" argument justifies banning something because of what a minority of its users do. We might as well ban cars, too.
No. Cars don't involve children! When children are involved, 1 + 1 = green.
While it's debatable whether a drawn picture should be made illegal, there is an understandable logic behind wanting it banned.
If anyone thinks "for the children" arguments are valid, I fear for them. I don't see the logic behind banning something just because a few people could abuse it. I don't see the logic behind banning cars, and I don't see the logic behind banning images of imaginary children. I don't see the logic behind thought crimes.
But then again, I'm not the type who gets paranoid of pedophiles (which aren't necessarily child molesters) and terrorists lurking behind every corner. I imagine that's the type of person who would be most likely to accept such logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps some humans don't always have the best of intentions and/or make mistakes?
Are you saying that none of them have ever lied about this? That's all I meant.
It's the people who purposefully comment on threads about products they DON'T like that create a problem.
I wouldn't say it's a problem. They, like to the people who like it, are simply stating their opinions.
I don't think you know what you're referring to.
If that's true, then why did you let trick you into so that you could use Gamemaker?
You assume that I wouldn't do it in real life. Why? If I'm anonymous, then surely you know nothing about me?
But what does it matter where I defend someone? The point that I made still stands.
How can you possible be defending Kimble?
I'd defend anyone from what I believe is abuse. Mentioning his name will not change that for me. That was just a general statement.
Now, I know this is sudden, but... hear me out. Please. Just hear me out.
I'm a buttnude.
Now use Gamemaker.
I'll be surprised if your charter isn't as worthless to your government as the constitution is to the US government.
Rights are so inconvenient when you want to 'save' the children!
Why are you playing the left-right politics game?
Then I wonder why any of them bother using the dog just so they can lie? Did they not take this into account?
Exactly. Stop supporting the companies who produce garbage that you don't like.
I wonder if they'd blame piracy if enough people stopped buying these supposed "console ports"?
Erm... what? It boggles my mind that people would keep buying that nonsense after it broke so many times (the second time would be the limit for me). In fact, just the restricted nature of the consoles would keep me away. Especially Sony's (not to mention their rootkit nonsense).
At the very least, I wouldn't ever buy a future product from them again.
The real question is this: why haven't you switched to Gamemaker yet? Are you perhaps missing some gigabits on your puter...?
And it's not that I don't see your point about cars being useful (I do think they're useful), it's just that I think that different people find different things useful. It's not just about usefulness, either. It's about freedom.
I can't find a good reason to ban something that certain people don't find "useful" merely because certain people abuse that something. This, to me, is a very, very slippery slope. There are many things that could be banned using this logic. "First they came..."
Talk about bad logic. We don't ban cars despite their bad effects because they are very useful.
It's not bad logic. I demonstrated that it is absurd to ban things because of the fact that a few people could abuse it. Are you a fan of collective punishment?
Also, I find it extremely arrogant that you seem to think that you get to decide what is and isn't useful. Different things are useful to different people.
I could easily change my example to argue that we should ban children's toys because some people could abuse them or get hurt in some way. To most people (not a fan of tyranny of the majority, here), they might not be "useful," but to some people, they are. And children are typically involved, too. All logic is instantly thrown out the window when that happens.
Child pornography doesn't have this sort of thing going for it.
We're talking about imaginary children here.
You don't need a CS degree to program in Python.
This is true of any language. Degrees don't equal knowledge or experience.
In fact it's silly to argue that a handler would lie about it because frankly if the police wanted to search without cause they wouldn't bother with a dog
The dog just makes it easier to lie.
I'd like to point out both violent and non-violent criminals start out as human beings, so if we just get DNA from all human beings, we will have it when they become violent criminals.
I've actually seen people who said they want this to happen. Not really a surprise. Typical "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude.
If only they'd have switched to Gamemaker...
Such a disaster would have been prevented...
Arrrr... To be...
Some (most?) people don't seem to care about collateral damage. As long as the stated intention is to "get the criminals," all is well. Perhaps until something happens to them.
But that's just it... you apparently only have to be accused of infringing upon copyright. No oversight required.
That just shows the Patriot Act and the TSA are working! If you ignore the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation, that we've improved cockpit security, and that citizens are now more aware of the dangers of hijackings, of course.
Pedophiles often use such material
[citation needed]
And those don't sound like mere pedophiles, but child molesters (not all pedophiles are child molesters, and the amount of pedophiles is very likely unknown).
Again, even if true, I don't think that "for the children" argument justifies banning something because of what a minority of its users do. We might as well ban cars, too.
No. Cars don't involve children! When children are involved, 1 + 1 = green.
While it's debatable whether a drawn picture should be made illegal, there is an understandable logic behind wanting it banned.
If anyone thinks "for the children" arguments are valid, I fear for them. I don't see the logic behind banning something just because a few people could abuse it. I don't see the logic behind banning cars, and I don't see the logic behind banning images of imaginary children. I don't see the logic behind thought crimes.
But then again, I'm not the type who gets paranoid of pedophiles (which aren't necessarily child molesters) and terrorists lurking behind every corner. I imagine that's the type of person who would be most likely to accept such logic.