I also wonder how many of these downloaders are using the software for illegal sharing.
Well, with the government's "if anyone uses it for an illegal purpose, it must be banned" mentality, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to ban it (then again, it's not like a single website). How horrible would it be if we didn't shut everything down because some people copy data?
That Anonymous does not have any moral ground to stand on.
They have no moral high ground? Sounds like an opinion.
In any case, considering their past actions, what makes this case special? If they have no moral high ground now, shouldn't someone have realized in the past that they didn't have it then? I think they should've realized such a thing sooner.
Well, I meant that I think the version of the game that is stored on storage devices belonging to me is mine. Any servers are theirs, and are thus services.
Some companies seem to be under the impression that the game isn't actually yours. They think you only get a license to use it.
Is that an actual problem? It's surely abused sometimes, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal (the abuse is what needs to be fixed). I don't think people should have to be married to those they no longer care about.
Marketing targeting STUPID PEOPLE works. It just bounces off anyone with a trace of actual intellect. I for one am perfectly OK with genetically stupid people being selected OUT of the gene pool by their own characteristics.
I don't know, man. How do you know that's not what they want you to think? They want you to think you're not being affected by their magical brainwashing waves! It's all part of their plan to make you not buy their products whenever you see an ad!
Anorexic models should be banned, but not because they promote anorexia, because they promote an unrealistic and ultimately unattainable vision of beauty.
*sigh*
Really? Is this the only reason we resort to censorship now? Is this all it takes?
I give up. "For the children" and "stop the terrorists" bills, do your thing. Satisfy their paranoia and censorship-hungry minds.
I think it's a sound theory. If someone was physically bullying someone, I think they should be stopped. I do not think the bully should be held accountable because the victim(s) chose to shoot up a school. That was their own decision, and one I do not believe is justifiable, bullying or not. I would have never done that.
So basically, don't lump all of us into a group and pretend we all believe the same thing. Besides, asking someone who was bullied these types of questions will likely result in a biased answer (just like from anyone else).
OK, but saying that drinking gasoline is beautiful is not false advertising, because beauty is inherently a subjective judgment. Thus it falls under free speech.
Yes it does. What's your point?
It is. Hence the recommendation for the ban.
It is? You mean a small minority of the population? What a great reason to resort to censorship! Let's ban cars since certain people use them to commit crimes, too.
However as you go up the ability spectrum people retained more and more and so could use maths in more complex ways
Good for them. They can take those classes on their own, and do well in them.
It is the current system, where nothing but the basics are taught, that is aimed at the lowest common denominator.
If that's the case, I'd say it's aimed at people who don't want to spend years of their life learning things that they won't need (the lowest common denominator/layperson). I know plenty of people like that.
Given that there clearly is a problem now with declining knowledge of basics maths (and science) there are only two possibilities
Oh? You instantly believe the study? How do you know these people would do better?
either general intelligence is declining or the quality of education is declining.
The public education system, with its focus on rote memorization and test taking skills, has always been bad (it's especially bad in the US). Sometimes the answer isn't to force things on people, but to leave the option open for them.
That's people that disagree with you for you. They always seem to say stupid things.
I mean, if only we had scientific, statistical methods for determining traits of a population, without actually investigating every individual of the population. If we had such a thing, what would we call it? Maybe, random sampling?
Doesn't really prove that it's true for everyone, or even a majority (unless they sampled a majority). It might make the idea seem more probable (which is kind of the point), but that is all. For some things it would work well; for this, perhaps not so much. Are they going to collect a random assortment of people who have no talent or interest in drawing and then try to get them to spend time learning to draw? Possible.
But as I said, even if you proved it was true that most people have those abilities, that wouldn't mean it would apply to me. And that's just for art.
Damn. I wish I had a mind of my own. Apparently, none of my thoughts are actually my own.
Every single time I see an ad, I go out and buy the product. Magical brainwashing waves come out of the tv and force me to. I had nothing to do with it! I swear! It's all the television's fault!
Actually, forget having a mind of my own. It's so much easier to play blame games and scream "for the children" so that we can ban advertisements I don't like.
I think further education is needed rather than censorship.
Teach people about logic. Teach people to not mindlessly accept everything they hear or see on television.
I don't think we should ever resort to censorship because a minority of people choose to starve themselves. I see this as no different than the "think of the children" or "the terrorists are going to get us" nonsense.
So going with your analogy, try putting an ad that promotes beating up nerds on TV.
And while we're at it, ban those evil violent video games that brainwash you into murdering people.
The problem I have is that this is completely retarded censorship. People don't want to even think about the fact that they're easily influenced idiots, so other people ask the government to step in for them. No, I don't agree with the ban on smoking advertisements, either.
Anything can be a public health problem if someone abuses it in the right way. I don't understand where this pro-censorship mentality is coming from. I thought I was on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
I also wonder how many of these downloaders are using the software for illegal sharing.
Well, with the government's "if anyone uses it for an illegal purpose, it must be banned" mentality, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to ban it (then again, it's not like a single website). How horrible would it be if we didn't shut everything down because some people copy data?
"Free" doesn't mean "exempt from criticism." I wish people would stop saying things such as this.
To be fair none of us *need* technology at all unless it is medical related.
You don't need to live, either!
and that's why you have the lowest crime rate of the modern world.
I'm sure it doesn't help that we have nonsensical laws (such as anti-drug laws).
That Anonymous does not have any moral ground to stand on.
They have no moral high ground? Sounds like an opinion.
In any case, considering their past actions, what makes this case special? If they have no moral high ground now, shouldn't someone have realized in the past that they didn't have it then? I think they should've realized such a thing sooner.
Well, I meant that I think the version of the game that is stored on storage devices belonging to me is mine. Any servers are theirs, and are thus services.
Some companies seem to be under the impression that the game isn't actually yours. They think you only get a license to use it.
The problem is that divorce is legal
Is that an actual problem? It's surely abused sometimes, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal (the abuse is what needs to be fixed). I don't think people should have to be married to those they no longer care about.
Marketing targeting STUPID PEOPLE works. It just bounces off anyone with a trace of actual intellect. I for one am perfectly OK with genetically stupid people being selected OUT of the gene pool by their own characteristics.
I don't know, man. How do you know that's not what they want you to think? They want you to think you're not being affected by their magical brainwashing waves! It's all part of their plan to make you not buy their products whenever you see an ad!
Anorexic models should be banned, but not because they promote anorexia, because they promote an unrealistic and ultimately unattainable vision of beauty.
*sigh*
Really? Is this the only reason we resort to censorship now? Is this all it takes?
I give up. "For the children" and "stop the terrorists" bills, do your thing. Satisfy their paranoia and censorship-hungry minds.
if others are not societies responsibility, why call the cops when the kid next door gets beaten to death?
This has nothing to do with government censorship. Your examples are just strange, I think.
I think it's a sound theory. If someone was physically bullying someone, I think they should be stopped. I do not think the bully should be held accountable because the victim(s) chose to shoot up a school. That was their own decision, and one I do not believe is justifiable, bullying or not. I would have never done that.
So basically, don't lump all of us into a group and pretend we all believe the same thing. Besides, asking someone who was bullied these types of questions will likely result in a biased answer (just like from anyone else).
OK, but saying that drinking gasoline is beautiful is not false advertising, because beauty is inherently a subjective judgment. Thus it falls under free speech.
Yes it does. What's your point?
It is. Hence the recommendation for the ban.
It is? You mean a small minority of the population? What a great reason to resort to censorship! Let's ban cars since certain people use them to commit crimes, too.
Ah but that is the beauty of the "old" system.
Prove that the "old" system was better, first.
However as you go up the ability spectrum people retained more and more and so could use maths in more complex ways
Good for them. They can take those classes on their own, and do well in them.
It is the current system, where nothing but the basics are taught, that is aimed at the lowest common denominator.
If that's the case, I'd say it's aimed at people who don't want to spend years of their life learning things that they won't need (the lowest common denominator/layperson). I know plenty of people like that.
Given that there clearly is a problem now with declining knowledge of basics maths (and science) there are only two possibilities
Oh? You instantly believe the study? How do you know these people would do better?
either general intelligence is declining or the quality of education is declining.
The public education system, with its focus on rote memorization and test taking skills, has always been bad (it's especially bad in the US). Sometimes the answer isn't to force things on people, but to leave the option open for them.
Uh, you're starting to say stupid things
That's people that disagree with you for you. They always seem to say stupid things.
I mean, if only we had scientific, statistical methods for determining traits of a population, without actually investigating every individual of the population. If we had such a thing, what would we call it? Maybe, random sampling?
Doesn't really prove that it's true for everyone, or even a majority (unless they sampled a majority). It might make the idea seem more probable (which is kind of the point), but that is all. For some things it would work well; for this, perhaps not so much. Are they going to collect a random assortment of people who have no talent or interest in drawing and then try to get them to spend time learning to draw? Possible.
But as I said, even if you proved it was true that most people have those abilities, that wouldn't mean it would apply to me. And that's just for art.
I did not assume you were part of the other major party
I'm not that guy.
just wondered why you seemed to give them a free pass.
Does he have to mention all of the opponents of the people he's mocking whenever he mocks someone?
Easy enough, because the skills required for drawing are not great, exceptional talents
So you say. But it's a bit hard to prove when a majority of people haven't started learning to draw.
that normal people can develop
Which doesn't mean everyone.
"Democrats"? Implying that the Republicans are much better?
I like how people assume that if you attack one of the two major parties, you must be part of the other one...
Corporations are not people.
People make up corporations. Besides, even if they're not people, does it matter? Should we resort to censorship?
Smoking and Drinking ARE regulated and censored already.
That doesn't mean we have to agree with it.
It's difficult to the average person to "not be affected by what you see." For other people, the magical brainwashing waves don't exist.
They don't need a sophisticated understanding of it. They need parents and education.
They don't need the government's censorship.
Damn. I wish I had a mind of my own. Apparently, none of my thoughts are actually my own.
Every single time I see an ad, I go out and buy the product. Magical brainwashing waves come out of the tv and force me to. I had nothing to do with it! I swear! It's all the television's fault!
Actually, forget having a mind of my own. It's so much easier to play blame games and scream "for the children" so that we can ban advertisements I don't like.
Yeah! We need to ban skinny models because of what a minority chooses to do with their own bodies!
These 'researchers' are truly brilliant.
I think further education is needed rather than censorship.
Teach people about logic. Teach people to not mindlessly accept everything they hear or see on television.
I don't think we should ever resort to censorship because a minority of people choose to starve themselves. I see this as no different than the "think of the children" or "the terrorists are going to get us" nonsense.
So going with your analogy, try putting an ad that promotes beating up nerds on TV.
And while we're at it, ban those evil violent video games that brainwash you into murdering people.
The problem I have is that this is completely retarded censorship. People don't want to even think about the fact that they're easily influenced idiots, so other people ask the government to step in for them. No, I don't agree with the ban on smoking advertisements, either.
Anything can be a public health problem if someone abuses it in the right way. I don't understand where this pro-censorship mentality is coming from. I thought I was on Slashdot.
Doesn't mean that we should resort to censorship because some people are easily influenced idiots.