That trust isn't baseless, I've basically convinced people of my POV as a job for a couple of years.
I was more so referring to religious family organizations who think that things like video games are the devil. No matter how many studies you give them, I'm sure they'd point to a (probably invalid) study that confirms their own views. They're the hardest ones to convince.
I'm not sure if that "showing" part works with porn, though.
That's the more difficult one. With the amount of anti-sex nonsense in America, accurate studies probably cannot easily be performed to begin with.
The government seeing the data should not be that big a deal unless you have something to hide
Why not allow the government to install cameras in every room of your house? What are you hiding? You could be committing crimes in your house, after all.
especially since I now have something to point people towards who are trapped in the "computer games are evil and make you want to go out and shoot people" mindset
I think you're putting too much faith in them. No matter what you show them, they're probably going to continue to believe that video games are evil, porn is evil, that both hurt kids, etc. Even if it's all nonsense.
I wonder just why some people here seem to think that stopping copyright infringers (impossible) is an end which justifies the means. Here are the usual solutions: cut off internet connections of accused copyright infringers (bad because of collateral damage), use automated systems to detect and remove supposedly copyrighted material (bad because of collateral damage), and then there's always giving copyright holders the ability to do whatever they please (bad because of collateral damage). All of those have a common drawback: collateral damage. If your solution to stop copyright infringers from copying your precious data is a solution which would harm innocents too, you can fuck right off.
What is the "real world"? Would it suddenly become a fake world if nothing was done?
I don't know what you're talking about, but doing nothing is very much an option.
The stores are the problem
They're simply selling used games. I have no intention of ever agreeing with you if you're saying they should be punished for that. Even if the entire game industry goes under (it won't), I have no intention of restricting the right to resell games.
instead of the gaming industry
You mean instead of the people that have a problem with well-established rights? Reminds me of the entertainment industry demanding that other companies (like Google and ISPs) protect their IP for them. Pure arrogance.
I think there might be plausible situations where certain blackouts might be the better evil.
That sounds like an awfully slippery slope there, especially considering the government is the one making the rules. But then again, I don't really know what you meant by that. Shutting down entire websites because some people are abusing them?
Few things are. But the right to resell is far more important than a shitty game company being able to make money.
All the "I am a Slashdot nerd, and my armchair financial analysis is more valid than people who are trained and well-studied and have full financial data" posts are such nonsense.
From what I see, that's just a straw man. Do not be so quick to trust those that benefit directly from something that are advocating for that something.
I see a lot of people angry because they don't want their right to resell their own property taken away or effectively destroyed by DRM.
according to Slashdot
You're on Slashdot, too, you know. Apparently not everyone believes the same thing.
I'm confused. How does "lower than ever" equate to "not high"? If a single game cost $1,000 in 1990, and then they dropped down to $500 over the years, would that mean they're not expensive simply because they're lower in price than they ever were?
I know one thing: they're too expensive for me to waste my money on them. Especially when these game developers and companies are treating me, the customer, like absolute shit. DRM, locked down consoles, attacks on used game sales... no thanks.
Sure. Why not? Honestly, I have absolutely zero faith in the average gamer. Despite DRM, locked down consoles, and attacks on their property rights, they keep buying this shit right up. Some of them even support such decisions saying, "It's all the fault of the evil pirates, and not at all the fault of the people who fucking implemented the DRM in the first place! We can't have any evil hackers, so harm everyone by locking the console down! If you buy used, you're not supporting the game developers! You're as bad as a pirate!"
What's especially sad is that it's very, very simple not to buy a game. Absolutely pathetic. Are these people brain dead?
Maybe the problem is their constant evacuations? That's not to say that the person sending the threats has nothing to do with it... they do, quite a bit. But you can't react to every threat when it's this costly and there's a low probability that they will act (which, based on how many empty threats there have been, this seems to be true). But at the same time, I don't blame the university. We live in a lawsuit-happy society. It's a shame that people would sue others because they didn't react to something that was highly unlikely to begin with and win (and the person being sued didn't even do the damage to begin with).
It doesn't matter. That isn't what I (or I suspect he) was talking about. The harm caused by punching someone and threatening to punch them are fundamentally different (well, one might be mental harm, while the other might be mental and physical harm).
I wasn't saying threats shouldn't be against the law.
Well, no one (who isn't an asshole) is going to hand you a blank map of the US and expect you to fill it out, anyway. Rote memorization probably isn't necessary.
By your definition, pointing a gun at someone's face (a/k/a "assault with a deadly weapon") isn't violence unless and until you pull the trigger?
Indeed it's not. But I also never said that pointing a gun at someone's face should be legal.
Congratulations, you've just found the difference between assault and battery.
He didn't mention anything about assault or battery. He just mentioned that threats are not the same as actual violence. Which I maintain is true. You brought up legal definitions, but they're irrelevant to what he said.
I'm honestly asking, what do we really gain from truly anonymous communication?
Honest opinions. Privacy. Protection from those who would abuse us (including government, random criminals, and corporations, assuming you're even trying to be anonymous). The value of privacy should already be clear.
The things we lose
Losing things is okay if it's in the name of freedom.
That sounds about as awful of a solution as the TSA. If the solution violates people's privacy, I don't want it. I'd rather them evacuate the building for the 50th time.
The law is not always right. What he said was correct. A threat is not the exact same thing as actual violence. Punching someone in the face is very clearly different than threatening to do so. In only one of those scenarios someone actually got punched in the face.
The inconvenience you suffer by not being able to ride on planes without getting molested by the TSA is outweighed by someone else's jeopardy to life and limb.
That's the thing, though. Where's the real-world effects? A large portion of the population can look at porn and not be harmed at all. Cars can bring harm. That doesn't mean that cars need to be banned. Some people (in this case, kids) are imbeciles and will be 'harmed' (I'm hesitant to call it harm since it is really their own fault anyway) by something. Doesn't mean it should be banned or even censored (even for that group).
but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids
What's the deal with this "common sense" meme, anyway? The fact that you label something "common sense" doesn't mean it's common, obvious, or correct. "Common sense" could say that the world is flat. It's nonsense and doesn't add to the discussion at all.
if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled?
I don't believe in collective punishment. So no. I will not support censoring the internet "for the children" or for anyone else.
When I was little, I played all sorts of games that people considered violent at the time (as silly as that was). I also stumbled upon my dad's porn magazines when I was about 8. What am I now? A murderer? A rapist? No. I'm actually completely fine! And, apparently, despite the fact that more kids are playing violent video games than before, crimes committed by young people has gone down.
Why be afraid of fictional violence? Why be afraid of porn? Just make sure your kids understand the difference between fiction and reality (although younger kids probably won't have any interest in porn). They don't need to be kept in a bubble (most likely, anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
That trust isn't baseless, I've basically convinced people of my POV as a job for a couple of years.
I was more so referring to religious family organizations who think that things like video games are the devil. No matter how many studies you give them, I'm sure they'd point to a (probably invalid) study that confirms their own views. They're the hardest ones to convince.
I'm not sure if that "showing" part works with porn, though.
That's the more difficult one. With the amount of anti-sex nonsense in America, accurate studies probably cannot easily be performed to begin with.
The government seeing the data should not be that big a deal unless you have something to hide
Why not allow the government to install cameras in every room of your house? What are you hiding? You could be committing crimes in your house, after all.
especially since I now have something to point people towards who are trapped in the "computer games are evil and make you want to go out and shoot people" mindset
I think you're putting too much faith in them. No matter what you show them, they're probably going to continue to believe that video games are evil, porn is evil, that both hurt kids, etc. Even if it's all nonsense.
I wonder just why some people here seem to think that stopping copyright infringers (impossible) is an end which justifies the means. Here are the usual solutions: cut off internet connections of accused copyright infringers (bad because of collateral damage), use automated systems to detect and remove supposedly copyrighted material (bad because of collateral damage), and then there's always giving copyright holders the ability to do whatever they please (bad because of collateral damage). All of those have a common drawback: collateral damage. If your solution to stop copyright infringers from copying your precious data is a solution which would harm innocents too, you can fuck right off.
Here in the real world
What is the "real world"? Would it suddenly become a fake world if nothing was done?
I don't know what you're talking about, but doing nothing is very much an option.
The stores are the problem
They're simply selling used games. I have no intention of ever agreeing with you if you're saying they should be punished for that. Even if the entire game industry goes under (it won't), I have no intention of restricting the right to resell games.
instead of the gaming industry
You mean instead of the people that have a problem with well-established rights? Reminds me of the entertainment industry demanding that other companies (like Google and ISPs) protect their IP for them. Pure arrogance.
I'm quite fine with the constitutional republic of the United States that I reside in.
Except that the two party system here is broken, and while the people shouldn't have absolute power, they don't have enough.
They are there to maintain a peace and quality of life for people.
Difficult if they don't even guarantee freedom, which is closely tied to the latter and possibly the former.
I think there might be plausible situations where certain blackouts might be the better evil.
That sounds like an awfully slippery slope there, especially considering the government is the one making the rules. But then again, I don't really know what you meant by that. Shutting down entire websites because some people are abusing them?
Games aren't made as charity
Few things are. But the right to resell is far more important than a shitty game company being able to make money.
All the "I am a Slashdot nerd, and my armchair financial analysis is more valid than people who are trained and well-studied and have full financial data" posts are such nonsense.
From what I see, that's just a straw man. Do not be so quick to trust those that benefit directly from something that are advocating for that something.
I see a lot of people angry because they don't want their right to resell their own property taken away or effectively destroyed by DRM.
according to Slashdot
You're on Slashdot, too, you know. Apparently not everyone believes the same thing.
Solutions:
Do nothing. Rights are more important than their profits.
They're lower than ever!
I'm confused. How does "lower than ever" equate to "not high"? If a single game cost $1,000 in 1990, and then they dropped down to $500 over the years, would that mean they're not expensive simply because they're lower in price than they ever were?
I know one thing: they're too expensive for me to waste my money on them. Especially when these game developers and companies are treating me, the customer, like absolute shit. DRM, locked down consoles, attacks on used game sales... no thanks.
Sure. Why not? Honestly, I have absolutely zero faith in the average gamer. Despite DRM, locked down consoles, and attacks on their property rights, they keep buying this shit right up. Some of them even support such decisions saying, "It's all the fault of the evil pirates, and not at all the fault of the people who fucking implemented the DRM in the first place! We can't have any evil hackers, so harm everyone by locking the console down! If you buy used, you're not supporting the game developers! You're as bad as a pirate!"
What's especially sad is that it's very, very simple not to buy a game. Absolutely pathetic. Are these people brain dead?
Maybe the problem is their constant evacuations? That's not to say that the person sending the threats has nothing to do with it... they do, quite a bit. But you can't react to every threat when it's this costly and there's a low probability that they will act (which, based on how many empty threats there have been, this seems to be true). But at the same time, I don't blame the university. We live in a lawsuit-happy society. It's a shame that people would sue others because they didn't react to something that was highly unlikely to begin with and win (and the person being sued didn't even do the damage to begin with).
But in both of those cases, someone is hurt.
It doesn't matter. That isn't what I (or I suspect he) was talking about. The harm caused by punching someone and threatening to punch them are fundamentally different (well, one might be mental harm, while the other might be mental and physical harm).
I wasn't saying threats shouldn't be against the law.
Well, no one (who isn't an asshole) is going to hand you a blank map of the US and expect you to fill it out, anyway. Rote memorization probably isn't necessary.
By your definition, pointing a gun at someone's face (a/k/a "assault with a deadly weapon") isn't violence unless and until you pull the trigger?
Indeed it's not. But I also never said that pointing a gun at someone's face should be legal.
Congratulations, you've just found the difference between assault and battery.
He didn't mention anything about assault or battery. He just mentioned that threats are not the same as actual violence. Which I maintain is true. You brought up legal definitions, but they're irrelevant to what he said.
No. "A bomb will explode, at $location and $time." In each instance, a clear and specific threat was made, by someone claiming to be the perpetrator.
They do not know that a bomb will actually explode. I thought it would be plainly obvious what I was trying to say, but I guess not.
No. The "service provider."
Oh, okay. My stance on collective punishment remains the same, though.
I'm honestly asking, what do we really gain from truly anonymous communication?
Honest opinions. Privacy. Protection from those who would abuse us (including government, random criminals, and corporations, assuming you're even trying to be anonymous). The value of privacy should already be clear.
The things we lose
Losing things is okay if it's in the name of freedom.
continual random searches of people and places
That sounds about as awful of a solution as the TSA. If the solution violates people's privacy, I don't want it. I'd rather them evacuate the building for the 50th time.
legal definition
The law is not always right. What he said was correct. A threat is not the exact same thing as actual violence. Punching someone in the face is very clearly different than threatening to do so. In only one of those scenarios someone actually got punched in the face.
You're comparing "someone, somewhere, something bad might happen involving an airplane" to "a bomb will explode in ABC building on XYZ date."
It's just a threat. "A bomb might explode." "A terrorist might attack."
Sorry, but I don't believe in collective punishment at all. Word games or not, the logic is almost exactly the same.
You're also comparing "everyone" to "the users of this particular service provider."
All of the users of this particular service. You knew what I meant. It makes no difference, as everyone is being punished.
No, these are potential threats as well. There is no guarantee a bombing will happen.
But, to begin with, the logic is the same: hurting everyone to stop X is okay because people could get hurt by X.
The inconvenience you suffer by not being able to ride on planes without getting molested by the TSA is outweighed by someone else's jeopardy to life and limb.
That's the thing, though. Where's the real-world effects? A large portion of the population can look at porn and not be harmed at all. Cars can bring harm. That doesn't mean that cars need to be banned. Some people (in this case, kids) are imbeciles and will be 'harmed' (I'm hesitant to call it harm since it is really their own fault anyway) by something. Doesn't mean it should be banned or even censored (even for that group).
but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids
What's the deal with this "common sense" meme, anyway? The fact that you label something "common sense" doesn't mean it's common, obvious, or correct. "Common sense" could say that the world is flat. It's nonsense and doesn't add to the discussion at all.
if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled?
I don't believe in collective punishment. So no. I will not support censoring the internet "for the children" or for anyone else.
When I was little
When I was little, I played all sorts of games that people considered violent at the time (as silly as that was). I also stumbled upon my dad's porn magazines when I was about 8. What am I now? A murderer? A rapist? No. I'm actually completely fine! And, apparently, despite the fact that more kids are playing violent video games than before, crimes committed by young people has gone down.
Why be afraid of fictional violence? Why be afraid of porn? Just make sure your kids understand the difference between fiction and reality (although younger kids probably won't have any interest in porn). They don't need to be kept in a bubble (most likely, anyway).