Do you need law to tell you what is right? Is taking something from someone else just because you can right?
What? You're the one who mentioning that it was illegal, not me. You're the one who brought up laws.
So I can take pictures of you and your family and you wouldn't mind what I do with them then? Certainly that's just copying.
As soon as I objected to something you said, you instantly assumed that I was anti-copyright. I don't have to be anti-copyright to disagree with some of the things you say, you know. I don't even have to be anti-copyright to say it's, in fact, copying.
If you can manage to get the pictures, yes. Don't expect me to make that easy for you, though.
Should all of the research and development into everything be unprotected then, as copying the results is only copying?
Sure.
What do you do for work? Would you mind if someone took the output of your work and gave it away for free?
If you make a copy of the Mona Lisa, the Louvre doesn't end up with a empty space on its wall, and whatever you do with that copy can result in a number of possible criminal charges being brought against you, but stealing the painting is NOT one of them. After all, it's still there - in the Louvre.
You stole its... uh... uniqueness? No, wait, you would need to take that for yourself in order for it to truly be called stealing, and you can't steal uniqueness. Uh... I give up.
It's theft because I said so! The debate is over. I won.
TSA agents are doing their job. Being a dick to them and making their life suck (even more) just makes it worse for everyone.
TSA agents at least are complicit in the act of violating our constitution rights. "I'm just doing my job" doesn't, to me, justify a single thing. I'm not going to defend them just because they wanted a job.
Where's their evidence that any of these things are harmful to children, anyway? Video games, pornography... they certainly don't seem to have harmed me. Or millions of other kids who play video games every day, and probably have stumbled upon porn.
But it's okay. Just throw out new laws without any evidence. Obviously children can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, even if it's plainly obvious and/or their parents took five minutes to explain the difference.
I don't even understand why we need to supervise them. What's wrong with porn? Seriously? I looked at porn magazines when I was a kid, but I didn't turn into some evil rapist pedophile. I don't even understand why some parents give a shit.
it could be argued that this isn't censorship since you can choose not to be censored
Yeah, and if they decided to make the censorship mandatory, they could just say, "Well, you could avoid the censorship by moving out of the country!" I'm not sure I would buy those arguments...
Either way, information is being censored (even if it's only temporary censorship which can be taken away by you calling).
Using this line of logic, you could literally (and I think in your case, it might've been unintentional) justify anything. Help this dying person out by calling the ambulance? Please! I don't need to hear that from a hypocrite (which magically makes someone wrong, by the way) who doesn't even give all their food away to the needy!
Some people believe there is such a thing as "good enough."
It's ultimately a very selfish position unless you think the species should die out
How is not having children selfish? We are in absolutely no danger of being extinct. Seriously. Just check out how many human beings there are on this planet. A few people choosing not to have children will not make much of a difference, and they may not even be the selfish ones.
Why haven't you had 20 children? Clearly, one of them could grow up to become someone great. Therefore, you need to have even more children, or else you're just selfish! Can't afford it? Work harder and do better for society! Everyone should have children until they're not able to anymore.
Using this logic, it's difficult to not be selfish.
This is the bit which every single non parent fails to understand.
Can we do away with the generalizations? I'm no parent, but even I knew that. I was a kid once, and so were they. I saw other kids and continue to see other people's kids.
and thus he probably DOES know more about child rearing
And he's also either right or he's wrong. Unless he provides actual evidence to back his points up, merely mentioning he's a parent is pretty useless (especially since "bad" parents can and do exist).
Lots of things affect us all. Like people having certain beliefs, for instance. Sometimes things happen that you don't like, and you just have to accept it because it was another person's choice.
He meant that all of those things could be used in a way that is illegal, but they don't have to be. They have legitimate uses, too. You can't just ban something because it could be used illegally (the GP said bittorrent could be banned because of things like this happening). That's just collective punishment.
They may or may not have lost potential profit. Whether they did or not depends on whether people would have bought their product.
I don't know if I agree with the word "damaged." I lose opportunities to gain (which is what potential profit is) all the time, but I would never say I was "hurt" or "damaged." Because I've really lost nothing. Now, I might feel disappointed (if I knew about it), and I certainly would have gained from it, but I didn't really lose anything I already had.
We've concluded that filesharing isn't stealing. See, I stated that as a fact and pretended as if that was the end of the debate. Doesn't that make me correct? Doesn't it!?
Even I said that some schools are better than others. But it would be more accurate to say that I am wrong in some circumstances. But is it true in a majority of cases?
If your public school (or public library, or public park or public ANYTHING) sucks, then for gods sake, get off your lazy ass and fix it!
You said it yourself--it takes a community. Even if I were to endeavor to do it, I would still need the support of others. While it's commendable to do something yourself, in some cases it's very difficult.
Take some responsibility for yourself and your community instead of blaming it on "the Man" or "the Government" or whomever your boogyman of choice is.
Bad laws like No Child Left Behind still affect us all. While blaming the wrong people is annoying, excluding the people who at least share part of the blame is also annoying. If public schools are forced to put more focus on testing by the government, just what do you think that will encourage? Teaching to the test.
Let me ask this: what if, in some cases, it is the government's fault? That doesn't mean citizens can't do anything (although the voting system is pretty broken in the US), but sometimes it really is the government's fault.
I will say that you're right: a more informed general public can do wonders. It's great if you live in a great community. But what do we do until that becomes more widespread?
While I think it's true that there are some public schools that are better than others, most, if not all of them, still rely on varying degrees of rote memorization and teaching to the test. Sure, some people are still able to learn, but it's not a very good way to teach. No Child Left Behind just makes things worse in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
If porn damages kids, and everything indicates that it does
Oh? Prove it. Show me a study that proves real-world, actual long-term harm. Preferably a good study that isn't completely biased.
nor waste time protecting them.
In this case, protecting them isn't even necessary. It's just porn. They'll watch it and be completely fine.
Do you need law to tell you what is right? Is taking something from someone else just because you can right?
What? You're the one who mentioning that it was illegal, not me. You're the one who brought up laws.
So I can take pictures of you and your family and you wouldn't mind what I do with them then? Certainly that's just copying.
As soon as I objected to something you said, you instantly assumed that I was anti-copyright. I don't have to be anti-copyright to disagree with some of the things you say, you know. I don't even have to be anti-copyright to say it's, in fact, copying.
If you can manage to get the pictures, yes. Don't expect me to make that easy for you, though.
Should all of the research and development into everything be unprotected then, as copying the results is only copying?
Sure.
What do you do for work? Would you mind if someone took the output of your work and gave it away for free?
Don't know how that would be possible.
If you make a copy of the Mona Lisa, the Louvre doesn't end up with a empty space on its wall, and whatever you do with that copy can result in a number of possible criminal charges being brought against you, but stealing the painting is NOT one of them. After all, it's still there - in the Louvre.
You stole its... uh... uniqueness? No, wait, you would need to take that for yourself in order for it to truly be called stealing, and you can't steal uniqueness. Uh... I give up.
It's theft because I said so! The debate is over. I won.
Pirating is illegal.
Law isn't always right. Also, illegal where?
It is wrong.
In your opinion.
There is no justification
In your opinion.
for taking
If "taking" is defined as "copying," that fits.
TSA agents are doing their job. Being a dick to them and making their life suck (even more) just makes it worse for everyone.
TSA agents at least are complicit in the act of violating our constitution rights. "I'm just doing my job" doesn't, to me, justify a single thing. I'm not going to defend them just because they wanted a job.
The TSA is receiving orders that, so far, have been determined to be lawful.
People in power make the laws. Anything can be declared as "lawful."
That's okay with me. The English language can't possibly get any more inconsistent and illogical than it already is.
Where's their evidence that any of these things are harmful to children, anyway? Video games, pornography... they certainly don't seem to have harmed me. Or millions of other kids who play video games every day, and probably have stumbled upon porn.
But it's okay. Just throw out new laws without any evidence. Obviously children can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, even if it's plainly obvious and/or their parents took five minutes to explain the difference.
I don't even understand why we need to supervise them. What's wrong with porn? Seriously? I looked at porn magazines when I was a kid, but I didn't turn into some evil rapist pedophile. I don't even understand why some parents give a shit.
it could be argued that this isn't censorship since you can choose not to be censored
Yeah, and if they decided to make the censorship mandatory, they could just say, "Well, you could avoid the censorship by moving out of the country!" I'm not sure I would buy those arguments...
Either way, information is being censored (even if it's only temporary censorship which can be taken away by you calling).
"Objectionable material," eh? Then I propose that we make all religious websites opt-in! They can be very damaging to a young person's mind...
Using this line of logic, you could literally (and I think in your case, it might've been unintentional) justify anything. Help this dying person out by calling the ambulance? Please! I don't need to hear that from a hypocrite (which magically makes someone wrong, by the way) who doesn't even give all their food away to the needy!
Some people believe there is such a thing as "good enough."
It's ultimately a very selfish position unless you think the species should die out
How is not having children selfish? We are in absolutely no danger of being extinct. Seriously. Just check out how many human beings there are on this planet. A few people choosing not to have children will not make much of a difference, and they may not even be the selfish ones.
Why haven't you had 20 children? Clearly, one of them could grow up to become someone great. Therefore, you need to have even more children, or else you're just selfish! Can't afford it? Work harder and do better for society! Everyone should have children until they're not able to anymore.
Using this logic, it's difficult to not be selfish.
This is the bit which every single non parent fails to understand.
Can we do away with the generalizations? I'm no parent, but even I knew that. I was a kid once, and so were they. I saw other kids and continue to see other people's kids.
and thus he probably DOES know more about child rearing
And he's also either right or he's wrong. Unless he provides actual evidence to back his points up, merely mentioning he's a parent is pretty useless (especially since "bad" parents can and do exist).
Lots of things affect us all. Like people having certain beliefs, for instance. Sometimes things happen that you don't like, and you just have to accept it because it was another person's choice.
Well, see, they changed the UI a bit and made a few other inconsequential changes. Now spend a couple hundred upgrading to Windows 8!
He meant that all of those things could be used in a way that is illegal, but they don't have to be. They have legitimate uses, too. You can't just ban something because it could be used illegally (the GP said bittorrent could be banned because of things like this happening). That's just collective punishment.
More wasted time and taxpayer dollars throwing people in prison over things that shouldn't be illegal to begin with...
are both damaged by lost revenue
They may or may not have lost potential profit. Whether they did or not depends on whether people would have bought their product.
I don't know if I agree with the word "damaged." I lose opportunities to gain (which is what potential profit is) all the time, but I would never say I was "hurt" or "damaged." Because I've really lost nothing. Now, I might feel disappointed (if I knew about it), and I certainly would have gained from it, but I didn't really lose anything I already had.
We've concluded that filesharing isn't stealing. See, I stated that as a fact and pretended as if that was the end of the debate. Doesn't that make me correct? Doesn't it!?
I'm so glad that you're not right.
Even I said that some schools are better than others. But it would be more accurate to say that I am wrong in some circumstances. But is it true in a majority of cases?
If your public school (or public library, or public park or public ANYTHING) sucks, then for gods sake, get off your lazy ass and fix it!
You said it yourself--it takes a community. Even if I were to endeavor to do it, I would still need the support of others. While it's commendable to do something yourself, in some cases it's very difficult.
Take some responsibility for yourself and your community instead of blaming it on "the Man" or "the Government" or whomever your boogyman of choice is.
Bad laws like No Child Left Behind still affect us all. While blaming the wrong people is annoying, excluding the people who at least share part of the blame is also annoying. If public schools are forced to put more focus on testing by the government, just what do you think that will encourage? Teaching to the test.
Let me ask this: what if, in some cases, it is the government's fault? That doesn't mean citizens can't do anything (although the voting system is pretty broken in the US), but sometimes it really is the government's fault.
I will say that you're right: a more informed general public can do wonders. It's great if you live in a great community. But what do we do until that becomes more widespread?
I think the answer to all of those should be, "Nope!"
While I think it's true that there are some public schools that are better than others, most, if not all of them, still rely on varying degrees of rote memorization and teaching to the test. Sure, some people are still able to learn, but it's not a very good way to teach. No Child Left Behind just makes things worse in that regard.