Dude, you're only saying this shit because it's not your ass on the line.
Why I'm saying it is irrelevant to whether or not I'm correct.
If they ignore the threat even once and someone gets so much as a third degree burn from a firecracker that goes off then someone's going to eat a big shit sandwich over a criminal negligence suit.
You seem to be putting words into my mouth. Not once did I say that they wouldn't get in trouble. I was arguing against the mentality that it's wrong not to respond to every threat.
common sense
Means nothing, and varies from person to person. It might be "common sense" that the world is flat. The fact that you claim something is "common sense" doesn't make it common, obvious, or correct.
I'm finding more and more fucktards like you daily
That's interesting, because some support the TSA because they think we need to be protected from highly unlikely threats at the cost of some of our rights and immense amounts of money (putting aside the fact that we have other protections against said threats).
and it's unbelievable how often you fucks try to pass the buck when you're fucked up attitudes cause damage.
It's not them that causes the damage. It's simply unrealistic to expect there to never be casualties. I said it before: I will not live in fear or advocate that people waste time, money, and resources trying to prevent something that has a minuscule chance of happening.
"How likely is it that they'll carry out the threat? How many resources would it waste for us to act? How many people would it kill? Does our proposed solution violate anyone's rights?"
Why are these not good questions to ask? It's possible that aliens might swoop down, invade a city, and kill everyone, but that doesn't mean we should act upon that. Why? To our knowledge, it's highly unlikely and would consume lots of time, resources, and money, and that's exactly what I mean.
Yes, but we employ general screening to keep that from happening.
What screening? If you meant general screening that affects no one, then I don't think it's too horrible. If you mean the TSA, then they can just fuck off.
The problem you don't seem to appreciate is that you assume that they're making up stories
No, I'm not assuming anything. I thought I said it very clearly: some casualties are inevitable. I shouldn't have to live in fear or have the government violate my rights to "protect" me merely because there is a minuscule chance that someone could kill me or others.
but you don't know that until after the fact at which point we might as well not even have a bombsquad
A bomb squad allowed to operate everywhere is quite different than a single place reacting to every unlikely threat.
As I said previously: "'How likely is it that they'll carry out the threat? How many resources would it waste for us to act? How many people would it kill? Does our proposed solution violate anyone's rights?' If it's extremely unlikely and it costs a lot of resources to take preventative action, then perhaps it's not worth it. If your solution violates people's rights, then acting is simply out of the question (note: not relevant in this case)."
Otherwise we end up reacting to threats that are horribly unlikely merely because of appeals to emotion and illogical ideals that say that no one should ever die, no matter the cost.
If, in a certain country, it is extremely unlikely that there are bombings, then perhaps the size of the bomb squads should reflect that (there won't be many of them).
"I'm going to murder your children while you sleep tonight"
Not even comparable. Doing something about that doesn't waste other people's time, money, or resources. It also doesn't violate anyone's rights (unlike, for instance, the TSA). It's your own personal choice.
If you chose the former, you're a liar
You don't know him. Stop pretending to be able to read minds.
In any case, I think some casualties are a fact of life. I think a few questions should be asked before deciding to do something about the threat: "How likely is it that they'll carry out the threat? How many resources would it waste for us to act? How many people would it kill? Does our proposed solution violate anyone's rights?" If it's extremely unlikely and it costs a lot of resources to take preventative action, then perhaps it's not worth it. If your solution violates people's rights, then acting is simply out of the question (note: not relevant in this case).
Yeah, but it gets kind of ridiculous when you're blaming people who don't react to every lie in an utmost serious manner. I could get into a car accident or the plane I'm riding on could be blown up by terrorists. It's unlikely, but it could happen. I'm still going to ride cars and planes.
The problem, I think, is that some people have this "no casualties are acceptable" mentality. Now, this would be fine if their solutions didn't waste time, money, or violate people's rights, but they do. "How likely is it?" should be the question on people's minds..
And then they are surprised when privacy violations occur.
But here's the funny part: they're not always surprised or even outraged. Especially when everyone's privacy is being violated "to stop the terrorists" or "for the children." In those cases, some even cheer the privacy violations on!
And how are we going to do that? I've come across countless people who basically say, "If you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?" They trust the government unconditionally as long as they claim to be protecting them from the terrorists or if they claim to be protecting "the children." They're completely ignorant (perhaps willfully) of history and its long line of horribly, evil, and corrupt governments. Can we really convince them?
Means nothing and differs from person to person. "Common sense" could say that the Earth is flat. Labeling something as "common sense" doesn't make it common or correct.
Egging a person on to their demise isn't satire or humorous.
It isn't humorous? That's your opinion.
I just don't like the mentality that says we shouldn't ever joke around or make comments that aren't serious because some person that needs help might kill themselves. I'd prefer not to take everything seriously. Especially when I can't see the person, don't know who they are, and don't know whether they're joking or know that I'm joking. This is the problem: some people expect others not to do something merely because it has a slim chance to result in harming someone (actually, it would just result in them harming themselves). I just don't agree with that.
Now, for one thing, they were groups of people who looked lustfully at pictures of children. Mostly clothed. Why should I care? I'm not a fan of thought crime, and in the interests of preserving my speech, as well as other people's, I would very much like people to defend people's rights even if they find it "disgusting." Of course, this was but a single website, so it has nothing to do with government restricting rights.
groups posting pictures of dead children
Yet again, why should I care? They look at pictures of dead children, and what happens? To my knowledge, absolutely nothing.
They still allow subreddits about disgusting material
Perhaps they just have a different definition of "disgusting" than you. This isn't a black and white issue.
Read the comments on there and you'll regularly find people defending the indefensible
To my knowledge, nothing is "indefensible." It's a matter of perspective.
the bullying
It could've been a joke, the person may have been joking/crying for attention, they had no way of knowing, etc. If you're suggesting that people take everything seriously, then I can pretty much guarantee that will never happen. As I said, if this person did indeed kill themselves because of a few comments on a website that they could simply ignore/leave, then they were doomed to begin with. This isn't like someone constantly being bullied in real life at all (and I already explained why).
Directly killing someone is not the same as saying something, them getting offended, and then them killing themselves. All of what you replied to, plus the fact that they killed themselves, makes me think that this is ridiculous. Unless you want to argue that saying something to someone is the same thing as shooting them, of course. Or maybe you want to argue that jokes should never be made because someone might take it seriously. If that's the case, it boils down to, "X should be illegal because someone might get hurt." But then you're banning things based on the fact that someone may potentially get hurt, and I'll have no part in that.
It's not different because it's online. It's different because you have no idea who they are, if they're serious, or if they'll be able to understand a joke. If you can push them over the edge that easily, chances are they were doomed to begin with. Especially if they did it from a few comments on a website that they could just leave/ignore.
I shouldn't have to specify that everything that I say is a joke merely because some person could get offended/take me seriously and kill themselves. Screw this "X is bad because there's a minuscule chance that it could hurt someone" mentality.
How could you know they're serious? How could you know if they will think you're serious? What if it was a joke and they took it seriously? You don't even know who they are or how old they are.
Finally, since it was suicide, how is that anyone's fault but their own? Random strangers on the internet shouldn't be able to drive someone to suicide by posting a few comments on a website that the other person could simply leave/ignore. If they can, then they were doomed to begin with.
think it will make for a safer society.
It will just make for a better blame game society. We have enough of that already.
I heard that origin was an order of magnitude worse than Steam. And I highly doubt it's anywhere on the level of Sony's rootkit, as he implied it was (I know you didn't say it was).
One thing I don't understand, though, is why Steam isn't just a platform for selling games. Kind of like Good Old Games. They sell you the game, and after that, it's completely yours. No DRM, and the games wouldn't be tied to Steam. Although, you could still have the option of tying it to Steam (not sure if that would have any benefits, though, so I don't know if that would be useful).
The DMCA is an awful piece of legislation, anyway. Too often has it been abused. It encourages the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that we've seen so much of. Great if you don't care about collateral damage! Awful otherwise.
And what about fake DMCA notices? Should those users be "policed," too?
But you know what? I don't care if it does or doesn't. I believe it's wrong to hurt your customers trying to hurt pirates. It makes me wonder how anyone can defend this practice.
An armchair psychologist says it, so it must be true. If it's that easy to be diagnosed as a sociopath, then perhaps that's what 99% of humans are. "Oh, you have a different sense of humour than me? Sociopath."
No. But Steam is as bad as a rootkit? What makes it as bad (I don't use it)?
Origin is simply garbage (like all DRM). I specifically try to avoid any products with DRM. I also don't see how you got the idea that the person you replied to uses any of the things you mentioned.
Was Sony right in what it did? No
What was the point of the rest of your comment if you acknowledge that the actions of other companies don't make what Sony did okay? Just to remind people not to use DRM, or something else?
It was despicable but it was just one division (a joint venture at that) and it was 7 years ago so I think it is time to move on.
I'm not going to "move on" when they still have the same exact attitude: harm your customers (with DRM) to stop the big evil pirates. I'm tired of collective punishment. One recent and obvious example of this mentality is the removal of OtherOS (some people like to justify it by saying that harming only a few of your customers somehow makes it okay). Another is the planned DRM for PS4.
No, they haven't changed. At all. They had no reason to.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you're only saying this shit because it's not your ass on the line.
Why I'm saying it is irrelevant to whether or not I'm correct.
If they ignore the threat even once and someone gets so much as a third degree burn from a firecracker that goes off then someone's going to eat a big shit sandwich over a criminal negligence suit.
You seem to be putting words into my mouth. Not once did I say that they wouldn't get in trouble. I was arguing against the mentality that it's wrong not to respond to every threat.
common sense
Means nothing, and varies from person to person. It might be "common sense" that the world is flat. The fact that you claim something is "common sense" doesn't make it common, obvious, or correct.
I'm finding more and more fucktards like you daily
That's interesting, because some support the TSA because they think we need to be protected from highly unlikely threats at the cost of some of our rights and immense amounts of money (putting aside the fact that we have other protections against said threats).
and it's unbelievable how often you fucks try to pass the buck when you're fucked up attitudes cause damage.
It's not them that causes the damage. It's simply unrealistic to expect there to never be casualties. I said it before: I will not live in fear or advocate that people waste time, money, and resources trying to prevent something that has a minuscule chance of happening.
"How likely is it that they'll carry out the threat? How many resources would it waste for us to act? How many people would it kill? Does our proposed solution violate anyone's rights?"
Why are these not good questions to ask? It's possible that aliens might swoop down, invade a city, and kill everyone, but that doesn't mean we should act upon that. Why? To our knowledge, it's highly unlikely and would consume lots of time, resources, and money, and that's exactly what I mean.
Yes, but we employ general screening to keep that from happening.
What screening? If you meant general screening that affects no one, then I don't think it's too horrible. If you mean the TSA, then they can just fuck off.
The problem you don't seem to appreciate is that you assume that they're making up stories
No, I'm not assuming anything. I thought I said it very clearly: some casualties are inevitable. I shouldn't have to live in fear or have the government violate my rights to "protect" me merely because there is a minuscule chance that someone could kill me or others.
but you don't know that until after the fact at which point we might as well not even have a bombsquad
A bomb squad allowed to operate everywhere is quite different than a single place reacting to every unlikely threat.
As I said previously: "'How likely is it that they'll carry out the threat? How many resources would it waste for us to act? How many people would it kill? Does our proposed solution violate anyone's rights?' If it's extremely unlikely and it costs a lot of resources to take preventative action, then perhaps it's not worth it. If your solution violates people's rights, then acting is simply out of the question (note: not relevant in this case)."
Otherwise we end up reacting to threats that are horribly unlikely merely because of appeals to emotion and illogical ideals that say that no one should ever die, no matter the cost.
If, in a certain country, it is extremely unlikely that there are bombings, then perhaps the size of the bomb squads should reflect that (there won't be many of them).
Oh, I never said I expected everyone to be logical about this issue.
"I'm going to murder your children while you sleep tonight"
Not even comparable. Doing something about that doesn't waste other people's time, money, or resources. It also doesn't violate anyone's rights (unlike, for instance, the TSA). It's your own personal choice.
If you chose the former, you're a liar
You don't know him. Stop pretending to be able to read minds.
In any case, I think some casualties are a fact of life. I think a few questions should be asked before deciding to do something about the threat: "How likely is it that they'll carry out the threat? How many resources would it waste for us to act? How many people would it kill? Does our proposed solution violate anyone's rights?" If it's extremely unlikely and it costs a lot of resources to take preventative action, then perhaps it's not worth it. If your solution violates people's rights, then acting is simply out of the question (note: not relevant in this case).
Yeah, but it gets kind of ridiculous when you're blaming people who don't react to every lie in an utmost serious manner. I could get into a car accident or the plane I'm riding on could be blown up by terrorists. It's unlikely, but it could happen. I'm still going to ride cars and planes.
The problem, I think, is that some people have this "no casualties are acceptable" mentality. Now, this would be fine if their solutions didn't waste time, money, or violate people's rights, but they do. "How likely is it?" should be the question on people's minds..
Consider this: sometimes there are casualties. That's a fact of life. If something is highly unlikely, then it can probably be safely ignored.
And then they are surprised when privacy violations occur.
But here's the funny part: they're not always surprised or even outraged. Especially when everyone's privacy is being violated "to stop the terrorists" or "for the children." In those cases, some even cheer the privacy violations on!
And how are we going to do that? I've come across countless people who basically say, "If you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?" They trust the government unconditionally as long as they claim to be protecting them from the terrorists or if they claim to be protecting "the children." They're completely ignorant (perhaps willfully) of history and its long line of horribly, evil, and corrupt governments. Can we really convince them?
common sense
Means nothing and differs from person to person. "Common sense" could say that the Earth is flat. Labeling something as "common sense" doesn't make it common or correct.
Egging a person on to their demise isn't satire or humorous.
It isn't humorous? That's your opinion.
I just don't like the mentality that says we shouldn't ever joke around or make comments that aren't serious because some person that needs help might kill themselves. I'd prefer not to take everything seriously. Especially when I can't see the person, don't know who they are, and don't know whether they're joking or know that I'm joking. This is the problem: some people expect others not to do something merely because it has a slim chance to result in harming someone (actually, it would just result in them harming themselves). I just don't agree with that.
child pornography groups
Now, for one thing, they were groups of people who looked lustfully at pictures of children. Mostly clothed. Why should I care? I'm not a fan of thought crime, and in the interests of preserving my speech, as well as other people's, I would very much like people to defend people's rights even if they find it "disgusting." Of course, this was but a single website, so it has nothing to do with government restricting rights.
groups posting pictures of dead children
Yet again, why should I care? They look at pictures of dead children, and what happens? To my knowledge, absolutely nothing.
You know, what is "funny" is subjective. As in, what one person finds funny another may not.
non-sociopathic
aspie
More armchair psychology from a Slashdotter...
Where a normal
Careful, there. This word means nothing in this context. It certainly doesn't add to the discussion.
They still allow subreddits about disgusting material
Perhaps they just have a different definition of "disgusting" than you. This isn't a black and white issue.
Read the comments on there and you'll regularly find people defending the indefensible
To my knowledge, nothing is "indefensible." It's a matter of perspective.
the bullying
It could've been a joke, the person may have been joking/crying for attention, they had no way of knowing, etc. If you're suggesting that people take everything seriously, then I can pretty much guarantee that will never happen. As I said, if this person did indeed kill themselves because of a few comments on a website that they could simply ignore/leave, then they were doomed to begin with. This isn't like someone constantly being bullied in real life at all (and I already explained why).
You only responded to a few of my points.
Directly killing someone is not the same as saying something, them getting offended, and then them killing themselves. All of what you replied to, plus the fact that they killed themselves, makes me think that this is ridiculous. Unless you want to argue that saying something to someone is the same thing as shooting them, of course. Or maybe you want to argue that jokes should never be made because someone might take it seriously. If that's the case, it boils down to, "X should be illegal because someone might get hurt." But then you're banning things based on the fact that someone may potentially get hurt, and I'll have no part in that.
"it's different because it's online"
It's not different because it's online. It's different because you have no idea who they are, if they're serious, or if they'll be able to understand a joke. If you can push them over the edge that easily, chances are they were doomed to begin with. Especially if they did it from a few comments on a website that they could just leave/ignore.
I shouldn't have to specify that everything that I say is a joke merely because some person could get offended/take me seriously and kill themselves. Screw this "X is bad because there's a minuscule chance that it could hurt someone" mentality.
No jokes allowed on the internet, then! We must take everything 100% seriously. Otherwise, some mentally damaged person may kill themselves!
Seriously, we have enough of that already (jokes being blown out of proportion). Let's not make it worse.
How could you know they're serious? How could you know if they will think you're serious? What if it was a joke and they took it seriously? You don't even know who they are or how old they are.
Finally, since it was suicide, how is that anyone's fault but their own? Random strangers on the internet shouldn't be able to drive someone to suicide by posting a few comments on a website that the other person could simply leave/ignore. If they can, then they were doomed to begin with.
think it will make for a safer society.
It will just make for a better blame game society. We have enough of that already.
Maybe then people will wake up to how absurd the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude is when they learn just how important encryption can be.
Oh, who am I kidding?
I heard that origin was an order of magnitude worse than Steam. And I highly doubt it's anywhere on the level of Sony's rootkit, as he implied it was (I know you didn't say it was).
One thing I don't understand, though, is why Steam isn't just a platform for selling games. Kind of like Good Old Games. They sell you the game, and after that, it's completely yours. No DRM, and the games wouldn't be tied to Steam. Although, you could still have the option of tying it to Steam (not sure if that would have any benefits, though, so I don't know if that would be useful).
But you just called it intolerance yourself!
It's still stupid to be racist.
Absolutely everything is racist. Even people who don't actually hate [INSERT RACE HERE] are racist. Their thoughts are not their own, you see.
The DMCA is an awful piece of legislation, anyway. Too often has it been abused. It encourages the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that we've seen so much of. Great if you don't care about collateral damage! Awful otherwise.
And what about fake DMCA notices? Should those users be "policed," too?
Some people seem to. It doesn't in 99% of cases.
But you know what? I don't care if it does or doesn't. I believe it's wrong to hurt your customers trying to hurt pirates. It makes me wonder how anyone can defend this practice.
A lot of them are flat out sociopaths.
An armchair psychologist says it, so it must be true. If it's that easy to be diagnosed as a sociopath, then perhaps that's what 99% of humans are. "Oh, you have a different sense of humour than me? Sociopath."
Play "Steam" much?
No. But Steam is as bad as a rootkit? What makes it as bad (I don't use it)?
Origin is simply garbage (like all DRM). I specifically try to avoid any products with DRM. I also don't see how you got the idea that the person you replied to uses any of the things you mentioned.
Was Sony right in what it did? No
What was the point of the rest of your comment if you acknowledge that the actions of other companies don't make what Sony did okay? Just to remind people not to use DRM, or something else?
It was despicable but it was just one division (a joint venture at that) and it was 7 years ago so I think it is time to move on.
I'm not going to "move on" when they still have the same exact attitude: harm your customers (with DRM) to stop the big evil pirates. I'm tired of collective punishment. One recent and obvious example of this mentality is the removal of OtherOS (some people like to justify it by saying that harming only a few of your customers somehow makes it okay). Another is the planned DRM for PS4.
No, they haven't changed. At all. They had no reason to.