I don't care what the vast majority of you imbeciles care about. I care about morality and being able to control what I own (and being able to own things, of course).
f this were some public debate where form trumped substance, I'd agree. But what we're talking about here is a question that every person, including you and me, must decide for himself.
Nope. This is a question on whether or not people who believe in irrational nonsense are themselves irrational. They have no valid reason to believe what they do. No one is saying they can't believe it, but they are irrational for doing so.
Believing in the idea of a generic god is actually less irrational (though still irrational) than believing in a specific religion like Christianity, which claims all sorts of nonsense is true, and describes things that can easily be proven false to a sufficient degree.
There's a lot of good literature on the relationship between the scientific method and supposed miracles.
There's a lot of good literature on the relationship between the scientific method and the omnipotent flying spaghetti monster. Read up.
I think your position might at least be a bit more nuanced if you get to know some real, intelligent Christians, and to find out why they believe what they do.
I've argued with many, many religious people; some 'extremists,' and some 'moderates.' Since I believe that believing in a god is irrational, they're all irrational to me. They tend to be unintelligent as well, but that's not necessarily always true. However, it seems to be true far more often than not.
In fact, the "moderate" feel-good Christians annoy me even more, because anything that's blatantly scientifically inaccurate in the bible is said to be "metaphorical." Anything they like has truth to it, but anything they don't must not be literal. It can't be that the book is a crock of shit; no. Interesting how, as time goes on, more and more of the bible becomes "metaphorical." Hm...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because authority figures never do anything wrong. Like the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, free speech zones, unfettered border searches...
You don't actually think we have a functional justice system, do you? In some cases, it shows itself to be outright fucking broken, like the "Witch Hunt" documentary shows.
Since digital restrictions management is a way for other people to control our computing, even a small amount of overhead is unacceptable, since DRM itself is unacceptable.
For example, since we don't have a time machine, none of us can go and see whether or not someone named Jesus really was crucified, and really was alive three days later.
The burden of proof is on them. I can come with any insane story that no one has any hope of 100% disproving, but I would rightfully be laughed at and told to present actual evidence that it's true. The fact is, our current scientific understanding of the universe tells us that it is not possible for someone to magically come back to life in the way that this Jesus fellow supposedly did, and since there's no real evidence of it happening, and science has a pretty damn good track record when it comes to getting us closer to the truth and understanding the universe around us (unlike religion), I'll have to side with science and logic.
You may have also noticed that all of us, atheists not excepted, sometimes make mistakes in our reasoning.
You don't have to be perfect. You just have to not believe in something that's completely fucking insane.
It shows how this shitty ruling could easily be abused in such a way that people's freedoms end up violated. This ruling is unacceptable, because it sets a very low bar before someone's freedoms can be violated.
If always following the rules means you're mature, then anyone with brains or principles shouldn't want to be mature.
Get real, DRM is completely tolerable - the numbers and money speak for themselves - you're just ignorant or senile.
DRM is intolerable *to anyone with a brain*. Appealing to popularity will not save you. Most gamers are unprincipled little wimps who will take any abuse these scumbag corporations, who think of them all as 'pirates', throw forth, simply because they want their precious "entertainment." They've never once known what it's like to have principles.
Digital restrictions management is disgusting and tries to take control of your computing from you, which is absolutely intolerable to those with brains and principles. If you say otherwise, you're admitting that you lack some very important things.
How do you suggest these Bioware stop everyone just downloading their game?
It is unjustifiable to unleash DRM against people just to stop the copyright infringement bogeyman. Furthermore, how does GoG do it? They don't. They don't treat their potential customers like scum and trust them to buy the games. DRM almost always fails to stop anyone but normal people, anyway, and when it doesn't, it's so horribly draconian (e.g. Diablo 3) that the game is worthless.
Because although a lot of/.ers complain about DRM and wanting everything to be free, these games actually cost A LOT of money to make. You can't hate a company for at least trying to break even.
Incorrect. I can hate a company for trying to make money through immoral means. Digital restrictions management, that which attempts to take control of your computing from you, is immoral.
It's hard to believe so many pieces of ignorant trash are still around. How is it that there are still fools like you repeating myths about DRM that were repeated so many times in the past, and subsequently debunked?
Absolutist statements like yours sound all well and good
And in this case, it is all well and good. If you accept scumbag companies using digital restrictions management against you in an effort to control you, then you're a fool.
but it's a system that games manufacturers have developed in response to the evolutionary pressure of internet piracy.
Even if that were true, that does not justify it. Furthermore, it's more about control than it is about 'piracy' (a mere propaganda term).
Until you provide a sufficient counterpressure it will continue to be their optimal strategy so I'd rather hear solutions than soundbytes if that's okay with you.
Or maybe you just have a pack rat obsession with owning things while the rest of us as just looking to get some entertainment.
Or maybe you're just completely lacking principles. I can't imagine why anyone would enjoy not being able to have full control of the computer they bought, and even enjoy having scumbag companies using digital restrictions management to take further control away from them. They'll basically saying that everyone is a 'pirate,' and people should be opposed to such things on principle.
Might does not make right. Popularity does not make right, either. The majority has supported nonsense on a number of occasions throughout history.
If your only argument is that I'm not in the majority, then you might as well just not bother posting, because I simply don't care. I will not deal with it; I'm going to continue writing letters to my supposed representatives and urging people to oppose this nonsense.
I'd also like proof that I'm not in the majority. The United States has a two party system, which causes many people to vote for "the lesser of two evils." This means that both parties can fuck us over with impunity, and people will still vote for candidates that have many policies they don't like simply because they believe them to be better than the alternatives, not because they agree with everything their chosen candidate advocates. Therefore, your insinuation that because something is against the law, the majority must support it, is blatantly ridiculous.
If I state that you cannot enter my house or business unless you allow me to search you first, then you either allow the search or you stay out. It's your choice and no rights are being violated.
And if you're the government, then rights *would* be violated. See the difference? It has to do with who's doing it.
But hey, let's just have the government molest people who want to get on trains, buses, or boats. Let's expand the TSA, since that's what they want, anyway. That would be okay, since people could just choose not to use planes, trains, buses, or boats. The availability of 'choice' ("choice" meaning that the government creates a law that says that either you have to let government thugs molest people who want to go about their business, or you have to hire your own thugs to do the same thing) means that it is absolutely okay for government thugs to violate constitutional and individual rights.
What's with all you authoritarian AC assholes, anyway?
When you enter a courthouse, you are required to run your possessions through an x-ray machine and pass through a metal detector. Do you whine about that too?
Absolutely.
Lawful != immoral too.
Obviously. Don't be a dumb shit. You feel the need to point out that it's lawful so often that it seems as if you think it matters to me.
That's because I would actually be in a private location. When in public, I have no expectation of privacy and I accept that.
Once again, you're ignoring everything that has been said up to this point and going back to your original, pointless statements that I've already responded to.
I don't and will never accept mass government surveillance, in public or otherwise.
The TSA operates within private boundaries. They can have whatever rules they want.
Fucking bullshit. The TSA is a government agency. Just because it operates within "private boundaries" doesn't mean government thugs can violate people's constitutional rights, or are moral in doing so. It's people like you that we have to thank for the erosion of our individual liberties; I'm sick of you fools.
Ever hear of "No shoes, no shirt, no service"?
Ever heard of the constitution? Obviously not.
NSA surveillance is a completely different issue. They are under scrutiny for spying on peoples' private lives, not recording lawfully in public.
Lawful != moral.
If this experiment had involved flying drones up to windows or using x-rays to spy inside of houses, I would then have a problem with it.
Of course, because then the privacy you care about would be violated; that's what counts.
It doesn't matter if they don't like it. So long as it's legal, they can't do anything about it.
Just like the NSA surveillance doesn't exist? Just like the TSA, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, etc. don't exist? The government doesn't have to follow the laws, and especially when they're allowed to act in secret. They have enough resources to cover everything up, harass people, and ruin reputations. An example of this would be the surveillance of MLK, which was targeted. Only, this sort of technology would expand the scope of it and give them more power.
Your argument makes as much sense as banning guns and knives because they have been used to commit murders.
My argument makes as much sense as banning the act of murdering innocent people. I am suggesting a specific limitation on a specific actor that will curb abusive acts carried out with technology.
Doctored footage is easy to spot and *they* would then be breaking the law.
Under current laws, you mean. And it doesn't have to perfect in order to ruin reputations.
You do something the government doesn't like, and they'll use their ubiquitous surveillance to track everything you do in public places (If this trend continues, they'll have surveillance devices everywhere.). If you make even the slightest mistake, they'll have cause to harass you or ruin your reputation. And remember that laws don't have to be just, so even if the 'mistake' is illegal, that doesn't mean what you did is immoral.
Doctoring the footage could prove to be another problem. It certainly wouldn't be beyond our sneaky, slimy government.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care what the vast majority of you imbeciles care about. I care about morality and being able to control what I own (and being able to own things, of course).
f this were some public debate where form trumped substance, I'd agree. But what we're talking about here is a question that every person, including you and me, must decide for himself.
Nope. This is a question on whether or not people who believe in irrational nonsense are themselves irrational. They have no valid reason to believe what they do. No one is saying they can't believe it, but they are irrational for doing so.
Believing in the idea of a generic god is actually less irrational (though still irrational) than believing in a specific religion like Christianity, which claims all sorts of nonsense is true, and describes things that can easily be proven false to a sufficient degree.
There's a lot of good literature on the relationship between the scientific method and supposed miracles.
There's a lot of good literature on the relationship between the scientific method and the omnipotent flying spaghetti monster. Read up.
I think your position might at least be a bit more nuanced if you get to know some real, intelligent Christians, and to find out why they believe what they do.
I've argued with many, many religious people; some 'extremists,' and some 'moderates.' Since I believe that believing in a god is irrational, they're all irrational to me. They tend to be unintelligent as well, but that's not necessarily always true. However, it seems to be true far more often than not.
In fact, the "moderate" feel-good Christians annoy me even more, because anything that's blatantly scientifically inaccurate in the bible is said to be "metaphorical." Anything they like has truth to it, but anything they don't must not be literal. It can't be that the book is a crock of shit; no. Interesting how, as time goes on, more and more of the bible becomes "metaphorical." Hm...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because authority figures never do anything wrong. Like the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, free speech zones, unfettered border searches...
You don't actually think we have a functional justice system, do you? In some cases, it shows itself to be outright fucking broken, like the "Witch Hunt" documentary shows.
Since digital restrictions management is a way for other people to control our computing, even a small amount of overhead is unacceptable, since DRM itself is unacceptable.
I don't use those things.
For example, since we don't have a time machine, none of us can go and see whether or not someone named Jesus really was crucified, and really was alive three days later.
The burden of proof is on them. I can come with any insane story that no one has any hope of 100% disproving, but I would rightfully be laughed at and told to present actual evidence that it's true. The fact is, our current scientific understanding of the universe tells us that it is not possible for someone to magically come back to life in the way that this Jesus fellow supposedly did, and since there's no real evidence of it happening, and science has a pretty damn good track record when it comes to getting us closer to the truth and understanding the universe around us (unlike religion), I'll have to side with science and logic.
You may have also noticed that all of us, atheists not excepted, sometimes make mistakes in our reasoning.
You don't have to be perfect. You just have to not believe in something that's completely fucking insane.
Bigot. There's no difference between silly groups that choose to believe that 1 + 1 = 3 and not others.
But there are some evidences and arguments that many intelligent people judge to be persuasive.
Then those so-called "intelligent people" are irrational.
It shows how this shitty ruling could easily be abused in such a way that people's freedoms end up violated. This ruling is unacceptable, because it sets a very low bar before someone's freedoms can be violated.
If always following the rules means you're mature, then anyone with brains or principles shouldn't want to be mature.
Get real, DRM is completely tolerable - the numbers and money speak for themselves - you're just ignorant or senile.
DRM is intolerable *to anyone with a brain*. Appealing to popularity will not save you. Most gamers are unprincipled little wimps who will take any abuse these scumbag corporations, who think of them all as 'pirates', throw forth, simply because they want their precious "entertainment." They've never once known what it's like to have principles.
Digital restrictions management is disgusting and tries to take control of your computing from you, which is absolutely intolerable to those with brains and principles. If you say otherwise, you're admitting that you lack some very important things.
How do you suggest these Bioware stop everyone just downloading their game?
It is unjustifiable to unleash DRM against people just to stop the copyright infringement bogeyman. Furthermore, how does GoG do it? They don't. They don't treat their potential customers like scum and trust them to buy the games. DRM almost always fails to stop anyone but normal people, anyway, and when it doesn't, it's so horribly draconian (e.g. Diablo 3) that the game is worthless.
Because although a lot of /.ers complain about DRM and wanting everything to be free, these games actually cost A LOT of money to make. You can't hate a company for at least trying to break even.
Incorrect. I can hate a company for trying to make money through immoral means. Digital restrictions management, that which attempts to take control of your computing from you, is immoral.
It's hard to believe so many pieces of ignorant trash are still around. How is it that there are still fools like you repeating myths about DRM that were repeated so many times in the past, and subsequently debunked?
Yes, I still play very old games on old equipment. Some of us do care about things like ownership and control.
It's a popular opinion, but I have always failed to see why.
Because it is attempt by scumbag companies to control your computing.
As a legal gamer who pay for my games I experience no problems with services like Steam whatsoever.
You seem to be presuming that DRM only affects people who don't get the game from authorized channels, but even Steam sometimes affects 'innocents.'
But that's besides the point. I'm someone who wants full control over my computer, so of course DRM is going to be intolerable to me.
I never have to worry about keeping/maintaining physical discs for later install, no worries about media format changing or anything like that.
Guess what? Services like GoG exist, and they don't use DRM.
Steam games don't always use DRM, though, but since it supports a DRM scheme (Steamworks, I think it's called), I cannot support that company.
I forgo many convenient things simply because I stick by my principles.
Absolutist statements like yours sound all well and good
And in this case, it is all well and good. If you accept scumbag companies using digital restrictions management against you in an effort to control you, then you're a fool.
but it's a system that games manufacturers have developed in response to the evolutionary pressure of internet piracy.
Even if that were true, that does not justify it. Furthermore, it's more about control than it is about 'piracy' (a mere propaganda term).
Until you provide a sufficient counterpressure it will continue to be their optimal strategy so I'd rather hear solutions than soundbytes if that's okay with you.
Solution: Don't use DRM.
Or maybe you just have a pack rat obsession with owning things while the rest of us as just looking to get some entertainment.
Or maybe you're just completely lacking principles. I can't imagine why anyone would enjoy not being able to have full control of the computer they bought, and even enjoy having scumbag companies using digital restrictions management to take further control away from them. They'll basically saying that everyone is a 'pirate,' and people should be opposed to such things on principle.
Because it's an attempt to control what I do on my own computer, which is intolerable. Anyone who says otherwise needs to get some principles.
Those people are lacking principles. DRM is intolerable to anyone with a brain.
Might does not make right. Popularity does not make right, either. The majority has supported nonsense on a number of occasions throughout history.
If your only argument is that I'm not in the majority, then you might as well just not bother posting, because I simply don't care. I will not deal with it; I'm going to continue writing letters to my supposed representatives and urging people to oppose this nonsense.
I'd also like proof that I'm not in the majority. The United States has a two party system, which causes many people to vote for "the lesser of two evils." This means that both parties can fuck us over with impunity, and people will still vote for candidates that have many policies they don't like simply because they believe them to be better than the alternatives, not because they agree with everything their chosen candidate advocates. Therefore, your insinuation that because something is against the law, the majority must support it, is blatantly ridiculous.
You keep trying to move goalposts because you know you have nothing and every one of your arguments have been burned to ash.
Your wording implies that I've done this multiple times, but you only cite one example that you believe qualifies. Interesting.
Remember this?
"Obviously. Don't be a dumb shit. You feel the need to point out that it's lawful so often that it seems as if you think it matters to me."
Remember that?
"Dumb shit" indeed.
Well, that's just too bad for you then.
If I state that you cannot enter my house or business unless you allow me to search you first, then you either allow the search or you stay out. It's your choice and no rights are being violated.
And if you're the government, then rights *would* be violated. See the difference? It has to do with who's doing it.
But hey, let's just have the government molest people who want to get on trains, buses, or boats. Let's expand the TSA, since that's what they want, anyway. That would be okay, since people could just choose not to use planes, trains, buses, or boats. The availability of 'choice' ("choice" meaning that the government creates a law that says that either you have to let government thugs molest people who want to go about their business, or you have to hire your own thugs to do the same thing) means that it is absolutely okay for government thugs to violate constitutional and individual rights.
What's with all you authoritarian AC assholes, anyway?
When you enter a courthouse, you are required to run your possessions through an x-ray machine and pass through a metal detector. Do you whine about that too?
Absolutely.
Lawful != immoral too.
Obviously. Don't be a dumb shit. You feel the need to point out that it's lawful so often that it seems as if you think it matters to me.
That's because I would actually be in a private location. When in public, I have no expectation of privacy and I accept that.
Once again, you're ignoring everything that has been said up to this point and going back to your original, pointless statements that I've already responded to.
I don't and will never accept mass government surveillance, in public or otherwise.
The TSA operates within private boundaries. They can have whatever rules they want.
Fucking bullshit. The TSA is a government agency. Just because it operates within "private boundaries" doesn't mean government thugs can violate people's constitutional rights, or are moral in doing so. It's people like you that we have to thank for the erosion of our individual liberties; I'm sick of you fools.
Ever hear of "No shoes, no shirt, no service"?
Ever heard of the constitution? Obviously not.
NSA surveillance is a completely different issue. They are under scrutiny for spying on peoples' private lives, not recording lawfully in public.
Lawful != moral.
If this experiment had involved flying drones up to windows or using x-rays to spy inside of houses, I would then have a problem with it.
Of course, because then the privacy you care about would be violated; that's what counts.
But ignore everything else I said.
It doesn't matter if they don't like it. So long as it's legal, they can't do anything about it.
Just like the NSA surveillance doesn't exist? Just like the TSA, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, etc. don't exist? The government doesn't have to follow the laws, and especially when they're allowed to act in secret. They have enough resources to cover everything up, harass people, and ruin reputations. An example of this would be the surveillance of MLK, which was targeted. Only, this sort of technology would expand the scope of it and give them more power.
Your argument makes as much sense as banning guns and knives because they have been used to commit murders.
My argument makes as much sense as banning the act of murdering innocent people. I am suggesting a specific limitation on a specific actor that will curb abusive acts carried out with technology.
Doctored footage is easy to spot and *they* would then be breaking the law.
Under current laws, you mean. And it doesn't have to perfect in order to ruin reputations.
You do something the government doesn't like, and they'll use their ubiquitous surveillance to track everything you do in public places (If this trend continues, they'll have surveillance devices everywhere.). If you make even the slightest mistake, they'll have cause to harass you or ruin your reputation. And remember that laws don't have to be just, so even if the 'mistake' is illegal, that doesn't mean what you did is immoral.
Doctoring the footage could prove to be another problem. It certainly wouldn't be beyond our sneaky, slimy government.
Don't know, but to most people, math seems to be nothing more than "money see, monkey do". Understanding never comes into it.
Safety is less important than freedom and the constitution.