I was responding to the summary. The summary did not provide the context you describe. I understand that things may not seem funny to you, as you apparently need them explained to you in excruciating detail. Thank you for playing, though, and have a nice day.
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
So? WebMD makes money advertising, too. It isn't the advertising model that piratebay exists to circumvent, so why does it matter? Plenty of web sites make money advertising while distributing things over the 'net.
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
So that one website is bad. Hardly an indictment of 'music-swapping' in general.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Not relevant to file sharing either.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
So what? Music companies don't care if the people that buy their music actually like it. What does that have to do with anything?
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
They weren't doing much of this before the advent of file sharing, not to mention that reduced revenues have not been proven to be caused entirely by file-sharing, anyway.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
So this seems to be an argument against ISPs, not file-sharers.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Lots of movements fit that description. Let's get rid of all of them!
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Poverty as a cause of file-sharing is not germane to a discussion of whether file-sharing is bad, and regardless of who brought it up it's a red herring. Theft is not caused by poverty either, and we still think it's bad. Charity isn't caused by poverty, and we think it's good.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
I don't believe you. Many people may *think* it's wrong, but from all the discussions here and elsewhere, it is not a general consensus and pretending it is is trying to steal points.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
And, by the gerrymandering of this question, p2p networks are the only source of free music. Besides which, in my own experience, this is simply not true. You can find a ton of indy and unknown bands on p2p networks...just not if you're searching for the latest britney aguilerra track.
Whatever. You chose the example. I don't think it's so wrong of me to expect that an example YOU GAVE as something YOU WOULD SAY would be something like what you'd actually say. If you didn't want the example you gave to be taken as an example...you could have simply said 'Why not talk to your children about it?' But you did not. So I responded. How horrible of me.
You are telling them that things are offensive because you learned that they were. In some cases, learned behaviour is helpful. For example, it's good to learn what is safe to eat and what isn't (although most parents don't teach that). Yet more emphasis seems to be placed on what one should and should not say, simply because of the offense others may or may not take. That isn't learned behaviour that actively benefits anyone.
"Here's a better idea. Parent: "Little Bobby, that show/movie/whatever is inappropriate, let's watch this instead." Then change the channel."
Agree totally here. No arguments with this. Parent decides what is appropriate and what is not. This is fine.
THEN...you said this:
"Parent: "Little Bobby, I know they say those words on TV but those are actual bad things to say and some people find them very offensive. You shouldn't say those words.""
You're right about it being dumbed down, but I'm not sure where the internal dialogue is that's missing. You pretty clearly state that "those word" are bad while the inference is that they are bad because they offend people. If you didn't want to have it read this way, you shouldn't have written it that way. Sideways slaps at my intelligence will be shrugged off as you trying to avoid answering the point.
Okay. I'll accept what you're saying as true. Now, remind me where you're posting. Why the fuck would I reject what "Slashdot nerds" care about in favor of what "normal people" care about? Does that actually make any sense at all to you?
That's what I normally do when my peripherals break. I suppose you could learn how to fix an optical mouse or something, but really it seems like it would usually be more cost-efficient to just buy a new one.
Okay...that's what I thought. Now, I'm exposing my ignorance here, but why is a proprietary version of FreeBSD so much better than Linux? Are there things you can do with FreeBSD that you can't do with Linux? Is it just a question of how easy it is to do certain things? I have run FreeBSD (long ago) and Linux (up to slackware 9.0) but I never noticed any major dealbreaking differences. I don't know if that's because there weren't any or whether I just didn't pick up on them.
Yes, let's all teach our children that anything which might 'offend' anyone should be completely avoided. Let's not bother with examining WHY some people are offended by some things and whether it should even matter if someone else if offended by something. Hey, lemme see if I can work this to my advantage: It grievously offends me that people don't send me free money. So, you should send me free money to avoid offending me. After all, it's written right there in the Constitution in the 39th Amendment: We believe that all citizens have the inalienable right to freedom from offense. Right? Right?
You're right. We might all start thinking that it's okay to do cocaine and drive drunk and shoot people in the face. Hey, at least our President and Vice President are good examples for our children, as befits the leaders of our great nation.
Oh, right. Nonvoluntary Noninteractive Copulative Treatment. I forgot about that! It goes along with Discomfort Creation for Informational Access Initiatives and Voluntary Mandatory Regulatory Compliance.
Isn't OSx just a window manager for freebsd? Shouldn't you be saying 'Linux is NOT and will NEVER be a replacement for FreeBSD'? I'd say, "Correct me if I'm wrong," but there's hardly any need for that invitation here on/., is there?
You should learn to read. Failing that, you should learn to think. You're the one that made up the 'conspiracy' theory. I'm just saying that it makes more business sense to charge someone a lot of money every year to treat something than it does to sell them a one-time cure. Do you not agree with this statement? If not, please tell me why. Otherwise, shut your ignorant, conclusion-jumping, superior attitude-spewing cockhole.
Well, there's a lot more money to be made in 'treatment programs' than 'cures' anyway. Not that I'm saying all doctors are bad people or anything. However, look at the cost of one AIDS patient's 'treatment plan' for one year. Over $180k. They could NEVER get away with charging $180k for a cure...and you don't have to take a cure for 4-5 years, the average amount of time someone is on an AIDS treatment plan. I can't say for sure that pharmacos don't really WANT a cure....but the lack of one and the presence of a 'treatment' DOES happen to make them a HUGE amount of cash. Then again, so does aspirin, which is made from materials costing about $.50/1000 finished tablets. Then, we pay $7 for 80 of those tablets. Any way you slice it, pharmaceuticals is the business to be in.
Or, we could just air-drop a ton of copies of 'Dianetics' on them. That way, whenever they have any questions, one can turn to the other and say, "It's in the book!"
You're probably correct, but I see that as a negative thing. When people stop using the common, agreed-upon meanings for words and phrases, they might be understandable for now. However, over time, it becomes more difficult to communicate because different people will use different words to mean different things. Eventually, this can lead to situations where many or most people can't understand what is being said. That's what I'm trying to avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
I was responding to the summary. The summary did not provide the context you describe. I understand that things may not seem funny to you, as you apparently need them explained to you in excruciating detail. Thank you for playing, though, and have a nice day.
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
So? WebMD makes money advertising, too. It isn't the advertising model that piratebay exists to circumvent, so why does it matter? Plenty of web sites make money advertising while distributing things over the 'net.
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
So that one website is bad. Hardly an indictment of 'music-swapping' in general.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Not relevant to file sharing either.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
So what? Music companies don't care if the people that buy their music actually like it. What does that have to do with anything?
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
They weren't doing much of this before the advent of file sharing, not to mention that reduced revenues have not been proven to be caused entirely by file-sharing, anyway.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
So this seems to be an argument against ISPs, not file-sharers.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Lots of movements fit that description. Let's get rid of all of them!
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Poverty as a cause of file-sharing is not germane to a discussion of whether file-sharing is bad, and regardless of who brought it up it's a red herring. Theft is not caused by poverty either, and we still think it's bad. Charity isn't caused by poverty, and we think it's good.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
I don't believe you. Many people may *think* it's wrong, but from all the discussions here and elsewhere, it is not a general consensus and pretending it is is trying to steal points.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
And, by the gerrymandering of this question, p2p networks are the only source of free music. Besides which, in my own experience, this is simply not true. You can find a ton of indy and unknown bands on p2p networks...just not if you're searching for the latest britney aguilerra track.
Whatever. You chose the example. I don't think it's so wrong of me to expect that an example YOU GAVE as something YOU WOULD SAY would be something like what you'd actually say. If you didn't want the example you gave to be taken as an example...you could have simply said 'Why not talk to your children about it?'
But you did not.
So I responded.
How horrible of me.
You don't have the right to not be offended by people claiming to be offended.
Why not? Apparently they have the right to control MY behaviour by what offends THEM. Why can't it work the other way 'round?
And you don't have the right to censor people who want the government to censor.
Stopping someone from censoring me is not censoring them. You do not win teh prize.
That wasn't the reference given. I was playing on the dual meaning of 'non-working', since no particular meaning was specified. Thanks, though.
So why should I change my frame of reference? I'm not here to give the opinions that I think 'normal people' would give. Are you?
You are telling them that things are offensive because you learned that they were. In some cases, learned behaviour is helpful. For example, it's good to learn what is safe to eat and what isn't (although most parents don't teach that). Yet more emphasis seems to be placed on what one should and should not say, simply because of the offense others may or may not take. That isn't learned behaviour that actively benefits anyone.
Here is what you posted:
"Here's a better idea.
Parent: "Little Bobby, that show/movie/whatever is inappropriate, let's watch this instead." Then change the channel."
Agree totally here. No arguments with this. Parent decides what is appropriate and what is not. This is fine.
THEN...you said this:
"Parent: "Little Bobby, I know they say those words on TV but those are actual bad things to say and some people find them very offensive. You shouldn't say those words.""
You're right about it being dumbed down, but I'm not sure where the internal dialogue is that's missing. You pretty clearly state that "those word" are bad while the inference is that they are bad because they offend people. If you didn't want to have it read this way, you shouldn't have written it that way. Sideways slaps at my intelligence will be shrugged off as you trying to avoid answering the point.
Okay. I'll accept what you're saying as true. Now, remind me where you're posting. Why the fuck would I reject what "Slashdot nerds" care about in favor of what "normal people" care about? Does that actually make any sense at all to you?
I'm sorry, did you say something? I wasn't listening.
Peripherals don't work? Buy replacements.
That's what I normally do when my peripherals break. I suppose you could learn how to fix an optical mouse or something, but really it seems like it would usually be more cost-efficient to just buy a new one.
Okay...that's what I thought. Now, I'm exposing my ignorance here, but why is a proprietary version of FreeBSD so much better than Linux? Are there things you can do with FreeBSD that you can't do with Linux? Is it just a question of how easy it is to do certain things? I have run FreeBSD (long ago) and Linux (up to slackware 9.0) but I never noticed any major dealbreaking differences. I don't know if that's because there weren't any or whether I just didn't pick up on them.
Yes, let's all teach our children that anything which might 'offend' anyone should be completely avoided. Let's not bother with examining WHY some people are offended by some things and whether it should even matter if someone else if offended by something. Hey, lemme see if I can work this to my advantage: It grievously offends me that people don't send me free money. So, you should send me free money to avoid offending me. After all, it's written right there in the Constitution in the 39th Amendment: We believe that all citizens have the inalienable right to freedom from offense. Right? Right?
Generalizations are always wrong. Never use absolutes.
You're right. We might all start thinking that it's okay to do cocaine and drive drunk and shoot people in the face. Hey, at least our President and Vice President are good examples for our children, as befits the leaders of our great nation.
Oh, right. Nonvoluntary Noninteractive Copulative Treatment. I forgot about that! It goes along with Discomfort Creation for Informational Access Initiatives and Voluntary Mandatory Regulatory Compliance.
Isn't OSx just a window manager for freebsd? Shouldn't you be saying 'Linux is NOT and will NEVER be a replacement for FreeBSD'? /., is there?
I'd say, "Correct me if I'm wrong," but there's hardly any need for that invitation here on
CAN? Hell, isn't that one of the planks of the platform?
Hi, I'm a signature virus. Copy my to your ~/.signature to help me spread.
Oh, crap! The virus is mutating!
Well, it just goes to show you - people shouldn't create viruses they can't kill. (cue the next round of flames)
Happens to me all the time. My sense of humor is only a general sense.
You should learn to read. Failing that, you should learn to think. You're the one that made up the 'conspiracy' theory. I'm just saying that it makes more business sense to charge someone a lot of money every year to treat something than it does to sell them a one-time cure. Do you not agree with this statement? If not, please tell me why. Otherwise, shut your ignorant, conclusion-jumping, superior attitude-spewing cockhole.
Well, there's a lot more money to be made in 'treatment programs' than 'cures' anyway. Not that I'm saying all doctors are bad people or anything. However, look at the cost of one AIDS patient's 'treatment plan' for one year. Over $180k. They could NEVER get away with charging $180k for a cure...and you don't have to take a cure for 4-5 years, the average amount of time someone is on an AIDS treatment plan. I can't say for sure that pharmacos don't really WANT a cure....but the lack of one and the presence of a 'treatment' DOES happen to make them a HUGE amount of cash. Then again, so does aspirin, which is made from materials costing about $.50/1000 finished tablets. Then, we pay $7 for 80 of those tablets. Any way you slice it, pharmaceuticals is the business to be in.
Or, we could just air-drop a ton of copies of 'Dianetics' on them. That way, whenever they have any questions, one can turn to the other and say, "It's in the book!"
You're probably correct, but I see that as a negative thing. When people stop using the common, agreed-upon meanings for words and phrases, they might be understandable for now. However, over time, it becomes more difficult to communicate because different people will use different words to mean different things. Eventually, this can lead to situations where many or most people can't understand what is being said. That's what I'm trying to avoid.