Pete, of course. Pete knows that his actions will deny a legitimate user's use of the OS but goes ahead anyway.
If you will not change your point of view, and publicly announce it here, I'm going to pick a little old lady at random and beat her up. So you'd better hurry up and post the announcement, or you'll be responsible for elder abuse by your own logic. After all, the lady got hurt because you refused to acknowledge me being right.
Pete Pirate is responsible for his own actions - violating Microsoft's copyright - but not Microsoft's response - revoking innocent third partie's licenses. Making Pete responsible for Microsoft's response would mean that any suitably ruthless party can blackmail you by treatening third parties, since you'd be responsible for whatever they'd do in response to you defying them.
Or to put it yet another way: If you implement a way to protect your IP and some random guy steals your customer's key, does that make you responsible for your customer's inability to run the software?
Yes, of course it does. It was you who revoked the innocent user's license and disabled his software, after all. You are responsible for your own actions, no matter what your motive for them might be.
As a side note, I'm really starting to get sick of how IP has become the sacred cow it is nowadays, who's protection is justification for just about anything. Why on Earth did you think that you could simply disable someone's software and not be responsible for it just because you were "protecting your IP" ? The whole idea is absurd.
I can say something similiar: Protecting your IP may or may not be immoral, but in either case in no way makes the vendor responsible for the actions of an individual who is pirating software.
I didn't say it did. However, the vendor is responsible for his own actions, even if they were taken in response to the actions of the pirate; if the actions of the vendor end up harming innocent third parties - such as revoking their legitimate software licenses - it is the vendor, not pirate, who is at fault.
Yes, we in the third world, as the uneducated subhumans that we are
A "glass is half empty" type, I see. Try positive thinking: start referring to yourselfs as supermonkeys !-)
will look at the big tit in the ceiling, as we like to call it, turn red and dissapear, and believe that the world has come to an end, running around with our arms up in the sky.
All I see here in Finland are clouds:(.
And the Moon doesn't disappear during a lunar eclipse, it is perfectly visible, just dimmer and redder than usual. Maybe you supermonkeys have bad eyesight as well ?
Ironic would be someone who pirates windows freaking out because somebody violated the GPL. Which happens all the time here.
Perhaps you might provide links to comments made by the same user (as identified by the username or indicated by the statements in question being in the same comment) which both indicate that he has pirated Windows, and that he is "freaked out" by someone violating the GPL ?
Well, in this particular case, stealing a key so you can run an illegal copy when you know it prevents someone from running the OS they've purchased a license to is plain old fashion theft. So the typical "it doesn't deny the owner use" excuse doesn't apply.
But it doesn't deny the owner use. After all, Joe User doesn't own Windows, he merely has a revokable license to use it. If Microsoft decides to revoke that license because of something Pete Pirate did, who is at fault for Microsoft's actions - Pete or Microsoft ?
Or to put it another way: If you steal from me, and that makes me so angry that I kill a random bystander, does that make you a murderer ?
Violating software's copyright may or may not be immoral, but in either case it in no way makes the violator responsible for the actions of the party who's copyrights were violated. It is not Pete who revoked Joe's license, but Microsoft. Therefore it is Microsoft's fault that Joe is left without license, not Pete's.
Organisms just evolve, ie. they become different from their ancestors.
Actually, they don't. Species evolve. Organisms either survive and reproduce more or less well or not at all.
An organism, such as yourself, may or may not undergo personal evolution, but that has nothing to do with the kind of evolution we're talking here, and simply goes to show that it might be better to use more specific expressions than "evolve".
Though I'm not one to ignore human suffering, I don't give it the same weight when it's obviously self inflicted. San Franciscans who suffer loss in earthquakes and Floridians who get hit by hurricanes simply don't "rate" with me on the tear duct scale.
I was unaware that you can choose not to be born in San Francisco or Florida.
They knew it was coming. They ignored the probability, not possibility, of the disaster. When a Floridian says, "I couldn't get hurricane insurance and now I've lost everything," with tears in his eyes, I listen for the part where his family is alive and well, and then I simply ignore him as a fool.
Logically speaking, and discounting hyperbole in "I lost everything", someone who loses everything in a hurricane likely had no significant savings (since otherwise he would still have them). This means he's not capable of relocating, since that requires considerable financial resources. If he does manage to save some money, he likely has larger risks (fire insurance, car insurance, a newer and safer car, health insurance, etc) that should be mitigated first.
Not everyone who fails to plan for every possible disaster does so out of foolishness. Someone might well know he lives in an unsafe place, but if he doesn't have enough money to move, he can't and that's that.
World isn't just, and people who get hit with natural or any other kind of disasters usually don't deserve it, nor are they any more foolish than anyone else. They are just unlucky.
Since Intel doesn't write operating systems, they really don't care which threading model succeeds.
Except that Win32 threading model only works on X86 (since it needs Win32, which only runs on X86), while Pthreads work everywhere. Pthreads therefore mean more competition for Intel, since the program using them can be made portable.
This being Slashdot, anything that is remotely pro-Microsoft MUST be viewed with suspicion, even if the author of the article does not work for Microsoft. We can't let them Win. (No Pun Intended)
I certainly hope that someone who first claims that "Separate data types" make Pthreads superior to Win32 threads and then turns right around and claims that they in fact make Pthreads inferior to Win32 threads gets viewed with a certain amount of suspicion, on Slashdot as well as everywhere else.
Iran is very, very close to "the bomb", or may already have it. US military intelligence has the exact locations of numerous nuclear facilities, which is why the Stennis aircraft carrier group was just moved withing striking distance.
And will these weapons of mass destruction actually be found this time ? Or is this just another lie to justify starting a war ? You know, the kind US used to justify attacking Iraq ? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I really don't think that US's claims about a country US has declared to be in the "Axis of Evil" are worth the paper they are written on.
But of course Iran is likely to either have the bomb or be developing it in a desperate race against time; after all, it is pretty obvious they'll be invaded next and their only hope to prevent that is to get a nuclear deterrent. That's why no amount of financial or other kind of pressure will stop them: they either do it or they'll get conquered and decimated, it's a matter of survival.
Yet another briliant strategic move from Bush, worthy of Paula herself. Let's see if the guy can actually start World War 3 before his term runs out. He's trying hard, at the very least...
Why should we require kids to get ANY vaccinations?
I understand you're being sarcastic, but I'll answer anyway:
Making the vaccination mandatory ensures that no libertarian, religious fanatic, or any other kind of malicious idiot is able to sacrifice his kids health for his ideology.
The biggest indicator of the 'general will' is the free market.
Really ? On what do you base this assertion ?
The free market has repeatedly decided again and again to reward those who work for money over those who do not.
Free market isn't an entity capable of deciding anything. That said, of course people who are focusing their efforts to making money are more likely to get it than those aren't. What, exactly speaking, did you want to show with this tautonomy ?
The free software movement has trouble GIVING their work away, meanwhile Microsoft racks up billions of dollars per month charging over $300 for an operating system and office suite.
Seeing how Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly to remove competition - therefore making the market non-free - in both Europe and USA, it hardly seems like a great victory for free market, even if you disregard the abysmal quality of their products. Then there's the little issue of your first claim being an outright lie.
It is absoltuely, morally, socially and legally right that such creation be protected by law.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, the laws seem to hinder that creation and healthy competition nowadays instead, with software patents and copyrighted file formats and network protocols.
Or did you mean that the means of profiting from that such creation by preventing anyone else from benefiting from it without paying you - also known as copyright system - should be protected ? In that case I must disagree. The right to profit is not a moral right, just a practical (and IMHO failed) means to encourage certain creative actions.
I don't ever want our legal copyright framework to be redesigned in such a way that proprietary developers no longer have an incentive to work thus leaving us at the mercy of autistic free software developers.
Several commercial developers have invested in developing Linux kernel, which is distributed free of charge, so either they are idiots or they are better at finding incentives than you are. As for the insult, please grow up and learn to discuss matters civilly.
That would suck on more levels than there are in Dante's Inferno.
Apart from Dante's Inferno only having 9 levels, and the whole work actually being pretty good, don't you think you're getting just a tiny bit melodramatic here ?
Yes, they can control things that might be disruptive to the school like publications, tshirts...heck, hairstyles.
Since anything might be disruptive, this means that they have absolute power over everything. I guess it's only natural that they'd follow the US Congress's example of abusing the interstate commerce clause...
But, in your example, a teacher that saw you on Saturday, on a street not at school, could not come over and confiscate your underground publication.
What's stopping her ? Can you fight back physically ? If you can and do, who will the court side with ? And if you complain to the police or anyone else, who - if anyone - will they side with ?
Your president was right in one thing: the US Constitution is just a piece of paper. Have enough people agree that it doesn't apply to some group, and those "inalienable rights" have been effectively stripped away.
The drunk driver did not knowingly kill someone. In your example, the person playing Russian Roulette knew someone would die.
Wrong. The person playing Russian Roulette engaged in behavior that a reasonable person - in fact anyone but a complete moron - should had known had a very high chance of getting someone killed. The drunk driver did the exact same think.
After all, the Russian Roulette player didn't set out to kill anyone either. He simply figured the risk of that happening was worth it.
The drunk driver never thought it would happen. He didn't set out to kill anyone, and he probably never thought it would happen.
To properly control a car, one needs sound judgement, keen observational capacity, and good motor control. This is common knowledge and obvious to anyone who's ever driven a car. Alcohol interferes negatively and significantly with your senses, judgement, and motor control. This is common knowledge and obvious to anyone who's ever been drunk or seen anyone else drunk. Given this, the claim that a drunk driver didn't know he was running a high risk of killing someone is ridiculous.
There are huge differences between your hypothetical and what happens in most drunk driving cases.
No there isn't. They are both examples of recklessly and knowingly endangering others.
Sneaking into a country to help your family maybe be illegal, but it is not wrong.
Based on whose morality? If we are truly a secular society, the law is king.
Yes... But since in a truly secular society the king has no divine right, you are free to ignore it whenever you can get away with it. Doing away with divinity also does away with absolute moral values (including "hypocrisy is bad"), since there's no one left with authority to dictate one set of morals better than another; consequently, there's no moral imperative to comply with laws, so there's nothing immoral in breaking them. In fact in a truly secular society the terms "moral" and "immoral" have no meaning, since anyone is free to define "moral" as they please and change the definition anytime.
Basically, in a truly secular society you comply with the laws when you think doing so will benefit you, and break them when you think that doing so will benefit you. I believe this is one of the reasons why the majority of history's significant societiess have been religious: truly secular societies need to spend far more resources in law enforcement, and run far greater risk of corruption of said enforcement. Natural selection favors religious societies - I wonder what Dawkins thinks about that ?-)
So the answer to your question is: Based on the morality of the GP. In a truly secular society that's as good as any other morality. Therefore in a truly secular society the question of morality is meaningless and your question therefore invalid.
Now let's see how many flames I'll get for this...
To all you communists out there that think copyrights are foolish... what would you do if your father or mother earned a living writing books, and everyone stole the material, gave it away, or re-sold on the street corner for $1.00 or $2.00. How would your parents put food on the table?
Well, since they'd clearly be madly popular authors, I'd look into getting a serial column in a magazine(s), as well as entering into pocket book industry - you know, those books which are sold so cheap it just isn't worth it to pirate them, since it costs more to print them out yourself. I might also look into making promotional deals with bookstores, where the author would personally sign every book sold there. Branching into writing theatrical or radio scripts might also be worthwile.
Giving out money is insulting. It keeps them down, it doesn't help the poor.
Well, it does help them get enough food to avoid starvation. I think that's more important than ideological purity.
If this man [the drunk driver -ultranova] was genuinely sorry--if he felt absolutely terrible about what he did, it's quite possible that justice has been served. The copyright infringer (who was the leader of the group, not just someone downloading every once in awhile) intentionally committed and induced others to commit copyright infringement. He did it over and over again, showing no remorse or justification. Compared to a guy who makes a terrible, fatal mistake one time, I'm honestly not sure which way this should go. It feels weird almost arguing that the guy who killed someone should serve less time than the guy who was the ringleader for a copyright infringement gang, but there it is. If you look at intent, the drunk driver is considerably more innocent than this guy.
Suppose I'm playing Russian roulette with random people on the street. I've removed all the bullets except one from a revolver, and pull it on passersby, and pull the trigger, rerolling the barrel after every encounter. When the revolver finally goes off and someone dies, is it sufficient punishment that I feel "terrible" ?
That's what the drunk driver did. He knowingly and willingly engaged in action that endangered the lives of everyone else. He did not make a "mistake" any more than any other murderer did; he simply didn't care who got hurt as long as he got his thrills. If he feels terrible, tought; he should have thought of that before doing the equivalent of pulling his revolver and playing Russian roulette with random people.
Drunk drivers belong behind bars for playing with other people's lives, and they sure as hell don't deserve anyone's pity when they do get there.
Is there ever a case where copyright infringement should be punished more seriously than first degree murder? Sure, it's unlikely to happen, but even having the possibility for an overlap like that shows that we have some pretty screwed up priorities.
"We" ? Do you decide on laws in your country ? No, of course you don't; the big corporations do - through the politicians they've bought fair and square - and their only priority is to make money. Since people are plentiful at this time - indeed, there is an overpopulation problem - the value of human life is lesser than the value of keeping a copyrighted work out of circulation outside of official channels. Supply and demand, the cornerstones of capitalist society, are working exactly as they're supposed to here.
If anything, the market values human lives too high, not too low, and all lives equally when in reality losing some lives means losing much more profits than some other lives. In a true free-market environment, the value of human life would be far lower on average and dependent on the market value of the human in question.
I think we can all agree that fixing this problem of overvalying human life would give American corporations a competitive advantage, as well as a whole new meaning to the term "hostile takeover";).
I just wich there was a non-commercial bash compiler around; that would make things a bit quicker.
Bash scripts don't usually do any significant proseccing of their own, but simply run other programs with a few loops and conditionals thrown in for good measure. Compiling them would be totally pointless.
Now if the purpose of this bill was to eliminate all sexually explicit material, gore, and GTA like violence from gaming I would take issue. However to be able to create and market ANY game that a developer wanted to create, so long as it was properly rated, would be a great boon to the industry.
As long as you can voluntarily rate your game "adults only" rating without having to go through any kind of review board or paying anyone anything, yes. If not, then it will push independent small game makers out of the market.
Ah, but that was Microsoft gallantly educating the poor benighted communists in the joys of capitalist freedom.
I guess this explains why Cuba has been so hellbent on staying communistic. Windows being a fruit of capitalism is the best argument against capitalism I've ever heard.
If you are under the age of 50 in the US and you die, you will be killed in a car. Driving in your car is the most dangerous thing you will ever do in your life by a factor of 1000. I will never understand how people can act so carelessly when so many lives depend on their actions.
Well, comforming to traffick laws would mean putting restrictions on your driving style (such as not driving 100 mph through a city center) for the sake of safety, and as we all know: "Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither".
Hey, it makes as much sense as every other context that quote gets used in...
Which is why "this rating may change at play time" used on multiplayer games is ridiculous.
May as well rate your Crayons the same way.
On the contrary, it is 100% truthful. The Crayon box doesn't contain obscene pictures, but you can draw them with Crayons. The MMORPG game does not ship with obscene language, but nothing stops the other players from typing nasty words. The rating is accurate. It might be redundant, but then again, this is the USA we are talking about - the Home of Hysterics, the Land of Lawsuits - so better cover all your bases.
I'm leaving the definition of "obscene" open; fill in whatever your religion, conscience, or whatever tells you to.
Slashdot Mirror
If you will not change your point of view, and publicly announce it here, I'm going to pick a little old lady at random and beat her up. So you'd better hurry up and post the announcement, or you'll be responsible for elder abuse by your own logic. After all, the lady got hurt because you refused to acknowledge me being right.
Pete Pirate is responsible for his own actions - violating Microsoft's copyright - but not Microsoft's response - revoking innocent third partie's licenses. Making Pete responsible for Microsoft's response would mean that any suitably ruthless party can blackmail you by treatening third parties, since you'd be responsible for whatever they'd do in response to you defying them.
Yes, of course it does. It was you who revoked the innocent user's license and disabled his software, after all. You are responsible for your own actions, no matter what your motive for them might be.
As a side note, I'm really starting to get sick of how IP has become the sacred cow it is nowadays, who's protection is justification for just about anything. Why on Earth did you think that you could simply disable someone's software and not be responsible for it just because you were "protecting your IP" ? The whole idea is absurd.
I didn't say it did. However, the vendor is responsible for his own actions, even if they were taken in response to the actions of the pirate; if the actions of the vendor end up harming innocent third parties - such as revoking their legitimate software licenses - it is the vendor, not pirate, who is at fault.
Judging by things like "GNU's Not Unix" "etc" is obviously short for "etc's the champ".
A "glass is half empty" type, I see. Try positive thinking: start referring to yourselfs as supermonkeys !-)
All I see here in Finland are clouds :(.
And the Moon doesn't disappear during a lunar eclipse, it is perfectly visible, just dimmer and redder than usual. Maybe you supermonkeys have bad eyesight as well ?
Perhaps you might provide links to comments made by the same user (as identified by the username or indicated by the statements in question being in the same comment) which both indicate that he has pirated Windows, and that he is "freaked out" by someone violating the GPL ?
But it doesn't deny the owner use. After all, Joe User doesn't own Windows, he merely has a revokable license to use it. If Microsoft decides to revoke that license because of something Pete Pirate did, who is at fault for Microsoft's actions - Pete or Microsoft ?
Or to put it another way: If you steal from me, and that makes me so angry that I kill a random bystander, does that make you a murderer ?
Violating software's copyright may or may not be immoral, but in either case it in no way makes the violator responsible for the actions of the party who's copyrights were violated. It is not Pete who revoked Joe's license, but Microsoft. Therefore it is Microsoft's fault that Joe is left without license, not Pete's.
Actually, they don't. Species evolve. Organisms either survive and reproduce more or less well or not at all.
An organism, such as yourself, may or may not undergo personal evolution, but that has nothing to do with the kind of evolution we're talking here, and simply goes to show that it might be better to use more specific expressions than "evolve".
I was unaware that you can choose not to be born in San Francisco or Florida.
Logically speaking, and discounting hyperbole in "I lost everything", someone who loses everything in a hurricane likely had no significant savings (since otherwise he would still have them). This means he's not capable of relocating, since that requires considerable financial resources. If he does manage to save some money, he likely has larger risks (fire insurance, car insurance, a newer and safer car, health insurance, etc) that should be mitigated first.
Not everyone who fails to plan for every possible disaster does so out of foolishness. Someone might well know he lives in an unsafe place, but if he doesn't have enough money to move, he can't and that's that.
World isn't just, and people who get hit with natural or any other kind of disasters usually don't deserve it, nor are they any more foolish than anyone else. They are just unlucky.
Except that Win32 threading model only works on X86 (since it needs Win32, which only runs on X86), while Pthreads work everywhere. Pthreads therefore mean more competition for Intel, since the program using them can be made portable.
I certainly hope that someone who first claims that "Separate data types" make Pthreads superior to Win32 threads and then turns right around and claims that they in fact make Pthreads inferior to Win32 threads gets viewed with a certain amount of suspicion, on Slashdot as well as everywhere else.
And will these weapons of mass destruction actually be found this time ? Or is this just another lie to justify starting a war ? You know, the kind US used to justify attacking Iraq ? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I really don't think that US's claims about a country US has declared to be in the "Axis of Evil" are worth the paper they are written on.
But of course Iran is likely to either have the bomb or be developing it in a desperate race against time; after all, it is pretty obvious they'll be invaded next and their only hope to prevent that is to get a nuclear deterrent. That's why no amount of financial or other kind of pressure will stop them: they either do it or they'll get conquered and decimated, it's a matter of survival.
Yet another briliant strategic move from Bush, worthy of Paula herself. Let's see if the guy can actually start World War 3 before his term runs out. He's trying hard, at the very least...
I understand you're being sarcastic, but I'll answer anyway:
Making the vaccination mandatory ensures that no libertarian, religious fanatic, or any other kind of malicious idiot is able to sacrifice his kids health for his ideology.
Really ? On what do you base this assertion ?
Free market isn't an entity capable of deciding anything. That said, of course people who are focusing their efforts to making money are more likely to get it than those aren't. What, exactly speaking, did you want to show with this tautonomy ?
Seeing how Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly to remove competition - therefore making the market non-free - in both Europe and USA, it hardly seems like a great victory for free market, even if you disregard the abysmal quality of their products. Then there's the little issue of your first claim being an outright lie.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, the laws seem to hinder that creation and healthy competition nowadays instead, with software patents and copyrighted file formats and network protocols.
Or did you mean that the means of profiting from that such creation by preventing anyone else from benefiting from it without paying you - also known as copyright system - should be protected ? In that case I must disagree. The right to profit is not a moral right, just a practical (and IMHO failed) means to encourage certain creative actions.
Several commercial developers have invested in developing Linux kernel, which is distributed free of charge, so either they are idiots or they are better at finding incentives than you are. As for the insult, please grow up and learn to discuss matters civilly.
Apart from Dante's Inferno only having 9 levels, and the whole work actually being pretty good, don't you think you're getting just a tiny bit melodramatic here ?
I knew it was a good idea to read Slashdot one last time before leaving for work !
Since anything might be disruptive, this means that they have absolute power over everything. I guess it's only natural that they'd follow the US Congress's example of abusing the interstate commerce clause...
What's stopping her ? Can you fight back physically ? If you can and do, who will the court side with ? And if you complain to the police or anyone else, who - if anyone - will they side with ?
Your president was right in one thing: the US Constitution is just a piece of paper. Have enough people agree that it doesn't apply to some group, and those "inalienable rights" have been effectively stripped away.
Wrong. The person playing Russian Roulette engaged in behavior that a reasonable person - in fact anyone but a complete moron - should had known had a very high chance of getting someone killed. The drunk driver did the exact same think.
After all, the Russian Roulette player didn't set out to kill anyone either. He simply figured the risk of that happening was worth it.
To properly control a car, one needs sound judgement, keen observational capacity, and good motor control. This is common knowledge and obvious to anyone who's ever driven a car. Alcohol interferes negatively and significantly with your senses, judgement, and motor control. This is common knowledge and obvious to anyone who's ever been drunk or seen anyone else drunk. Given this, the claim that a drunk driver didn't know he was running a high risk of killing someone is ridiculous.
No there isn't. They are both examples of recklessly and knowingly endangering others.
Yes... But since in a truly secular society the king has no divine right, you are free to ignore it whenever you can get away with it. Doing away with divinity also does away with absolute moral values (including "hypocrisy is bad"), since there's no one left with authority to dictate one set of morals better than another; consequently, there's no moral imperative to comply with laws, so there's nothing immoral in breaking them. In fact in a truly secular society the terms "moral" and "immoral" have no meaning, since anyone is free to define "moral" as they please and change the definition anytime.
Basically, in a truly secular society you comply with the laws when you think doing so will benefit you, and break them when you think that doing so will benefit you. I believe this is one of the reasons why the majority of history's significant societiess have been religious: truly secular societies need to spend far more resources in law enforcement, and run far greater risk of corruption of said enforcement. Natural selection favors religious societies - I wonder what Dawkins thinks about that ?-)
So the answer to your question is: Based on the morality of the GP. In a truly secular society that's as good as any other morality. Therefore in a truly secular society the question of morality is meaningless and your question therefore invalid.
Now let's see how many flames I'll get for this...
Well, since they'd clearly be madly popular authors, I'd look into getting a serial column in a magazine(s), as well as entering into pocket book industry - you know, those books which are sold so cheap it just isn't worth it to pirate them, since it costs more to print them out yourself. I might also look into making promotional deals with bookstores, where the author would personally sign every book sold there. Branching into writing theatrical or radio scripts might also be worthwile.
Well, it does help them get enough food to avoid starvation. I think that's more important than ideological purity.
Suppose I'm playing Russian roulette with random people on the street. I've removed all the bullets except one from a revolver, and pull it on passersby, and pull the trigger, rerolling the barrel after every encounter. When the revolver finally goes off and someone dies, is it sufficient punishment that I feel "terrible" ?
That's what the drunk driver did. He knowingly and willingly engaged in action that endangered the lives of everyone else. He did not make a "mistake" any more than any other murderer did; he simply didn't care who got hurt as long as he got his thrills. If he feels terrible, tought; he should have thought of that before doing the equivalent of pulling his revolver and playing Russian roulette with random people.
Drunk drivers belong behind bars for playing with other people's lives, and they sure as hell don't deserve anyone's pity when they do get there.
"We" ? Do you decide on laws in your country ? No, of course you don't; the big corporations do - through the politicians they've bought fair and square - and their only priority is to make money. Since people are plentiful at this time - indeed, there is an overpopulation problem - the value of human life is lesser than the value of keeping a copyrighted work out of circulation outside of official channels. Supply and demand, the cornerstones of capitalist society, are working exactly as they're supposed to here.
If anything, the market values human lives too high, not too low, and all lives equally when in reality losing some lives means losing much more profits than some other lives. In a true free-market environment, the value of human life would be far lower on average and dependent on the market value of the human in question.
I think we can all agree that fixing this problem of overvalying human life would give American corporations a competitive advantage, as well as a whole new meaning to the term "hostile takeover" ;).
Bash scripts don't usually do any significant proseccing of their own, but simply run other programs with a few loops and conditionals thrown in for good measure. Compiling them would be totally pointless.
Or was this meant as sarcasm ?
As long as you can voluntarily rate your game "adults only" rating without having to go through any kind of review board or paying anyone anything, yes. If not, then it will push independent small game makers out of the market.
I guess this explains why Cuba has been so hellbent on staying communistic. Windows being a fruit of capitalism is the best argument against capitalism I've ever heard.
Well, comforming to traffick laws would mean putting restrictions on your driving style (such as not driving 100 mph through a city center) for the sake of safety, and as we all know: "Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither".
Hey, it makes as much sense as every other context that quote gets used in...
On the contrary, it is 100% truthful. The Crayon box doesn't contain obscene pictures, but you can draw them with Crayons. The MMORPG game does not ship with obscene language, but nothing stops the other players from typing nasty words. The rating is accurate. It might be redundant, but then again, this is the USA we are talking about - the Home of Hysterics, the Land of Lawsuits - so better cover all your bases.
I'm leaving the definition of "obscene" open; fill in whatever your religion, conscience, or whatever tells you to.
This idea has been implemented already, altought I really think that excluding the "undead" from "people" is a rather large loophole...