Here's the flaw in your argument: You consider the software as the object of the theft. It isn't.
The object being taken away is *money*; revenue legally owed to the folks who own the rights to the software.
Unauthorized copying is illegal because the unlicensed copies are, from the software writer/manufacturer/distributer/retailers' perspectives, worth the price of a license.
Money has a tangible form, exists in a globaly discreet quantity, and can, of course, be 'taken away' from its owner.
And regarding the "real pirates have parrots and boats" argument that so many have made in this thread: it's kind of been done to death, don't you think?
Many English words have multiple distinct definitions. So what?
The music industry has the federal government in its back pocket.
I guess I don't understand what the music industry has to do with software piracy or computer virii. Can you explain the connection you're trying to make?
When victims of viruses get a lobby as filthy rich and powerful as the RIAA, maybe the FBI will take some action.
When I read articles about the "virus du jour", they always quote some anti-virus spokesmonkey saying, "Corporations will lose *gi-normous* amounts of money dealing with this virus." And "gi-normous" usually has 8 or 9 zeros to the left of the decimal.
Are you saying that corporations generally don't constitute powerful lobbies in DC? I would disagree.
Maybe mecha is not suitable for battlefield applications, but I could imagine warehouse and loading dock situations where they might be more useful.
That environment would cause less equipment stress (no terrain, no weather, no small/large arm fire) and would allow for smaller, lighter (no armor) and more simply constructed mecha.
There are more people working in public relations than in journalism,
This is true, but is not indicative of a flawwed system. There will always be more entities (people, companies, organizations) seeking media attention than there are media outlets.
Is there no such thing anymore as a news release not trying to sell something or push an agenda?
The answer to this is, obviously, "No." And I don't believe there *ever* has been one. Press releases, definitionally, are tools to attract media attention to something.
You seem to think this wasn't the case in the past. Can you give an example of an altruistic press release? I'd love to hear about it.
The sound waves that radiate from cellphone speakers while in use have distracted several automobile drivers, causing accidents resulting in injury and death.
I agree wholeheartedly. I've never applied a lot of thought to browsers specifically, but in our networked world, your list is very, very paramount.
From a users perspective there exists the usual gap between wants and needs though. Users want interactive, flashing, moving shiny objects in their browser, and they want to load whatever content any particular server offers. And that includes the latest, greatest flash version, movie format, layered HTML, scripting language, cookie (e.g. all the crap that violates stability, security, privacy, and speed.) Ugh.
Re:C'Mon, Even an LCD screen has some depth
on
3D User Interfaces
·
· Score: 1
A "literate" ad hominem argument is still ad hominem.
None of you actually refuted a single point I made, thus I don't see any value in your post. Would you care to explain, logically, how I was wrong about something? If not, then kindly STFU.
Re:C'Mon, Even an LCD screen has some depth
on
3D User Interfaces
·
· Score: 1
Namecalling! What an excellent way to debunk my point. Impressive!
Let me try: Hey, Fucktard! What exactly did I say that was wrong?
Re:C'Mon, Even an LCD screen has some depth
on
3D User Interfaces
·
· Score: 1
If the mouse was limited to cursor movement I would agree with you. But I would argue that button functionality enables the 3D movement of windows in an, albeit shallow, third demension. First, there's stacking of windows. Then there's the whole concept of "click and drag" which allows one to drop objects into other objects, such as dragging a file to the trash.
For example, my browser is currently "in front" or "on top" of several other apps. I used my mouse to move it to the front, e.g. the mouse, within a windowing system, constitutes a 3D i/o device.
You can neither deny that this functionality exists, nor that a mouse interface enables it.
C'Mon, Even an LCD screen has some depth
on
3D User Interfaces
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I haven't RTFB, but all the UI I encounter is measurable along x,y and z. Keyboards, mice, monitors, printers, and scanners are all 3-D objects, are they not? Can anyone think of a truly 2-D input/output device? Even a graphics pad usually measures stylus pressure, and thus has "depth".
And windowing systems normally have the concepts of stacking windows "in front" or "behind" others.
A navigable 3-D environment for file system and program management would be difficult to prove useful, IMHO.
Even the slickest small, embedded browsers will struggle in the marketplace until more sites support small-screen browsable content.
Sites with scheduling content (movie times, game schedules etc.) would be ideal, but there's not enough of that out there to drive the popularity of these browsers up yet.
Based on my experience as an network designer and network capital budget planner, I'd estimate the cost of these routers at somewhere between 3 and 4 standard deviations above your average 3-bedroom rambler in Des Moines.
But if you can (sorta-)comfortably commute to San Jose or Sunnyvale, the same house may buy you a Tera-able router.
I must apologize, because I seem to have given you the impression that I disagree with your interpretation of these Biblical verses. To the contrary, I agree with your interpretation of Leviticus.
(This should not imply that I agree with the premise that *every* Biblical book:chapter:verse tuple is without scientific flaw.)
My intent was to point out, respectfully, that you were making points regarding the motives and agendas of the parties with whom you were disagreeing. Such ad hominem points do not prove or disprove any side of the question, "Does the Bible contain errors of a scientific nature?"
While various parties may approach a debate with hidden or exposed agendas, this alone doesn't refute any facts they may also bring. Likewise, it doesn't preclude them from purposefully presenting fallacies as evidence in their favor, but fallacies, by definition, do not prove anything true.
The Bible, as an ancient and oft-translated text, is bound to contain some errors--as you mentioned. While it may have originated with God, it has been in man's fallable hands for several millenia. So it's contents may be subjectively interpreted, as represented by the many Christian denominations and their range of beliefs. As such, objective facts give way to logically reasoned positions, and from the variance in those positions we get reasonable disagreement and debate.
Given that reasoned theories are often the best "facts" we have to offer, we tend to call them facts until we have sufficient contradictory evidence. And again, an opponents motives for disagreement do not qualify as logical evidence against his/her position.
In short, every point should be judged on the basis of available evidence, and not prejudiced by ones own beliefs.
I would wager that your beliefs led you to make illogical arguments regarding the original poster (and scientists), but in later posts to me, your steady knowledge of the Bible enabled several very logical arguments regarding Leviticus. I, for one, value the latter much higher. Thank you.
The short answer to your question is: I assume they did know how many legs a locust has.
But I don't *know* what they knew. Neither do you. We can make reasoned assumptions that they:
1) Were discussing locusts; 2) Could count.
and that:
3) Translators interpreted "4" correctly.
My precise point is that a logically valid argument stands *independently* of what you and I believe to be true.
Let's say the great-grandparent poster does have an agenda. If their subjective interpretation follows from the quoted text (which it does) then it's a valid argument regardless of any agenda.
When you question their agenda, you are not proving your case. Rather you are pushing a possibly true, but entirely moot, point.
Hm. I think it's a "leap" (please forgive me, I couldn't resist) to assume that "legs above their feet" refers to *additional* legs.
Assuming our naturally upright disposition, humans have "legs above our feet." They're just attached, of course.
Don't you think that this simple and honestly varied interpretation could account for the difference in your position and that of the grandparent poster?
You can't be certain that someone is being intellectually dishonest by excluding contradictory information on purpose. It's a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy to call your counterpart's motives to question instead of maintaining focus on the contended point(s).
With all respect to you, I think your own biases prevented a fair assessment in this instance.
I think the point is not the schedule itself. It's that many TiVo brand DVRs only have a single tuner. That one minute overlap will prevent TiVos from recording the second show because the tuner can only record one thing at a time.
No it is merely impatient, rude and pompous. Something you are unlikely to ever recognize since your enormous ego is all that is visible to you.
I specifically told you why I've approached our debate with the tone I have. You have not done the same to me, or any of the other people you try to belittle in this forum. That says a lot about you.
Law perheaps, somewhat, depending on interpretation of validity of EULAs. Social mores? Not where I come from, certainly. Care to try again?
Why bother? If we can't agree that laws and contracts are valid constructs, then we'll never agree on much.
Oh dear. How educated! And literate! Worldy! A positive giant of debate!
Much better. Punchy and on point! Kudos.
You do of course realize that you make yourself sound like a total ass, smug and condescending moron who believes that his attempts at sophisticated vocabulary make his arguments more valid, dont you?
The following quote makes your comment sublimely ironic:
"But I do not imagine you would notice this while having your cranium so deeply inside your rectum, a position notorious for obstructing one's view."
You also said (conveniently ommitting it this time) that "Most change to any social system comes from people working within that system" to which I presented two counter-examples, both near the top of importance in the history of the 20th century. There are of course more: the democratic movements in Eastern Europe, the fight against Appartheid etc etc. This list totally demolishes your assertion and so you choose to slither off into how you "never implied that civil disobedience doesn't generate change" and hope I wont notice. You also never implied that the Earth is flat, are you going to try to provide an explanation of that fallacy as to make yourself appear more reasoned?
Holy hell did you miss my point. I didn't omit what I said before at all. In fact, I pointed out how your given examples supported my argument. In brief, civil disobedience was a hard, but valuably catalytic battle that focused attention on the civil rights problem. *Most* civil rights improvement however was won in courts, in legislatures, and in Constitutional ammendment procedures, which are all systemic constructs.
Likewise, war protests focused public and political attention on how the general public felt about the war. Thus, an anti-war lobby developed into a powerful enough movement to pressure officials into ending the war. Lobbies are systemic constructs. Hence, the system changed mostly from within.
Gorbachev and his supporters pushing his vision from within the Soviet communist system had quite a bit to do with democracy in Eastern Europe today. And don't forget the heavy economic pressure from the US that broke communism's bank on the arms race. Diplomacy is another systemic construct.
Worldwide aily news coverage of violent protests and grave racial injustice prompted most nations to impose strict sanctions on S. Africa. Again, the violence was a catalyst. Change came from the systemic pressures of press coverage and political sanction.
There's your list, with history backing my point that change from outside is *harder*, and rarely succeeds alone, but change from inside is *easier* and succeeds often.
It would ordinarilly be not so priceless but it is you who tried to make yourself sound superior on account of being able to spot spelling errors. And no, it has nothing to do with conversational tone but with your ego. You try to attack others and when caught guilty of the same sins you try to weasle out by claiming that you do that on purpose. It speaks volumes about your integrity and character.
I tend to admit mistakes when I make them, and I do make them. Not as often as you, thankfully. I stand by everything I've said to you through this whole debate.
That is the a very definition of a troll. I should have known. Better luck troll
To each their own. I determined that fighting court battles wasn't worth the effort in this case. I also made sure to make the point in a place gamers come to. Seems to me as a reasonable effort for this (addmitedly small scale) outrage.
I harbor no illusion that you care about my approval, but I believe you did a good thing by complaining in gamer forums. Your complaints would carry more weight if you focused on them rather than attacks on people you disagree with.
Next time I might go further. One thing for sure, it will not be because of your disaproval.
I would not dare to flatter myself.
Clearly not enough people are upset. A matter of scale.
Unlikely. It's probably got to do with traditonal economic models.
car example snipped
The difference between taking a car shop to task using the courts, and your method with Valve is one of legality. That's a point you habitually ignore.
Oh no! So you are going to decide what the truth is! And what cost/benefit calculations one can do! Why, I could swear that was up to each individual person to decide, glad that you are here telling me these things or else I might have blunder horribly off the Big_Al_B's approved, one and only, path through life!
I call it as I see it. You've postured about the "principles" throughout these threads, but you're unwilling to fight for them head on. Instead you choose to call playing a cracked videogame a little crusade against "the man". Pathetic.
I actually called it a "little crusade" which indicates that it is a personal and small scale affair. There are many many more people doing these things in the same fashion and the effect of these is cumulative. So yes, as an individual, I have little impact. But as one of many, I do. A fact which is probably way over your head.
If your method worked, every video game created for home computers would have been free. I couldn't even count the number of games on old Apple II+ disks I've got in a shoebox somewhere. Every video game, ever, has been cracked and distributed illegally. They're still sold in stores for large profits though. Odd, huh?
Wasted time. Yours time is worthless (according to you). Mine is not. And, yes, I do get money for being pissed off. Or at least something of monetary "value". $59.99 precisely. A computer game I just downloaded named HL2. Funny that.
Congradulations. You've sold a personal principle for 60 bucks. Mine cost more.
[snip]This does not change the fact that none of these example companies was ever even attempting to change conditions of sale after the fact. Software companies are the only ones doing so.
Nonsense. I did mention car mechanics and home contractors, did I not? They *often* change conditions after quoting a "firm" price.
Oh yes, you do care. Of you did not, you wouldn't be posting your "replies".
No, I really, really don't care what you do with your time or your money. Do whatever you want; I'll sleep fine. I'm posting to amuse myself, admittedly at your expense. You try to sound smart, but you *really* don't have the horsepower to back it up. That makes you low-hanging fruit that's easy to pick.
From their tone and contents I do relise that your second motivation is your bottomless love for hearing yourself talk but it is your burning desire to stick your snout into other people's business that is really driving you.
My tone is impatient and rude, but pointedly so. The first post I read on this topic was one where you unloaded one of your typically clumsy, slipshod ad hominem attacks on someone for no good reason. Hence, you suck and I'm willing to keep telling you how much until they kill this article.
Clearly there are those who do.
I've never argued you were the *only* raging dumbass on/.You're possibly the biggest, but you are not entirely without peer.
But I do not imagine you would notice this while having your cranium so deeply inside your rectum, a position notorious for obstructing one's view.
Oh, come *on* already. Can't you see how much you totally blew this quip? This is what happens when you try too hard to sound clever. The overly bloated, pseudo-formal construction *completely* dulls the edge. And, "You wouldn't know, because you have your head up your ass," is hardly a real barn-burner in the first place.
Which is your completely arbitrary, subjective and so far in no way substantiated opinion. But of course, your opinions constitute absolute law by which the universe operates. How dare I, oh insolent me, to defy you!?
My opinions on the original topic tend to be supported by current law and social mores. Your opinions don't. Is one more arbitrary than the other? It's hard to say.
BTW, that's the second time you've used the word "insolent" in this thread. I prefer "audacious". Arbitrarily, of course.
Yes. Like, say, the civil rights movement or Vietnam war oposition. Both were championed and resolved by pencil-necked paper pushers working "within the system". Not a law got broken. Right.
I'm glad you picked these examples, but your grammar school analysis lacks depth. I never once implied that civil disobedience doesn't generate change. I said it's much *harder* to change a system from the outside. Civil disobedience during 60's civil rights movement catalyzed wonderful changes in our society, but it was a hard, hard road marked by ugly violence and awful hardships. However, change accelerated greatly, with less strife, once minorities and women started acquiring and holding political offices. Politicians pushing paper command surprising power. Protests during the Vietnam War also catalyzed change, but it was political pressures on the presidential administration that ended it.
You know, I met some dumb idiots on Slashdot, and I also met some arrogant jerks. You combine both of these characteristics in a most impressive fashion.
I try my best.
Oh yea. Hyperbolized! A grammar correction! Wait, corrections which you quit counting at 10 in this last post alone. No, I take it back, you are the greatest jerk, asshole and idiot here on Slashdot. Congratulations.
Thanks! I couldn't have done it without you though. BTW, I didn't quit counting corrections, I quit counting *mistakes*.
This is the only thing you are ever going to do here anyways, so go ahead and amuse me.
Will do.
And by the way, genius, ad-hominem attacks are not logical fallacies.
You better let these folks know that then. They seem to agree with me.
After that, several million debate class texts may need updating
Obviously you do or else we wouldn't be having this "conversation".
Nope. As I've now said several times across several frayed ends of this thread, you are free to say or do whatever you like. I'm also free to tell you that you're a raging dumbass. Fortunately, you continue to prove me right.
Not only I am entitled to my position (as anyone would as long as they are willing to accept the consequences),
Again, no one argued otherwise, dumbass. All I've said is that no one buys what you're selling, so stuff it.
but it is precisesly because people do these things that many unjust and stupid laws changed in the past.
Not surprisingly, you're wrong. Most change to any social system comes from people working within that system. Effecting change by working outside a system is usually harder by many, many orders of magnitude, and usually a lot less successful. In fact, marginalization is a lot more common result than success.
People like you on the other hand will obey any sort of stupid rules someone with "authority" made up (Godwin's "law" for example) because you lack any sort of individual will and ability to think indpendently. You are a herd animal and it irks you to no end that someone dares not to follow you lemmings over the cliff.
Wow. A nonsequitor ad hominem argument. Two logical fallacies in one broad stroke is pretty neat. FYI, I'm an especially big fan of ad hominem arguments, so I'll probably keep calling you a "raging dumbass" for the duration of our dialogue.
Nowhere in our mind-numbing exchanges have I implied that I either do or do not always "follow the rules". I've just told you that you're deluding yourself if you think it's "right" to pirate a damn video game because you're upset at the company that sells it. Rather than refute my point, you rant on like a spoiled toddler about how the law isn't valid, corporations are evil, or resort to the robust, "it's not fair," argument. And when all that fails, you try to go personal, poorly.
So far, you haven't provided any substantive evidence that you're not a raging dumbass. But I eagerly await your next attempt.
Sure, sometimes I make typos and grammatical errors
Sometimes? I quit counting at 10 in this last post alone.
but I can speak my mind with some degree of coherence and logic. You on the other hand do exactly the opposite.
Good "zinger". You sure got me. Forgive my trouble recalling, but which one of us so rationally hyperbolized a grammar correction into a WWII-era crime again? Coherent and logical you are not, my raging dumbass friend.
As you would have known if you really read all messages in this thread, I already stated that this approach only works before the purchase.
Well, beg pardon for not fully following your meandering, whining, prattle across several asundry arguments regarding the general concept of intellectual property, corporations vs. consumers, and your specific problems with Valve. Staying on point is not your strength and I don't care that much, frankly.
Regardless, there is breach of contract torte, class action law and various other legal remedies to address any purposeful damage any party (corporations included) inflicts on another. If you're truly concerned about corporate greed overpowering the public good, you'd pursue the matter regardless of cost.
The truth is, you really don't care enough to face this head on, and truly fight for the principles involved. Rather, you're just going to be lazy, stupid, and pissed off, and posture about it on/.
At most, you'll play a cracked version of HL2. So your "crusade" is just sound and fury, signifying nothing.
there has to be a remedy greater then just a return of the product.
Why? What lasting damage do you incur from a simple, relatively small entertainment sales transaction gone awry? Lost wages? Please. Mental anguish? Nonsense. If you're that fragile, how do you get through a day? You're frustrated and pissed, not damaged. You don't get money for being pissed off. Sorry.
No other industry is allowed to do these tbings and expect to get away with it.
Pure, unadulterated crap. Many, many businesses, both incorporated and not, do unethical, illegal, or generally shady things and they all fully expect to get away with it. Slimey car mechanics, sleazy home contracters, Enrons, Tycos, Adelphias and Martha Stewarts abound. Is that okay? No. Is it true? Yes.
And should they *all* be caught and should justice be fully served? Obviously. Will this happen? No.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Amazon didn't accomplish 32 sales/second on any single LAN either.
If you're counting all of Amazon's daily sales worldwide, you should count all of Walmart's daily sales worldwide.
Here's the flaw in your argument: You consider the software as the object of the theft. It isn't.
The object being taken away is *money*; revenue legally owed to the folks who own the rights to the software.
Unauthorized copying is illegal because the unlicensed copies are, from the software writer/manufacturer/distributer/retailers' perspectives, worth the price of a license.
Money has a tangible form, exists in a globaly discreet quantity, and can, of course, be 'taken away' from its owner.
And regarding the "real pirates have parrots and boats" argument that so many have made in this thread: it's kind of been done to death, don't you think?
Many English words have multiple distinct definitions. So what?
The music industry has the federal government in its back pocket.
I guess I don't understand what the music industry has to do with software piracy or computer virii. Can you explain the connection you're trying to make?
When victims of viruses get a lobby as filthy rich and powerful as the RIAA, maybe the FBI will take some action.
When I read articles about the "virus du jour", they always quote some anti-virus spokesmonkey saying, "Corporations will lose *gi-normous* amounts of money dealing with this virus." And "gi-normous" usually has 8 or 9 zeros to the left of the decimal.
Are you saying that corporations generally don't constitute powerful lobbies in DC? I would disagree.
Maybe mecha is not suitable for battlefield applications, but I could imagine warehouse and loading dock situations where they might be more useful.
That environment would cause less equipment stress (no terrain, no weather, no small/large arm fire) and would allow for smaller, lighter (no armor) and more simply constructed mecha.
There are more people working in public relations than in journalism,
This is true, but is not indicative of a flawwed system. There will always be more entities (people, companies, organizations) seeking media attention than there are media outlets.
Is there no such thing anymore as a news release not trying to sell something or push an agenda?
The answer to this is, obviously, "No." And I don't believe there *ever* has been one. Press releases, definitionally, are tools to attract media attention to something.
You seem to think this wasn't the case in the past. Can you give an example of an altruistic press release? I'd love to hear about it.
The sound waves that radiate from cellphone speakers while in use have distracted several automobile drivers, causing accidents resulting in injury and death.
Odd, I've always thought 840,000 was higher than 836,000.
I agree wholeheartedly. I've never applied a lot of thought to browsers specifically, but in our networked world, your list is very, very paramount.
From a users perspective there exists the usual gap between wants and needs though. Users want interactive, flashing, moving shiny objects in their browser, and they want to load whatever content any particular server offers. And that includes the latest, greatest flash version, movie format, layered HTML, scripting language, cookie (e.g. all the crap that violates stability, security, privacy, and speed.) Ugh.
A "literate" ad hominem argument is still ad hominem.
None of you actually refuted a single point I made, thus I don't see any value in your post. Would you care to explain, logically, how I was wrong about something? If not, then kindly STFU.
Namecalling! What an excellent way to debunk my point. Impressive!
Let me try: Hey, Fucktard! What exactly did I say that was wrong?
If the mouse was limited to cursor movement I would agree with you. But I would argue that button functionality enables the 3D movement of windows in an, albeit shallow, third demension. First, there's stacking of windows. Then there's the whole concept of "click and drag" which allows one to drop objects into other objects, such as dragging a file to the trash.
For example, my browser is currently "in front" or "on top" of several other apps. I used my mouse to move it to the front, e.g. the mouse, within a windowing system, constitutes a 3D i/o device.
You can neither deny that this functionality exists, nor that a mouse interface enables it.
Okay, I haven't RTFB, but all the UI I encounter is measurable along x,y and z. Keyboards, mice, monitors, printers, and scanners are all 3-D objects, are they not? Can anyone think of a truly 2-D input/output device? Even a graphics pad usually measures stylus pressure, and thus has "depth".
And windowing systems normally have the concepts of stacking windows "in front" or "behind" others.
A navigable 3-D environment for file system and program management would be difficult to prove useful, IMHO.
Even the slickest small, embedded browsers will struggle in the marketplace until more sites support small-screen browsable content.
Sites with scheduling content (movie times, game schedules etc.) would be ideal, but there's not enough of that out there to drive the popularity of these browsers up yet.
I'm sure the day will come though...
Based on my experience as an network designer and network capital budget planner, I'd estimate the cost of these routers at somewhere between 3 and 4 standard deviations above your average 3-bedroom rambler in Des Moines.
But if you can (sorta-)comfortably commute to San Jose or Sunnyvale, the same house may buy you a Tera-able router.
I must apologize, because I seem to have given you the impression that I disagree with your interpretation of these Biblical verses. To the contrary, I agree with your interpretation of Leviticus.
(This should not imply that I agree with the premise that *every* Biblical book:chapter:verse tuple is without scientific flaw.)
My intent was to point out, respectfully, that you were making points regarding the motives and agendas of the parties with whom you were disagreeing. Such ad hominem points do not prove or disprove any side of the question, "Does the Bible contain errors of a scientific nature?"
While various parties may approach a debate with hidden or exposed agendas, this alone doesn't refute any facts they may also bring. Likewise, it doesn't preclude them from purposefully presenting fallacies as evidence in their favor, but fallacies, by definition, do not prove anything true.
The Bible, as an ancient and oft-translated text, is bound to contain some errors--as you mentioned. While it may have originated with God, it has been in man's fallable hands for several millenia. So it's contents may be subjectively interpreted, as represented by the many Christian denominations and their range of beliefs. As such, objective facts give way to logically reasoned positions, and from the variance in those positions we get reasonable disagreement and debate.
Given that reasoned theories are often the best "facts" we have to offer, we tend to call them facts until we have sufficient contradictory evidence. And again, an opponents motives for disagreement do not qualify as logical evidence against his/her position.
In short, every point should be judged on the basis of available evidence, and not prejudiced by ones own beliefs.
I would wager that your beliefs led you to make illogical arguments regarding the original poster (and scientists), but in later posts to me, your steady knowledge of the Bible enabled several very logical arguments regarding Leviticus. I, for one, value the latter much higher. Thank you.
The short answer to your question is: I assume they did know how many legs a locust has.
But I don't *know* what they knew. Neither do you. We can make reasoned assumptions that they:
1) Were discussing locusts;
2) Could count.
and that:
3) Translators interpreted "4" correctly.
My precise point is that a logically valid argument stands *independently* of what you and I believe to be true.
Let's say the great-grandparent poster does have an agenda. If their subjective interpretation follows from the quoted text (which it does) then it's a valid argument regardless of any agenda.
When you question their agenda, you are not proving your case. Rather you are pushing a possibly true, but entirely moot, point.
Hm. I think it's a "leap" (please forgive me, I couldn't resist) to assume that "legs above their feet" refers to *additional* legs.
Assuming our naturally upright disposition, humans have "legs above our feet." They're just attached, of course.
Don't you think that this simple and honestly varied interpretation could account for the difference in your position and that of the grandparent poster?
You can't be certain that someone is being intellectually dishonest by excluding contradictory information on purpose. It's a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy to call your counterpart's motives to question instead of maintaining focus on the contended point(s).
With all respect to you, I think your own biases prevented a fair assessment in this instance.
I think the point is not the schedule itself. It's that many TiVo brand DVRs only have a single tuner. That one minute overlap will prevent TiVos from recording the second show because the tuner can only record one thing at a time.
No it is merely impatient, rude and pompous. Something you are unlikely to ever recognize since your enormous ego is all that is visible to you.
I specifically told you why I've approached our debate with the tone I have. You have not done the same to me, or any of the other people you try to belittle in this forum. That says a lot about you.
Law perheaps, somewhat, depending on interpretation of validity of EULAs. Social mores? Not where I come from, certainly. Care to try again?
Why bother? If we can't agree that laws and contracts are valid constructs, then we'll never agree on much.
Oh dear. How educated! And literate! Worldy! A positive giant of debate!
Much better. Punchy and on point! Kudos.
You do of course realize that you make yourself sound like a total ass, smug and condescending moron who believes that his attempts at sophisticated vocabulary make his arguments more valid, dont you?
The following quote makes your comment sublimely ironic:
"But I do not imagine you would notice this while having your cranium so deeply inside your rectum, a position notorious for obstructing one's view."
You also said (conveniently ommitting it this time) that "Most change to any social system comes from people working within that system" to which I presented two counter-examples, both near the top of importance in the history of the 20th century. There are of course more: the democratic movements in Eastern Europe, the fight against Appartheid etc etc. This list totally demolishes your assertion and so you choose to slither off into how you "never implied that civil disobedience doesn't generate change" and hope I wont notice. You also never implied that the Earth is flat, are you going to try to provide an explanation of that fallacy as to make yourself appear more reasoned?
Holy hell did you miss my point. I didn't omit what I said before at all. In fact, I pointed out how your given examples supported my argument. In brief, civil disobedience was a hard, but valuably catalytic battle that focused attention on the civil rights problem. *Most* civil rights improvement however was won in courts, in legislatures, and in Constitutional ammendment procedures, which are all systemic constructs.
Likewise, war protests focused public and political attention on how the general public felt about the war. Thus, an anti-war lobby developed into a powerful enough movement to pressure officials into ending the war. Lobbies are systemic constructs. Hence, the system changed mostly from within.
Gorbachev and his supporters pushing his vision from within the Soviet communist system had quite a bit to do with democracy in Eastern Europe today. And don't forget the heavy economic pressure from the US that broke communism's bank on the arms race. Diplomacy is another systemic construct.
Worldwide aily news coverage of violent protests and grave racial injustice prompted most nations to impose strict sanctions on S. Africa. Again, the violence was a catalyst. Change came from the systemic pressures of press coverage and political sanction.
There's your list, with history backing my point that change from outside is *harder*, and rarely succeeds alone, but change from inside is *easier* and succeeds often.
It would ordinarilly be not so priceless but it is you who tried to make yourself sound superior on account of being able to spot spelling errors. And no, it has nothing to do with conversational tone but with your ego. You try to attack others and when caught guilty of the same sins you try to weasle out by claiming that you do that on purpose. It speaks volumes about your integrity and character.
I tend to admit mistakes when I make them, and I do make them. Not as often as you, thankfully. I stand by everything I've said to you through this whole debate.
That is the a very definition of a troll. I should have known. Better luck troll
To each their own. I determined that fighting court battles wasn't worth the effort in this case. I also made sure to make the point in a place gamers come to. Seems to me as a reasonable effort for this (addmitedly small scale) outrage.
I harbor no illusion that you care about my approval, but I believe you did a good thing by complaining in gamer forums. Your complaints would carry more weight if you focused on them rather than attacks on people you disagree with.
Next time I might go further. One thing for sure, it will not be because of your disaproval.
I would not dare to flatter myself.
Clearly not enough people are upset. A matter of scale.
Unlikely. It's probably got to do with traditonal economic models.
car example snipped
The difference between taking a car shop to task using the courts, and your method with Valve is one of legality. That's a point you habitually ignore.
Oh no! So you are going to decide what the truth is! And what cost/benefit calculations one can do! Why, I could swear that was up to each individual person to decide, glad that you are here telling me these things or else I might have blunder horribly off the Big_Al_B's approved, one and only, path through life!
I call it as I see it. You've postured about the "principles" throughout these threads, but you're unwilling to fight for them head on. Instead you choose to call playing a cracked videogame a little crusade against "the man". Pathetic.
I actually called it a "little crusade" which indicates that it is a personal and small scale affair. There are many many more people doing these things in the same fashion and the effect of these is cumulative. So yes, as an individual, I have little impact. But as one of many, I do. A fact which is probably way over your head.
If your method worked, every video game created for home computers would have been free. I couldn't even count the number of games on old Apple II+ disks I've got in a shoebox somewhere. Every video game, ever, has been cracked and distributed illegally. They're still sold in stores for large profits though. Odd, huh?
Wasted time. Yours time is worthless (according to you). Mine is not. And, yes, I do get money for being pissed off. Or at least something of monetary "value". $59.99 precisely. A computer game I just downloaded named HL2. Funny that.
Congradulations. You've sold a personal principle for 60 bucks. Mine cost more.
[snip]This does not change the fact that none of these example companies was ever even attempting to change conditions of sale after the fact. Software companies are the only ones doing so.
Nonsense. I did mention car mechanics and home contractors, did I not? They *often* change conditions after quoting a "firm" price.
Oh yes, you do care. Of you did not, you wouldn't be posting your "replies".
/.You're possibly the biggest, but you are not entirely without peer.
No, I really, really don't care what you do with your time or your money. Do whatever you want; I'll sleep fine. I'm posting to amuse myself, admittedly at your expense. You try to sound smart, but you *really* don't have the horsepower to back it up. That makes you low-hanging fruit that's easy to pick.
From their tone and contents I do relise that your second motivation is your bottomless love for hearing yourself talk but it is your burning desire to stick your snout into other people's business that is really driving you.
My tone is impatient and rude, but pointedly so. The first post I read on this topic was one where you unloaded one of your typically clumsy, slipshod ad hominem attacks on someone for no good reason. Hence, you suck and I'm willing to keep telling you how much until they kill this article.
Clearly there are those who do.
I've never argued you were the *only* raging dumbass on
But I do not imagine you would notice this while having your cranium so deeply inside your rectum, a position notorious for obstructing one's view.
Oh, come *on* already. Can't you see how much you totally blew this quip? This is what happens when you try too hard to sound clever. The overly bloated, pseudo-formal construction *completely* dulls the edge. And, "You wouldn't know, because you have your head up your ass," is hardly a real barn-burner in the first place.
Which is your completely arbitrary, subjective and so far in no way substantiated opinion. But of course, your opinions constitute absolute law by which the universe operates. How dare I, oh insolent me, to defy you!?
My opinions on the original topic tend to be supported by current law and social mores. Your opinions don't. Is one more arbitrary than the other? It's hard to say.
BTW, that's the second time you've used the word "insolent" in this thread. I prefer "audacious". Arbitrarily, of course.
Yes. Like, say, the civil rights movement or Vietnam war oposition. Both were championed and resolved by pencil-necked paper pushers working "within the system". Not a law got broken. Right.
I'm glad you picked these examples, but your grammar school analysis lacks depth. I never once implied that civil disobedience doesn't generate change. I said it's much *harder* to change a system from the outside. Civil disobedience during 60's civil rights movement catalyzed wonderful changes in our society, but it was a hard, hard road marked by ugly violence and awful hardships. However, change accelerated greatly, with less strife, once minorities and women started acquiring and holding political offices. Politicians pushing paper command surprising power. Protests during the Vietnam War also catalyzed change, but it was political pressures on the presidential administration that ended it.
You know, I met some dumb idiots on Slashdot, and I also met some arrogant jerks. You combine both of these characteristics in a most impressive fashion.
I try my best.
Oh yea. Hyperbolized! A grammar correction! Wait, corrections which you quit counting at 10 in this last post alone. No, I take it back, you are the greatest jerk, asshole and idiot here on Slashdot. Congratulations.
Thanks! I couldn't have done it without you though. BTW, I didn't quit counting corrections, I quit counting *mistakes*.
This is the only thing you are ever going to do here anyways, so go ahead and amuse me.
Will do.
And by the way, genius, ad-hominem attacks are not logical fallacies.
You better let these folks know that then. They seem to agree with me.
After that, several million debate class texts may need updating
Obviously you do or else we wouldn't be having this "conversation".
Nope. As I've now said several times across several frayed ends of this thread, you are free to say or do whatever you like. I'm also free to tell you that you're a raging dumbass. Fortunately, you continue to prove me right.
Not only I am entitled to my position (as anyone would as long as they are willing to accept the consequences),
Again, no one argued otherwise, dumbass. All I've said is that no one buys what you're selling, so stuff it.
but it is precisesly because people do these things that many unjust and stupid laws changed in the past.
Not surprisingly, you're wrong. Most change to any social system comes from people working within that system. Effecting change by working outside a system is usually harder by many, many orders of magnitude, and usually a lot less successful. In fact, marginalization is a lot more common result than success.
People like you on the other hand will obey any sort of stupid rules someone with "authority" made up (Godwin's "law" for example) because you lack any sort of individual will and ability to think indpendently. You are a herd animal and it irks you to no end that someone dares not to follow you lemmings over the cliff.
Wow. A nonsequitor ad hominem argument. Two logical fallacies in one broad stroke is pretty neat. FYI, I'm an especially big fan of ad hominem arguments, so I'll probably keep calling you a "raging dumbass" for the duration of our dialogue.
Nowhere in our mind-numbing exchanges have I implied that I either do or do not always "follow the rules". I've just told you that you're deluding yourself if you think it's "right" to pirate a damn video game because you're upset at the company that sells it. Rather than refute my point, you rant on like a spoiled toddler about how the law isn't valid, corporations are evil, or resort to the robust, "it's not fair," argument. And when all that fails, you try to go personal, poorly.
So far, you haven't provided any substantive evidence that you're not a raging dumbass. But I eagerly await your next attempt.
Sure, sometimes I make typos and grammatical errors
Sometimes? I quit counting at 10 in this last post alone.
but I can speak my mind with some degree of coherence and logic. You on the other hand do exactly the opposite.
Good "zinger". You sure got me. Forgive my trouble recalling, but which one of us so rationally hyperbolized a grammar correction into a WWII-era crime again? Coherent and logical you are not, my raging dumbass friend.
As you would have known if you really read all messages in this thread, I already stated that this approach only works before the purchase.
/.
Well, beg pardon for not fully following your meandering, whining, prattle across several asundry arguments regarding the general concept of intellectual property, corporations vs. consumers, and your specific problems with Valve. Staying on point is not your strength and I don't care that much, frankly.
Regardless, there is breach of contract torte, class action law and various other legal remedies to address any purposeful damage any party (corporations included) inflicts on another. If you're truly concerned about corporate greed overpowering the public good, you'd pursue the matter regardless of cost.
The truth is, you really don't care enough to face this head on, and truly fight for the principles involved. Rather, you're just going to be lazy, stupid, and pissed off, and posture about it on
At most, you'll play a cracked version of HL2. So your "crusade" is just sound and fury, signifying nothing.
there has to be a remedy greater then just a return of the product.
Why? What lasting damage do you incur from a simple, relatively small entertainment sales transaction gone awry? Lost wages? Please. Mental anguish? Nonsense. If you're that fragile, how do you get through a day? You're frustrated and pissed, not damaged. You don't get money for being pissed off. Sorry.
No other industry is allowed to do these tbings and expect to get away with it.
Pure, unadulterated crap. Many, many businesses, both incorporated and not, do unethical, illegal, or generally shady things and they all fully expect to get away with it. Slimey car mechanics, sleazy home contracters, Enrons, Tycos, Adelphias and Martha Stewarts abound. Is that okay? No. Is it true? Yes.
And should they *all* be caught and should justice be fully served? Obviously. Will this happen? No.