This one is completely untrue:...as studios are forced to rely on tried-and-tested money-makers because piracy makes risky investments not worth the cost?
Piracy is almost exclusively infringement by people who could not afford the product anyway. And in many cases because the price has been set unreasonably high (such as $19.99 when the same product is sold for $2.49 in other countries).
Studios make pap for many reasons but piracy is not one of them.
The parent is right. I'm not sure if it was always this way but these days it is very orwellian.
Say you have a policy: "Invade country X" and party "D" is for it. Then all "D" radio hosts and polititions are for it, "R"'s are against it. Very passionate principled statements are made why invading is good and bad. Then two years pass. Now "R" is in power. Say you have a policy: "Invade country X" and party "R" is for it. Everyone literally flips around- ignores what they said only 2,5,or 7 years ago and the mainstream media doesn't even call them on it.
It's disturbing when you pay attention to it too closely. It becomes clear that supporting the party IS the principle.
You've used so many hands, I'm not sure if this conversation is even-handed any more.
Re:wanting a gun is like wanting to be President
on
Longevity Gene Found
·
· Score: 1
Not at all true. I do not own or carry guns myself but I know several females who do here in Texas. Sweet, sane, nice girls all- who would blow your head right off if you needed it.
I generally discover it when I help them move, but a couple have small guns (and concealed carry permits) in their purses. At least a couple of them practice every few months at the range. Not gun nuts- but definately concerned about their safety.
It's kinda relative. Some places like Darfur, it's pretty obvious.
But even in Germany, a lot of the populace had no problem with 2-3% of the population being slaughtered.
The powers that control large first world countries currently prefer to coerce rather than outright kill people. We are essentially all slaves though through a combination of tax and health methods which mean we have to do their work every day of our life until we are too old to enjoy life.
That doesn't change the basic reasons why the provision is there. We have lots of provisions and laws that become dated. Unfortunately, I agree with you that, despite their original intentions, at this point the combination of surveillance cameras, weaponry, and a fine sense of just how much they can take from us before we object means it is unlikely we could do anything.
On other hand- if you have a gun, you can probably get a machine gun. And indirect attacks so successful in Iraq would be equally effective here. And, the army is no where near big enough to take on an entire population armed even with hunting rifles and being sneaky.
Of course, why didn't I think of that. It worked so well in britain and germany where guns were outlawed. Those massacre's didn't happen.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't spout your perfect company line that if only guns didn't exist no one would kill anyone with poison, knives, by gang beatings, choking, cars, setting you on fire, etc.
Fact is, when society breaks down in those big riots, the gun owners do better than average against mobs who do not have guns.
However, riots, government turning bad, breakdown in social order are all rare events. Catastrophic but rare. We forget about them. And we do pay a daily cost in accidental deaths- a little less than 2 deaths per day.
Now 12,000 people a year die from accidents- about 20 times as many as that total. And lord knows the nanny staters want to outlaw each and everyone of those causes of accidental death until we are smothered with so much protection that it is impossible to die accidentally. And that's ignoring things like smoking which are not considered accidents.
So it comes down to: Is it worth 2 accidental deaths a day to reduce the effects of riots and tyranny when they occur once in a blue moon? It was high on our founders minds- but maybe governments going over to tyranny was more common back then. At least 30 to 40 countries including a couple big ones had this issue in the last century but less so far this century but this century is still pretty young.
After reading the Wiki, I still have the problem I often do with these "interpretations" of religious statements.
The words are very clear. The way people use them is frequently based exactly on those words- not on handy external interpretations that say they mean something different.
My reasoned morality needs less interpretation. It says more clearly what the "interpretation" of the golden rule says the golden rule means.
You believe the interpretation of the golden rule, not the literal words- great!
If just a few people had their understanding of that interpretation increased so they don't harm others out of good intentions then this discussion was productive.
I agree: This is a tricky situation. If you cannot communicate, you do the best you can. >Bases on what criteria?
Observed preferences of the majority of the population. Most people prefer to live over dying. Most people prefer to keep their limbs over being amputated. Given that the person can't communicate, I have to make a rational judgment based on the best information that I have. It gets very difficult in situations where I can't even determine what folks would generally want.
Point 3: Not really. Remember, you usually only come down to hard morality in tricky situations. 99% of life is not tricky situations.
>And what do you base your morality on in these "simple" situations?
I don't consider them moral situations. Lots of things are really not moral situations.
And what if that is not an option? This rarely occurs in my life. When it does and I have to take my "best guess", the odds of them being upset or angry are much higher because they were not asked.
Point 5: This mostly comes to fore in contractual disagreements. >No, you identified it as part of the basis for your moral system, so in your case it is a moral question.
No, my personal opinion on how to treat creators of property is subservient to the social contract. My personal morality does not apply to the law. I can try to get the law changed to reflect my morality if I care enough. Our current social contract says very explicitly that those ideas are property of the creator for a restricted number of years. Once it establishes the axioms of society, then my morality comes into play.
Point 8: Mostly good points on your part. However, when taken holistically, I think we can tell when most people are rational and when they are clearly insane. In between is a continuum.
So where do you draw the line? In order for your moral system to work you must be able to quickly an easily determine if a person is reasonable (and informed) about a certain issue and in a certain situation. How do you accomplish this?
No. This cuts back to your requirement of "perfection" which is impossible and which you do not enforce on your own preferred moral basis. I do not agree that a moral system has to be perfect. If it was possible to have a perfect moral system, it would have happened.
And the point of my original comment that started this mess was that the basic statement of the golden rule is horribly abusable and is abused horribly on a regular basis. While you can point to a 5 page Wiki link for the "correct" interpretation- the fact is those basic words are all most people hear and they use them to do a lot of bad stuff. You could drop all the interpretation and have a clear statement not as easy to abuse: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you--unless they do not want you to."
(Creators rights of ownership including never sharing it) Another assumption. Where does this right come from?
We live under a social contract. Some bright people including Jefferson negotiated a deal for society with creators in general and said, "We will give you a right to your ideas and creations as property for a limited time if you will share those ideas and creations with society more often. We understand that without this right, you would create
While guns increase average deaths, in specific cases, ownership of a gun increases life span.
If two sane people had had guns at VT or Kileen, Tx Luby's, a lot less people would have died.
However, the average citizen tends to get angry, or has a clever child that gets a hold of the gun, or is just joking around, etc. etc. and so we get more total deaths from having a lot of guns out there.
--- All that being said. The reason for the second amendment is to protect us from the government when it *inevitably* goes evil on us. They always do. They always will. When they do- hundreds of thousands or evil millions of people die really fast.
So it is just a question of how long before you need guns to protect yourself.
They could probably send many two year missions to mars and really not have any problems regarding sex. Then they could have one with 90 people on it and still have a triangle/murder/fighting.
I would THINK that astronaut males tend towards alpha male types. That would be an issue.
You really need a correct distribution of alpha to beta to follower types. Beta's can step up but don't naturally like to lead. Alphas just naturally lead and can fight for dominance. Of course they do okay in the military in a very tight hierchy.
Females have similar issues tho not as pronounced.
Even if they didn't have sex drive (say the imbed saltpeter in all of the food or artificially suppress hormones) people are still going to form emotional attachments and play social games for dominance.
Oddly, I post a lot (6+ per day?) and get mod points a lot (twice a month some times?).
I usually use the mod points quickly. These days I mostly locate and upmod folks I feel were unfairly down-modded.
I never down-mod folks. I'll let someone else do that.
I'm always at max karma.
Apparently have some "friends" and from some wierd mods- I think some "enemies". I do not use that system myself. I probably know one person here now by user-name and that is because their post made it clear they knew me (/wave ubuntudupe). Otherwise, I mostly just look at the text of the message and not who posted it.
Possible causes for Getting Mod Points: * Post a lot * Have conversations a lot (series of 3+ posts discussing something in detail) * Upmods while already at max karma. * Consistently use moderations. * My moderations are probably not meta-moderated away often since they are usually very friendly moderations.
Okay... Let's take your prior and current post point by point since I did start this by responding to you.
>I didn't say it was perfect, just that I hadn't yet found anything better. The golden rule is fantastic because it is simple and obvious, you can quickly determine a course of action, and live your life. Point 1: How dare a person assume that because they don't like something, I shouldn't like it. Maybe I want to be be beaten with a whip- the pain of people rejecting this need tortures me and makes me want to commit suicide while I am completely happy if someone fulfills that need. Maybe I like and can handle drugs. Maybe I don't WANT to be noticed and applauded. God I've seen two very shy people in the last six months absolutely TORTURED by people who used golden rule logic to push these people until they were on the verge of tears. It's so "simple and obvious" by the values you were brought up by your parents. There are MANY different moral systems and you may inflict terrible injury or insult by applying the golden rule. Do your best to determine what the people need and want and let them do that unless it injures you or someone else involuntarily.
For more complex scenarios, the golden rule may fall down, but in those cases you also usually have more time to mull it over. However, in your example case, I think the golden rule still works. Personally, I want people to respect my decisions, particularly regarding my own fate, and I believe that most people feel likewise. Therefore, if I was a doctor, and a patient had told me ahead of time that they do not want some specific procedure performed, even if it would otherwise mean death, then I believe it would be immoral for me to perform the procedure anyway against the patient's wishes. Point 2: Then I'm not sure you are not practicing the golden rule- but you are instead practicing my reasoned. The golden rule is:Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Lots of people use this as a great justification to control other people. Since "no one wants to be cuckolded", "no one wants to destroy their life with drugs", "no one wants to be seen as unpatriotic", etc. etc. It sounds like your golden rule includes first listening to what they want, and then giving them what they want- not what you would want in the same situation.
This is actually seen all the time in actual practice. Now, if it is an emergency situation and you have not had time to communicate with the patient ahead of time regarding their wishes, then you just have to use your best judgment, based on what you would want in that situation. Obviously, anytime you try to guess someone else's wishes it is fraught with peril (and potential lawsuits), which is why doctor's are usually ultra-conservative, and try to save the person's life, regardless of it's a good idea or if they would personally want that. I agree: This is a tricky situation. If you cannot communicate, you do the best you can. And when they become conscious again, you understand that they control their own destiny again. Lately our society is starting to require medical treatments to people who want to refuse them. Based on the golden rule.
My morality is based on: Voluntary consent by an informed rational person.
My god, how do you ever get anything done? Are you constantly questioning people over the simplest things in order to get their consent? Point 3: Not really. Remember, you usually only come down to hard morality in tricky situations. 99% of life is not tricky situations. However, instead of assuming what people want me to do, I typically ask them what they want. Now the screwy part is that SOME people can't say what they want and desire that you assume. And punish you if you guess wrong- but really like you if you guess right (typically in a relationship).
For example, how do you decide not to ram your cart into other people at the supermarket? Do you ask each and every pe
If i want to ram their cards (odd compulsion), then yea, I'd probably need to ask them if it is okay or else I'm forcing myself on them.
>Interesting assertion, do you have any arguments to back it up? Just my conclusion. But it seems more reasonable than "a big imaginary guy said it is bad". As you say for your golden rule, it's not perfect but it's the best I've found.
>Under your morality, why do you even need the creator's consent? Because it's their stuff?
>Now you are pushing off responsibility for your morals onto "society."
This is a good point, just as a creator could create something and NEVER EVER share it - and in fact destroy the creation before they died. You could argue that they have a right to their creation period.
However, "society" says, "we will spend resources to protect you from theft and in exchange you don't hold on to this forever." Just like "society" says, "Pay taxes and we will have people protect you from being murdered in your sleep" (i.e. Hobbe's Leviathan social contract). We are mostly born into the social contract-- if we break it, we will probably be punished. Up until a couple hundred years ago, we had the "option" to leave society and go elsewhere. You really do now too- there are plenty of desolate areas. You'll probably starve or die of an illness earlier but you will have freedom (and a lot of loneliness).
Oh the golden rule can lead to some horrible abuses if you want to be treated in a way that is horrific to others.
For example, you want to be heroically saved by doctors regardless of how much pain you are in.
My morality is based on: Voluntary consent by an informed rational person.
If you don't have voluntary consent, you are probably doing evil to them. People are not really rational until a certain age. And if you have lied or tricked them with false information, then that's not right either.
Otherwise, pretty much anything is game.
In the case of file infringing: You don't have the consent of the creator to hand out free copies to other people just because you bought one copy from them. Our society limits that restriction to a certain number of years before the creation is viewed as owned by the public.
This is exactly why when asked by the attorney's in a case, "Do you support the idea of jury nullification" you are morally okay with saying "No" even tho you do. It's equivalent to, "Are you hiding people we want to kill?".
Thomas Jefferson felt that the jury had the ultimate right to find people not guilty of laws which the jury felt were unjust. But you must lie to hold this view. You basically just repeatedly say, "not guilty, I'm not convinced." Never say why (they can throw you off if you do).
Haven't seen credible stuff about a wandering JC myself yet. I've seen some credible stuff tying the JC myth (including resurrection) to osirus and other existing myths that predated christianity.
Slashdot Mirror
While you have some okay points...
...as studios are forced to rely on tried-and-tested money-makers because piracy makes risky investments not worth the cost?
This one is completely untrue:
Piracy is almost exclusively infringement by people who could not afford the product anyway.
And in many cases because the price has been set unreasonably high (such as $19.99 when the same product is sold for $2.49 in other countries).
Studios make pap for many reasons but piracy is not one of them.
The parent is right.
I'm not sure if it was always this way but these days it is very orwellian.
Say you have a policy: "Invade country X" and party "D" is for it.
Then all "D" radio hosts and polititions are for it, "R"'s are against it.
Very passionate principled statements are made why invading is good and bad.
Then two years pass.
Now "R" is in power.
Say you have a policy: "Invade country X" and party "R" is for it.
Everyone literally flips around- ignores what they said only 2,5,or 7 years ago and the mainstream media doesn't even call them on it.
It's disturbing when you pay attention to it too closely. It becomes clear that supporting the party IS the principle.
You've used so many hands, I'm not sure if this conversation is even-handed any more.
Not at all true. I do not own or carry guns myself but I know several females who do here in Texas. Sweet, sane, nice girls all- who would blow your head right off if you needed it.
I generally discover it when I help them move, but a couple have small guns (and concealed carry permits) in their purses. At least a couple of them practice every few months at the range. Not gun nuts- but definately concerned about their safety.
It's kinda relative. Some places like Darfur, it's pretty obvious.
But even in Germany, a lot of the populace had no problem with 2-3% of the population being slaughtered.
The powers that control large first world countries currently prefer to coerce rather than outright kill people. We are essentially all slaves though through a combination of tax and health methods which mean we have to do their work every day of our life until we are too old to enjoy life.
That doesn't change the basic reasons why the provision is there. We have lots of provisions and laws that become dated. Unfortunately, I agree with you that, despite their original intentions, at this point the combination of surveillance cameras, weaponry, and a fine sense of just how much they can take from us before we object means it is unlikely we could do anything.
On other hand- if you have a gun, you can probably get a machine gun. And indirect attacks so successful in Iraq would be equally effective here. And, the army is no where near big enough to take on an entire population armed even with hunting rifles and being sneaky.
Of course, why didn't I think of that. It worked so well in britain and germany where guns were outlawed. Those massacre's didn't happen.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't spout your perfect company line that if only guns didn't exist no one would kill anyone with poison, knives, by gang beatings, choking, cars, setting you on fire, etc.
Fact is, when society breaks down in those big riots, the gun owners do better than average against mobs who do not have guns.
However, riots, government turning bad, breakdown in social order are all rare events. Catastrophic but rare. We forget about them. And we do pay a daily cost in accidental deaths- a little less than 2 deaths per day.
Now 12,000 people a year die from accidents- about 20 times as many as that total. And lord knows the nanny staters want to outlaw each and everyone of those causes of accidental death until we are smothered with so much protection that it is impossible to die accidentally. And that's ignoring things like smoking which are not considered accidents.
So it comes down to: Is it worth 2 accidental deaths a day to reduce the effects of riots and tyranny when they occur once in a blue moon? It was high on our founders minds- but maybe governments going over to tyranny was more common back then. At least 30 to 40 countries including a couple big ones had this issue in the last century but less so far this century but this century is still pretty young.
After reading the Wiki, I still have the problem I often do with these "interpretations" of religious statements.
The words are very clear. The way people use them is frequently based exactly on those words- not on handy external interpretations that say they mean something different.
My reasoned morality needs less interpretation. It says more clearly what the "interpretation" of the golden rule says the golden rule means.
You believe the interpretation of the golden rule, not the literal words- great!
If just a few people had their understanding of that interpretation increased so they don't harm others out of good intentions then this discussion was productive.
I agree: This is a tricky situation. If you cannot communicate, you do the best you can.
>Bases on what criteria?
Observed preferences of the majority of the population. Most people prefer to live over dying. Most people prefer to keep their limbs over being amputated. Given that the person can't communicate, I have to make a rational judgment based on the best information that I have. It gets very difficult in situations where I can't even determine what folks would generally want.
Point 3: Not really. Remember, you usually only come down to hard morality in tricky situations. 99% of life is not tricky situations.
>And what do you base your morality on in these "simple" situations?
I don't consider them moral situations. Lots of things are really not moral situations.
And what if that is not an option?
This rarely occurs in my life. When it does and I have to take my "best guess", the odds of them being upset or angry are much higher because they were not asked.
Point 5: This mostly comes to fore in contractual disagreements.
>No, you identified it as part of the basis for your moral system, so in your case it is a moral question.
No, my personal opinion on how to treat creators of property is subservient to the social contract. My personal morality does not apply to the law. I can try to get the law changed to reflect my morality if I care enough. Our current social contract says very explicitly that those ideas are property of the creator for a restricted number of years. Once it establishes the axioms of society, then my morality comes into play.
Point 8: Mostly good points on your part. However, when taken holistically, I think we can tell when most people are rational and when they are clearly insane. In between is a continuum.
So where do you draw the line? In order for your moral system to work you must be able to quickly an easily determine if a person is reasonable (and informed) about a certain issue and in a certain situation. How do you accomplish this?
No. This cuts back to your requirement of "perfection" which is impossible and which you do not enforce on your own preferred moral basis. I do not agree that a moral system has to be perfect. If it was possible to have a perfect moral system, it would have happened.
And the point of my original comment that started this mess was that the basic statement of the golden rule is horribly abusable and is abused horribly on a regular basis. While you can point to a 5 page Wiki link for the "correct" interpretation- the fact is those basic words are all most people hear and they use them to do a lot of bad stuff. You could drop all the interpretation and have a clear statement not as easy to abuse:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you--unless they do not want you to."
(Creators rights of ownership including never sharing it)
Another assumption. Where does this right come from?
We live under a social contract. Some bright people including Jefferson negotiated a deal for society with creators in general and said, "We will give you a right to your ideas and creations as property for a limited time if you will share those ideas and creations with society more often. We understand that without this right, you would create
While guns increase average deaths, in specific cases, ownership of a gun increases life span.
If two sane people had had guns at VT or Kileen, Tx Luby's, a lot less people would have died.
However, the average citizen tends to get angry, or has a clever child that gets a hold of the gun, or is just joking around, etc. etc. and so we get more total deaths from having a lot of guns out there.
---
All that being said. The reason for the second amendment is to protect us from the government when it *inevitably* goes evil on us. They always do. They always will. When they do- hundreds of thousands or evil millions of people die really fast.
So it is just a question of how long before you need guns to protect yourself.
They could probably send many two year missions to mars and really not have any problems regarding sex.
Then they could have one with 90 people on it and still have a triangle/murder/fighting.
I would THINK that astronaut males tend towards alpha male types. That would be an issue.
You really need a correct distribution of alpha to beta to follower types. Beta's can step up but don't naturally like to lead. Alphas just naturally lead and can fight for dominance. Of course they do okay in the military in a very tight hierchy.
Females have similar issues tho not as pronounced.
Even if they didn't have sex drive (say the imbed saltpeter in all of the food or artificially suppress hormones) people are still going to form emotional attachments and play social games for dominance.
And Pastor Ted was always such a quiet guy. You'd have never expected it when it came out.
lol.
Everyone I know knows someone who is successful and smokes pot.
Oddly, I post a lot (6+ per day?) and get mod points a lot (twice a month some times?).
I usually use the mod points quickly. These days I mostly locate and upmod folks I feel were unfairly down-modded.
I never down-mod folks. I'll let someone else do that.
I'm always at max karma.
Apparently have some "friends" and from some wierd mods- I think some "enemies". I do not use that system myself. I probably know one person here now by user-name and that is because their post made it clear they knew me (/wave ubuntudupe). Otherwise, I mostly just look at the text of the message and not who posted it.
Possible causes for Getting Mod Points:
* Post a lot
* Have conversations a lot (series of 3+ posts discussing something in detail)
* Upmods while already at max karma.
* Consistently use moderations.
* My moderations are probably not meta-moderated away often since they are usually very friendly moderations.
I agree there. Theft may be applied to a lot of things but they are creating a new meaning of the word to conflate it with infringing copyright.
Okay... Let's take your prior and current post point by point since I did start this by responding to you.
:Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
>I didn't say it was perfect, just that I hadn't yet found anything better. The golden rule is fantastic because it is simple and obvious, you can quickly determine a course of action, and live your life.
Point 1:
How dare a person assume that because they don't like something, I shouldn't like it.
Maybe I want to be be beaten with a whip- the pain of people rejecting this need tortures me and makes me want to commit suicide while I am completely happy if someone fulfills that need.
Maybe I like and can handle drugs.
Maybe I don't WANT to be noticed and applauded. God I've seen two very shy people in the last six months absolutely TORTURED by people who used golden rule logic to push these people until they were on the verge of tears.
It's so "simple and obvious" by the values you were brought up by your parents.
There are MANY different moral systems and you may inflict terrible injury or insult by applying the golden rule.
Do your best to determine what the people need and want and let them do that unless it injures you or someone else involuntarily.
For more complex scenarios, the golden rule may fall down, but in those cases you also usually have more time to mull it over. However, in your example case, I think the golden rule still works. Personally, I want people to respect my decisions, particularly regarding my own fate, and I believe that most people feel likewise. Therefore, if I was a doctor, and a patient had told me ahead of time that they do not want some specific procedure performed, even if it would otherwise mean death, then I believe it would be immoral for me to perform the procedure anyway against the patient's wishes.
Point 2:
Then I'm not sure you are not practicing the golden rule- but you are instead practicing my reasoned.
The golden rule is
Lots of people use this as a great justification to control other people. Since "no one wants to be cuckolded", "no one wants to destroy their life with drugs", "no one wants to be seen as unpatriotic", etc. etc.
It sounds like your golden rule includes first listening to what they want, and then giving them what they want- not what you would want in the same situation.
This is actually seen all the time in actual practice. Now, if it is an emergency situation and you have not had time to communicate with the patient ahead of time regarding their wishes, then you just have to use your best judgment, based on what you would want in that situation. Obviously, anytime you try to guess someone else's wishes it is fraught with peril (and potential lawsuits), which is why doctor's are usually ultra-conservative, and try to save the person's life, regardless of it's a good idea or if they would personally want that.
I agree: This is a tricky situation. If you cannot communicate, you do the best you can. And when they become conscious again, you understand that they control their own destiny again. Lately our society is starting to require medical treatments to people who want to refuse them. Based on the golden rule.
My morality is based on: Voluntary consent by an informed rational person.
My god, how do you ever get anything done? Are you constantly questioning people over the simplest things in order to get their consent?
Point 3:
Not really. Remember, you usually only come down to hard morality in tricky situations. 99% of life is not tricky situations. However, instead of assuming what people want me to do, I typically ask them what they want. Now the screwy part is that SOME people can't say what they want and desire that you assume. And punish you if you guess wrong- but really like you if you guess right (typically in a relationship).
For example, how do you decide not to ram your cart into other people at the supermarket?
Do you ask each and every pe
If i want to ram their cards (odd compulsion), then yea, I'd probably need to ask them if it is okay or else I'm forcing myself on them.
>Interesting assertion, do you have any arguments to back it up?
Just my conclusion. But it seems more reasonable than "a big imaginary guy said it is bad". As you say for your golden rule, it's not perfect but it's the best I've found.
>Under your morality, why do you even need the creator's consent?
Because it's their stuff?
>Now you are pushing off responsibility for your morals onto "society."
This is a good point, just as a creator could create something and NEVER EVER share it - and in fact destroy the creation before they died. You could argue that they have a right to their creation period.
However, "society" says, "we will spend resources to protect you from theft and in exchange you don't hold on to this forever." Just like "society" says, "Pay taxes and we will have people protect you from being murdered in your sleep" (i.e. Hobbe's Leviathan social contract). We are mostly born into the social contract-- if we break it, we will probably be punished. Up until a couple hundred years ago, we had the "option" to leave society and go elsewhere. You really do now too- there are plenty of desolate areas. You'll probably starve or die of an illness earlier but you will have freedom (and a lot of loneliness).
Oh the golden rule can lead to some horrible abuses if you want to be treated in a way that is horrific to others.
For example, you want to be heroically saved by doctors regardless of how much pain you are in.
My morality is based on: Voluntary consent by an informed rational person.
If you don't have voluntary consent, you are probably doing evil to them. People are not really rational until a certain age. And if you have lied or tricked them with false information, then that's not right either.
Otherwise, pretty much anything is game.
In the case of file infringing: You don't have the consent of the creator to hand out free copies to other people just because you bought one copy from them. Our society limits that restriction to a certain number of years before the creation is viewed as owned by the public.
This is exactly why when asked by the attorney's in a case, "Do you support the idea of jury nullification" you are morally okay with saying "No" even tho you do. It's equivalent to, "Are you hiding people we want to kill?".
Thomas Jefferson felt that the jury had the ultimate right to find people not guilty of laws which the jury felt were unjust. But you must lie to hold this view. You basically just repeatedly say, "not guilty, I'm not convinced." Never say why (they can throw you off if you do).
Unless the person has lost it and you can't find them.
Or you are the leader of a country and you are "nationalising" someone else's stuff.
Or you are taking taxes (okay- excessive taxes like the 90% we had in the 1940's)
Or lots of other exceptions.
Doesn't it suck when you are honest and you get modded Troll?
That's why I spend all my points upmodding inappropriately downmodded people.
I get your point and know exactly where you are coming from.
I mean seriously- infringing on recent material makes a lot of folks feel guilty (and it SHOULD).
If they have a way to get the stuff morally, they will because a lot of people are as moral as they can afford to be.
Are they the largest nautical software association in Europe? Otherwise the name is a bit cheeky.
Haven't seen credible stuff about a wandering JC myself yet.
I've seen some credible stuff tying the JC myth (including resurrection) to osirus and other existing myths that predated christianity.
So clearly everyone misunderstood him and he was saying that his software was good for the company in the nautical sense.
This is "favorable" software for your company. Such a tragic mistake on all sides to have misunderstood the way he meant "free".
I don't know.
To me they sound like crazy zealots and very PC.
I guess if they control decisions on purchasing they can define the words to be what they want to be.
But if I don't have to pay money for a product, I'd call it "free".
What are the ongoing costs?
Personell or do you have to refuel them or something?
Yea- I'm not an expert- just answering the guy's questions with some googled crap.