Ah, but you assume because one playes D&D one doesn't do the other, or vice versa, that playing D&D alone will get one's ass kicked, or that if it does happen that somebody wants to beat somebody up for playing D&D that the person won't be able to get away or fight at all.
I wouldn't say autism is always "suffering" - it does however change your view on the world, how you analyze and process things [sometimes much much better than others], carry out tasks, and in some cases think of new ways to scare the shit out of others.:D
I think the issue here is proof or lack therefore, IMO a twitter message saying MS checked is not enough, nor is word of mouth from the side defending themselves against being labeled cheater.
No wonder you posted anon, "u mad? " is a tired, and annoying response.
"u mad? u mad? u mad? u mad? u mad? u mad? u mad? *SHOT*"
*blows smoke from top of the gun barrel*
IMO you certainly have room to talk when it comes to logical arguments. ~_~
There would still be independent games made by people for fun, but the games that people actually pirate--modern, popular, big-budget games with voice-acting, fancy graphics, sound design, and all that, will cease to exist because no one will spend tens of millions of dollars to make them.
This claim has been made for not years, but decades, and yet it hasn't come true, the industry has made it past hurdles that *could* have killed it, and will continue to do so, people will find ways to make money off their work. How do you honestly believe piracy will kill the industry in the way you speak when said claims have yet to come true?
And I must also contest your overall attitude - the post you replied to didn't once talk about piracy, but rather the ability to control and "own" the hardware/software bought, which in my opinion is legitimate. Yes, he seems entitled, and I may too, but fuck it, short of *actually* breaking the law, as opposed to doing what people THINK is breaking the law, I should IMO have control over the stuff I buy, I should have the ability to return defective software disks, etc without hassle, I shouldsn't have to be treated like a criminal. And if that makes me pro-piracy, well, your reading comprehension is far from my problem.
The only problem with your statistic is the use of an experience in one part of China being to guesstimate how it pans out across the rest of the country. Maybe you're right, maybe you aren't, but it seems like a dangerous way to prove it either way.
Really? There has never been a time in history where moral acts had to be rationalized? Of course you forget first off that morals are subjective - and that while common ground exists within the scope of "civilized society" not everybody shares the exact same views, degrees of belief on X Y Z issues than say the person next to them.
Not if you had an understanding about the flaws in each and every method listed/proposed, or understood how people can/do get around them.
but they can develop heuristic methods [wikipedia.org] to flag the content that is most likely warez and then manually remove that.
Yeah, HOW would you implement that? I bet you $50 that any method can be worked around with relative ease, AND/OR has a strong possibility for false positives.
For example, if a file gets more than 100 downloads per hour, it is most likely some copyrighted game or movie.
So, it's copyrighted, so what? Everything that can be copyrighted is in the U.S [and other countries with similar laws], and a lot of things legally free are copyrighted.
I hate when people make the axis the issue hinges on about copyright or lack therefore since that is not the case. The issue is copyrighted materials being shared ILLEGALLY - there's the key phrase, ILLEGALLY - as in without permission from the copyright holder when usual legal defenses can't/don't apply.
Is there file part of a 30 parts big rar archive? Probably warez too because no one else but warez groups share files like that.
[citation needed]
Seriously, warez groups, when they use non-torrent technologies, do use multi part archives, but they aren't the only ones.
These dirt-simple heuristic methods that I thought up in about five minutes could be used by rapidshare to eliminate 90% or more of all copyrighted content shared on their site
... and since your simple method is so simple, it doesn't address just the illegal stuff, but everything on there and now you have a lot of people pissed off at you. Good job.
...with few false positives and very little manual work needed. "
Again, no, since you hinge your criteria on trivial things - copyright status [a lot of legally free files are copyrighted], archive type [many people use multi-part archives, not just illegal content providers], you will have a LOT of false positives.
It is not rocket science, it is a few days work at most for a competent developer to implement this system.
Not really.
The only reason rapidshare is not doing it, is because they profit from the "sharing" of it on their site.
The most important character in the discussion has been conveniently omitted: the downloader, who has enough money to buy a computer and pay for Internet access,
Or maybe his parents or relatives bought it for him, or the person is a teen living at home using a family computer and parentally paid-for internet? Your dichotomy is too simplistic.
Legality and morality, in general, do not always correlate.
Such flags may seem to help, but who knows - given the possibility for false positives and how circumvention can be done depending on how it is checked.
I believe he's talking about the idea of being forced to re-buy what you already have once you have it instead of freely being able to back it up though I could be wrong.
But they are NOT capable of running those other services. If you think otherwise, then you obviously know nothing about phones, computers, microprocessors or phone software/operating systems.
Oh the irony, it doesn't matter whether or not it can run certain services or not, if it meets the definition of a computer - Von Neumann model or not - it is still a computer. Come on, this is BASIC COMPUTER SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE STUFF here. >_
some teenager somewhere directly violates copyright by distrubuting protected works.
*AHEM*, that's distributing protected works WITHOUT PERMISSION. Yes, it matters - I won't get in any legal trouble f I share music from an indie band for example that copyrights its work, and then gives it away.
The past decade or more of these RIAA cases have been less about teaching people that file sharing copyrighted material is wrong
When it should be that sharing copyrighted works WITHOUT PERMISSION is wrong - or rather, ILLEGAL [morality =/= legality, and I can think of a circumstance or two where I feel morally OK with it]
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming this is sarcasm, though there are people who say this shit and actually believe it.
I find it highly unlikely that you're pirating things because of a protest against copyright terms.
An opinion is just that, not inherently indicative of reasons for doing one thing, or another.
isn't censoring anything - rather, it's choosing not to encourage it
Looking back at this comment after responding to it once... holy cow, dancing around terminology much?
Where was the assertion that all criminals are imprisoned wrongly made?
Ah, but you assume because one playes D&D one doesn't do the other, or vice versa, that playing D&D alone will get one's ass kicked, or that if it does happen that somebody wants to beat somebody up for playing D&D that the person won't be able to get away or fight at all.
Assumptions based in stereotypes and not reality.
I wouldn't say autism is always "suffering" - it does however change your view on the world, how you analyze and process things [sometimes much much better than others], carry out tasks, and in some cases think of new ways to scare the shit out of others. :D
I think the issue here is proof or lack therefore, IMO a twitter message saying MS checked is not enough, nor is word of mouth from the side defending themselves against being labeled cheater.
Uh... look up the definition of censorship, you idiot.
Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete
Wouldn't that be /partial/ censoring?
No wonder you posted anon, "u mad? " is a tired, and annoying response. "u mad? u mad? u mad? u mad? u mad? u mad? u mad? *SHOT*" *blows smoke from top of the gun barrel*
There would still be independent games made by people for fun, but the games that people actually pirate--modern, popular, big-budget games with voice-acting, fancy graphics, sound design, and all that, will cease to exist because no one will spend tens of millions of dollars to make them.
This claim has been made for not years, but decades, and yet it hasn't come true, the industry has made it past hurdles that *could* have killed it, and will continue to do so, people will find ways to make money off their work. How do you honestly believe piracy will kill the industry in the way you speak when said claims have yet to come true?
And I must also contest your overall attitude - the post you replied to didn't once talk about piracy, but rather the ability to control and "own" the hardware/software bought, which in my opinion is legitimate. Yes, he seems entitled, and I may too, but fuck it, short of *actually* breaking the law, as opposed to doing what people THINK is breaking the law, I should IMO have control over the stuff I buy, I should have the ability to return defective software disks, etc without hassle, I shouldsn't have to be treated like a criminal. And if that makes me pro-piracy, well, your reading comprehension is far from my problem.
The only problem with your statistic is the use of an experience in one part of China being to guesstimate how it pans out across the rest of the country. Maybe you're right, maybe you aren't, but it seems like a dangerous way to prove it either way.
Eh sorry you're not that important that they will have the time to spy on you.
IRRELEVANT - come on, stop shifting the goal posts.
/* */, or just // for single line comments. /technical
So people are lazy, whats your fucking point?
Because things take time to filter through, occur, and then for the news to reach us, it ain't instantaneous you know.
Really? There has never been a time in history where moral acts had to be rationalized? Of course you forget first off that morals are subjective - and that while common ground exists within the scope of "civilized society" not everybody shares the exact same views, degrees of belief on X Y Z issues than say the person next to them.
That argument, "it is to hard!" is so damn silly.
Not if you had an understanding about the flaws in each and every method listed/proposed, or understood how people can/do get around them.
but they can develop heuristic methods [wikipedia.org] to flag the content that is most likely warez and then manually remove that.
Yeah, HOW would you implement that? I bet you $50 that any method can be worked around with relative ease, AND/OR has a strong possibility for false positives.
For example, if a file gets more than 100 downloads per hour, it is most likely some copyrighted game or movie.
So, it's copyrighted, so what? Everything that can be copyrighted is in the U.S [and other countries with similar laws], and a lot of things legally free are copyrighted. I hate when people make the axis the issue hinges on about copyright or lack therefore since that is not the case. The issue is copyrighted materials being shared ILLEGALLY - there's the key phrase, ILLEGALLY - as in without permission from the copyright holder when usual legal defenses can't/don't apply.
Is there file part of a 30 parts big rar archive? Probably warez too because no one else but warez groups share files like that.
[citation needed]
Seriously, warez groups, when they use non-torrent technologies, do use multi part archives, but they aren't the only ones.
These dirt-simple heuristic methods that I thought up in about five minutes could be used by rapidshare to eliminate 90% or more of all copyrighted content shared on their site
...with few false positives and very little manual work needed. "
Again, no, since you hinge your criteria on trivial things - copyright status [a lot of legally free files are copyrighted], archive type [many people use multi-part archives, not just illegal content providers], you will have a LOT of false positives.
It is not rocket science, it is a few days work at most for a competent developer to implement this system.
Not really.
The only reason rapidshare is not doing it, is because they profit from the "sharing" of it on their site.
[citation needed]
The most important character in the discussion has been conveniently omitted: the downloader, who has enough money to buy a computer and pay for Internet access,
Or maybe his parents or relatives bought it for him, or the person is a teen living at home using a family computer and parentally paid-for internet? Your dichotomy is too simplistic.
Legality and morality, in general, do not always correlate.
Such flags may seem to help, but who knows - given the possibility for false positives and how circumvention can be done depending on how it is checked.
I believe he's talking about the idea of being forced to re-buy what you already have once you have it instead of freely being able to back it up though I could be wrong.
.... what? Purposeful mis-characterization of arguments much?
But they are NOT capable of running those other services. If you think otherwise, then you obviously know nothing about phones, computers, microprocessors or phone software/operating systems.
Oh the irony, it doesn't matter whether or not it can run certain services or not, if it meets the definition of a computer - Von Neumann model or not - it is still a computer. Come on, this is BASIC COMPUTER SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE STUFF here. >_
some teenager somewhere directly violates copyright by distrubuting protected works.
*AHEM*, that's distributing protected works WITHOUT PERMISSION. Yes, it matters - I won't get in any legal trouble f I share music from an indie band for example that copyrights its work, and then gives it away.
The past decade or more of these RIAA cases have been less about teaching people that file sharing copyrighted material is wrong
When it should be that sharing copyrighted works WITHOUT PERMISSION is wrong - or rather, ILLEGAL [morality =/= legality, and I can think of a circumstance or two where I feel morally OK with it]