Its a game where you all make up a story as you go along - one person knows what the general plot is going to be and everyone else gets to make up the details as they find out more of the plot. To keep things interesting no one has absolute control over what happens. Players suggest what they think should happen and dice are used to see if it pans out exactly the way they wanted.
The bits you aren't in control of are compelling for the same reason a movie or a book are compelling and the bits you do control are satisfying for same reason any creative act is satisfying. There may be more to it but anything else might be more difficult to relate.
This is one of the possible things you get. A lot of people beleive in god and don't think he wants them to treat women like second class people. I'm all for the promotion of critical thinking by means of public debate, but inane trollish taunts like that accomplish nothing other than the annoyance of people who feel unjustly maligned by the generalisation.
I've always wondered with incredulity, who is it that has that much of a hardon for trolling that they spend what must be hours writing this copypasta in the first place? Does anyone ever actually bite? Other than to point out that it's obviously a troll? It's mystifying...
And then you don't have anyone to do it, so you have to come to a figure that everyone is happy with. As it stands at the moment, you can always find someone desperate enough to be taken advantage of, because there is a large pool of people who are incapable of doing anything better.
Your wish is unlikely to be fulfilled, because the only people who are going to respond to this accusation are the people who feel slighted by it, i.e., the people whose reason for pirating isn't just "having to pay".
The humble bundle is a poor example for your argument, since "having to pay" doesn't really apply to something that nominally costs one penny. There is an interesting analysis of that phenomenon and possible motivations for the people who obtained the games without paying.. Of particular interest is how little it seems to matter to creators that it's happening, and the recognition of the possibility of reaping recommendations from those that didn't pay that can induce further sales.
Bittorrent wasn't designed for the purpose of helping people to avoid paying for media. It is an incredibly powerful distribution channel, and used for a lot of valued and important purposes apart from subverting copyright controls.
Should doesn't apply in a free market. In terms of money, things/people are worth whatever people are prepared to pay for them. I agree that people who work hard all day often deserve much more rewards than they receive. The only way people are going to be paid more to do shitty jobs is if the general population are vastly better educated, so that they need a financial incentive to do the crappy jobs. This would also create a cost motivation to put more r&d into automation of shitty jobs, so that no one has to do them. As long as there are people who have no choice but to do the shitty jobs, they will never be paid more than they need to subsist.
I'm not sure what impact the status of either the in-car entertainment system or a piece of interior trim would have on the performance and handling of a car.
Deferring to an authority is not the same thing as employing the argument from authority. Saying "i'm going to trust this authority figure" is not the same as saying "everything this person says is logically indisputable, because of the authority they hold".
In return for the money you give the dvd store, you receive a physically vulnerable DRM encumbered copy of the movie, complete with non-skippable insulting threat that for some reason the person that has gone to the trouble of paying for the movie in the manner the MPAA desires has to sit through.
Also the vast proportion of the money you've given to support the creative people actually gets wasted on a totally superfluous supply chain from the unneccesary dvd store (although if people want to pay extra for a local outlet that is obviously a personal preference) right up to the handful of visionless, greedy moneymen that dictate on a whim which ideas get to flourish, and not least their parasitic lawyers which they use to intimidate and persecute random people to use as examples to try and keep everyone else in line.
Personally, I'd prefer to donate to a kickstarter to bankroll a project, or contribute to a humble style "pay what you think we're worth" system or some other inventive way of rewarding the creative people and the minimal infrastructure needed to actually deliver the media.
That having been said, I do pay £15 per month for an unlimited cinema ticket, and it really pisses me off that my local cinema receives nothing from it's ticket sales. So I feel I need to make a point of buying their necessarily overpriced sweets and drinks everytime I go in there. I'm more than happy to reward the people that are genuinely necessary to the process of entertaining us. I strongly resent the inefficent gravy train that it's mandatory to fund and the parasitic, dictatorial oligarchs that bully and litigate to prop up their anachronistic business model.
This is true - I don't use uTorrent and had forgotten that it was proprietary. Perhaps Bram Cohen abandoning the Bittorrent reference implentation in order to work on uTorrent was the first step in him trying to figure out a way to monetize his work.
A shame really, since now kickstater, indiegogo and humble have shown that the donation solicitation method seems to work out better for everyone involved.
Especially for something as ubiquitous as bittorrent, which would have a vast number of donations. From a group of people who, despite popular presumptions, do actually carry a large contingent of people eager to demonstrate their gratitude for other people's work, but aren't prepared to be ripped off, spied on, lied to, controlled, manipulated and generally fucked over as part of the deal.
A better approach would be to set up a Kickstarter campaign outlining all the work that needs to be done and who needs to be paid for their efforts, and how much money it will take to support this for 6 months or 12 months or something. They would sail past their reqested amount long before the deadline. Vaguely similar to the humble bundle approach in a way.
They could make a big deal out of how this approach means they avoid needing advertising sponsors.
Terrorism is the attempt at political change through violent means.
Given that no violence has occured and sony are not a political entity, you've just defeated your own claims.
hacking in and stealing private information is violent. Cyber-violent.
You're redefining words to prop up a spurious argument, and concocting new ones out of whole cloth for the same reason. Cyber-violent?
I assume you wont reply to this, which I take as concurrence
Whether or not I care to reply isn't influenced by inane posturing like that. I am however becoming supicious that the sheer overt stupidity of what you're saying is an indication that you're merely a troll attempting to bait a response.
I strongly doubt this event has induced terror in you, or was intended to. Stop using the word "terrorist" as a scare word. I suggest "paedophile", it has more of a universal revulsion factor when trying to demonise people.
If you're going to criticise someone for something, criticise them for what they've actually done.
Your gut feeling about the relative complexity of these two approaches is so off-base, that the only conclusion is you have no experience of this and don't have a clue what you're talking about.
when did you see someone break something important just for the sake of it?
You're going to have to define "important" and "for the sake of it". I'm no cynic but still for any reasonable definition of those two terms I find it hard to believe you are that sheltered and naive. All I can say is, I'm envious of someone who has never had to deal with troubled, hateful, antisocial, misanthropist and/or disenfranchised people ever in their life, because the world has more than it's fair share.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the kind of unhelpful but technically correct explanation a computer in a 70's sci-fi movie would give :p
Its a game where you all make up a story as you go along - one person knows what the general plot is going to be and everyone else gets to make up the details as they find out more of the plot. To keep things interesting no one has absolute control over what happens. Players suggest what they think should happen and dice are used to see if it pans out exactly the way they wanted. The bits you aren't in control of are compelling for the same reason a movie or a book are compelling and the bits you do control are satisfying for same reason any creative act is satisfying. There may be more to it but anything else might be more difficult to relate.
This is one of the possible things you get. A lot of people beleive in god and don't think he wants them to treat women like second class people. I'm all for the promotion of critical thinking by means of public debate, but inane trollish taunts like that accomplish nothing other than the annoyance of people who feel unjustly maligned by the generalisation.
Why should I listen to you, you're Hitler!
I've always wondered with incredulity, who is it that has that much of a hardon for trolling that they spend what must be hours writing this copypasta in the first place? Does anyone ever actually bite? Other than to point out that it's obviously a troll? It's mystifying...
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
i think his name was abbie someone...
And then you don't have anyone to do it, so you have to come to a figure that everyone is happy with. As it stands at the moment, you can always find someone desperate enough to be taken advantage of, because there is a large pool of people who are incapable of doing anything better.
Your wish is unlikely to be fulfilled, because the only people who are going to respond to this accusation are the people who feel slighted by it, i.e., the people whose reason for pirating isn't just "having to pay".
The humble bundle is a poor example for your argument, since "having to pay" doesn't really apply to something that nominally costs one penny. There is an interesting analysis of that phenomenon and possible motivations for the people who obtained the games without paying.. Of particular interest is how little it seems to matter to creators that it's happening, and the recognition of the possibility of reaping recommendations from those that didn't pay that can induce further sales.
Bittorrent wasn't designed for the purpose of helping people to avoid paying for media. It is an incredibly powerful distribution channel, and used for a lot of valued and important purposes apart from subverting copyright controls.
Should doesn't apply in a free market. In terms of money, things/people are worth whatever people are prepared to pay for them. I agree that people who work hard all day often deserve much more rewards than they receive. The only way people are going to be paid more to do shitty jobs is if the general population are vastly better educated, so that they need a financial incentive to do the crappy jobs. This would also create a cost motivation to put more r&d into automation of shitty jobs, so that no one has to do them. As long as there are people who have no choice but to do the shitty jobs, they will never be paid more than they need to subsist.
I'm not sure what impact the status of either the in-car entertainment system or a piece of interior trim would have on the performance and handling of a car.
Deferring to an authority is not the same thing as employing the argument from authority. Saying "i'm going to trust this authority figure" is not the same as saying "everything this person says is logically indisputable, because of the authority they hold".
Bein' a smart-ass prick...that's a paddlin'.
In return for the money you give the dvd store, you receive a physically vulnerable DRM encumbered copy of the movie, complete with non-skippable insulting threat that for some reason the person that has gone to the trouble of paying for the movie in the manner the MPAA desires has to sit through.
Also the vast proportion of the money you've given to support the creative people actually gets wasted on a totally superfluous supply chain from the unneccesary dvd store (although if people want to pay extra for a local outlet that is obviously a personal preference) right up to the handful of visionless, greedy moneymen that dictate on a whim which ideas get to flourish, and not least their parasitic lawyers which they use to intimidate and persecute random people to use as examples to try and keep everyone else in line.
Personally, I'd prefer to donate to a kickstarter to bankroll a project, or contribute to a humble style "pay what you think we're worth" system or some other inventive way of rewarding the creative people and the minimal infrastructure needed to actually deliver the media.
That having been said, I do pay £15 per month for an unlimited cinema ticket, and it really pisses me off that my local cinema receives nothing from it's ticket sales. So I feel I need to make a point of buying their necessarily overpriced sweets and drinks everytime I go in there. I'm more than happy to reward the people that are genuinely necessary to the process of entertaining us. I strongly resent the inefficent gravy train that it's mandatory to fund and the parasitic, dictatorial oligarchs that bully and litigate to prop up their anachronistic business model.
This is true - I don't use uTorrent and had forgotten that it was proprietary. Perhaps Bram Cohen abandoning the Bittorrent reference implentation in order to work on uTorrent was the first step in him trying to figure out a way to monetize his work.
A shame really, since now kickstater, indiegogo and humble have shown that the donation solicitation method seems to work out better for everyone involved.
Especially for something as ubiquitous as bittorrent, which would have a vast number of donations. From a group of people who, despite popular presumptions, do actually carry a large contingent of people eager to demonstrate their gratitude for other people's work, but aren't prepared to be ripped off, spied on, lied to, controlled, manipulated and generally fucked over as part of the deal.
A better approach would be to set up a Kickstarter campaign outlining all the work that needs to be done and who needs to be paid for their efforts, and how much money it will take to support this for 6 months or 12 months or something. They would sail past their reqested amount long before the deadline. Vaguely similar to the humble bundle approach in a way.
They could make a big deal out of how this approach means they avoid needing advertising sponsors.
Anyone can relax the definition of any term until it's sufficiently loose to support their assertions.
You're rationalising hyperbole.
Terrorism is the attempt at political change through violent means.
Given that no violence has occured and sony are not a political entity, you've just defeated your own claims.
hacking in and stealing private information is violent. Cyber-violent.
You're redefining words to prop up a spurious argument, and concocting new ones out of whole cloth for the same reason. Cyber-violent?
I assume you wont reply to this, which I take as concurrence
Whether or not I care to reply isn't influenced by inane posturing like that. I am however becoming supicious that the sheer overt stupidity of what you're saying is an indication that you're merely a troll attempting to bait a response.
cyber-terrorists
I strongly doubt this event has induced terror in you, or was intended to. Stop using the word "terrorist" as a scare word. I suggest "paedophile", it has more of a universal revulsion factor when trying to demonise people.
If you're going to criticise someone for something, criticise them for what they've actually done.
Your gut feeling about the relative complexity of these two approaches is so off-base, that the only conclusion is you have no experience of this and don't have a clue what you're talking about.
when did you see someone break something important just for the sake of it?
You're going to have to define "important" and "for the sake of it". I'm no cynic but still for any reasonable definition of those two terms I find it hard to believe you are that sheltered and naive. All I can say is, I'm envious of someone who has never had to deal with troubled, hateful, antisocial, misanthropist and/or disenfranchised people ever in their life, because the world has more than it's fair share.
While what you say is true, it's a non-sequitur. The argument from authority is a logical fallacy.
How does that have any impact on the argument?