You may find his opinion offensive, but it makes a lot of sense, and doesn't deserve a flamebait.
It's true: our rights were formed through violence. It's an inescapable fact. We had to work to forge our rights amongst animals, amongst each other, and it required violence. Nowadays, we have not what really could be called inalienable, nor could it really be considered privileges. It's more of a birthright, born of the fighting of ancestors, protected and handed down by the government, the right to do so handed down by us.
The parent is also correct in that government does civilise us. We can communicate, get along (to a satisfactory extent), enjoy privileges like modern life, including the internet which you now enjoy today. And yes, to allow this to happen, the government had to take a monopoly of violence (or at least, legal violence), to minimise the constant violent clashing that human beings tend to do with one another.
There's a sweet spot, of course. Banning firearms in a single are when penned in on all sides by legal gun trades is nuts. It's like trying to dig a hole in the ocean. Gun nuts have managed to turn your whole situation on its head so logic doesn't apply anymore. The US on firearms is like a junkie trying to justify his addiction. "It feels worse when I don't shoot up (ha, ha, "shoot up"), so it must be good for me!" Yes, it does feel better now, but it ain't good for you.
The fact is, by allowing guns you are putting other people's lives into your own hands. Surely, if there is anything in the world that needs to be licensed, it's guns? Hell, we license driving, and that's not even designed to kill (it's just an unpleasant side effect). Can you honestly tell me that the general population is rational and responsible enough to handle practically unfettered access to firearms? Moreso than driving? But, I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, because like the pathetic junkie, the science takes second place to immediate gratification. We anti-gun lobbyists may have the blood of several people on our hands, but it's a drop in a red ocean compared to what the founding fathers and every pro-gun person since has pooling around their necks.
I think what you are trying to say is that you think that criminals are able to use guns to kill people because they are able to get guns from the 'gun nuts'.
And I think I was trying to say what's in my post above. Anything else is a strawman. Laugh all you want. Small things amuse small minds.
No matter where the guns come from, if you have one, and they are banned or need a license, then police can arrest you. It's much harder for violent crime to occur. Perhaps even if you paired it with a clamp-down on gun smuggling, perhaps you'd have something effective.
Woot, just like how gun nuts lobbying to keep their precious penis-substitutes are partially responsible for all the deaths of people by the hands (sorry, guns) of criminals who really shouldn't have been able to get their hands on one.
Criminals, by definition aren't interested in following the law
A criminal, in a gun-tolearnt country, is a law-abiding citizen right up until he draws the gun on some unsuspecting victim. In a gun-intolerant country, he is a criminal, and can be arrested as a criminal, right from the time he buys a gun from a black-market seller, who also can be arrested as a criminal. There's so many more points of failure between preparing for the crime and committing in which police can intervene.
Think about it. If you wanted to garrotte someone quietly, why the fuck would you toss a firecracker? At least it will give you an option of either putting the police on your trail, or having to come face-to-face with a camera.
I don't think this would help in the long term. People crack games just so they can run it without the CD. Why wouldn't they crack it to remove ads? Look at the Adblock culture here on Slashdot. People lock down their browsers so that there is virtually no way an ad can enter onto their screen. They justify it with things like "it's my bandwidth" or "it's their fault for being so annoying". I simply can't see that, in the future, ad-supported games and people will get along any more than they currently do with paid-for locked-down games.
But will every pirated copy magically transforms into a sale, or will this scheme just annoy legitimate users and be cracked anyway?
How about, instead:
But will there be even the slightest possibility that it will convert a potential pirate to a legitimate user, or will it magically make absolutely everyone pirate the game in defiance?
If it doesn't cause some sort of quantifiable harm to someone else
Quantifiable harm is a narrow definition for what should be illegal. If, for example, a significant majority was in favour of, say, banning the use of private personal data without former consent, most people would be happy to ban it, not because of its often slight potential for "quantifiable" harm, but because we simply don't like it. And that is 100% OK.
Seriosly, I'm sick of Americans/Canadians and people from capitalist countries whining on about how the profit motive corrupts things without having experienced a world where it is severly attenuated. Move to Sweden, work in a company there for a while and see how well it works.
So true. Not necessarily the targeting of certain North American countries, but still true nonetheless.
I may have the opinion that billboards advertising cigarettes are morally wrong, or that certain forms of hate speech are morally wrong, or that extramarital sex is morally wrong, but that does not imply that I support a government ban on those things.
No, but if the significant majority of people did believe any or all those things were morally wrong, then possibly the government should ban it. Of course, the water gets muddied when people believe that the government banning anything is, in itself, an immoral act...
I agree 100%. It's not so much libertarianism, as it is extremism. Slashdot can sometimes paint libertarianism in a bad light. I don't know if there really are so many libertarian extremists out there, or if it's John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory at work, but there's a lot of extreme libertarian views out there. People who think inciting violence or libel should be protected free speech, that (as you mentioned) the government should just fuck off out of, well, everywhere, that the government shouldn't be allowed to pass legislation like the patriot act in times of crisis (yes, I know, it's outstayed it's welcome by several years), or even that we should be allowed to shoot our leaders in the head should we be displeased with them.
Core values, like the tendency to grant freedom to individuals and to keep safeguards to prevent abuse of power, I think are all fine propositions, it's just that when they get taken to dizzying highs that they become somewhat repulsive. Just like with any ideology.
What part of "The GPL uses copyright law" do you fail to understand?
Not one part of it, including the subtle subtext. There's an implication in the word "uses" that just because it uses copyright law, doesn't mean that it's totally dependent on it. My statement is more accurate and more precise.
False. If I thought you would listen to me, I would explain why.
And if I thought you would listen to me, or at least resort to points I haven't already heard (and defeated) many, many times in/. discussions (and made a few friends along the way, I might add), then I might feel a little let down. But since that isn't the case, goodbye!
But, as this is not the first time you've had this fact explained to you, please continue to ignore that the word "free" has multiple distinct meanings in the English language and pat yourself on the back for discovering this amazing flaw that "we" use the word "free" in multiple, unrelated ways. Its brilliant logic on your part, truly brill!
Explained what, exactly? The word "free" has differing meanings, big whoop! We were using the same meaning. Since you have laid your card right down on the table (in a very predictable order), I know exactly what meaning of free you meant. Can you honestly say the same thing about me?
I must say, I am a little curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that we were using different definitions of free? I was referring to the one that's usually referred to as "free as in freedom". I assumed naturally that information wants to be that kind of free. Was I wrong? I only ask because you have given me no indication that I was wrong, except those hollow, meaningless, and ultimately misplaced barbs. No actual substance, that I can see from this vantage point actually backs up anything you've said in this tragic piece of shit post that you've handed me.
The only substance in it is regarding the nature of the expression "information wants to be free", and frankly, you would have to be denser than a set of irrational numbers to not know already everything you just said. I know that information doesn't actually want to be free. My comment was more a jab at people who take it like it's like the 11th commandment of a God most of them don't believe in. That's all it is: an anthropomorphism and an observation. It doesn't tell us what to do with information, it doesn't tell us how to make our laws, it isn't justification to ignore the ones in place. It could be construed as a reason to instigate changes to current laws, but it isn't the only factor involved in such a decision, and is certainly not the deciding factor.
Slashdot Mirror
You may find his opinion offensive, but it makes a lot of sense, and doesn't deserve a flamebait.
It's true: our rights were formed through violence. It's an inescapable fact. We had to work to forge our rights amongst animals, amongst each other, and it required violence. Nowadays, we have not what really could be called inalienable, nor could it really be considered privileges. It's more of a birthright, born of the fighting of ancestors, protected and handed down by the government, the right to do so handed down by us.
The parent is also correct in that government does civilise us. We can communicate, get along (to a satisfactory extent), enjoy privileges like modern life, including the internet which you now enjoy today. And yes, to allow this to happen, the government had to take a monopoly of violence (or at least, legal violence), to minimise the constant violent clashing that human beings tend to do with one another.
There's a sweet spot, of course. Banning firearms in a single are when penned in on all sides by legal gun trades is nuts. It's like trying to dig a hole in the ocean. Gun nuts have managed to turn your whole situation on its head so logic doesn't apply anymore. The US on firearms is like a junkie trying to justify his addiction. "It feels worse when I don't shoot up (ha, ha, "shoot up"), so it must be good for me!" Yes, it does feel better now, but it ain't good for you.
The fact is, by allowing guns you are putting other people's lives into your own hands. Surely, if there is anything in the world that needs to be licensed, it's guns? Hell, we license driving, and that's not even designed to kill (it's just an unpleasant side effect). Can you honestly tell me that the general population is rational and responsible enough to handle practically unfettered access to firearms? Moreso than driving? But, I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, because like the pathetic junkie, the science takes second place to immediate gratification. We anti-gun lobbyists may have the blood of several people on our hands, but it's a drop in a red ocean compared to what the founding fathers and every pro-gun person since has pooling around their necks.
And I think I was trying to say what's in my post above. Anything else is a strawman. Laugh all you want. Small things amuse small minds.
No matter where the guns come from, if you have one, and they are banned or need a license, then police can arrest you. It's much harder for violent crime to occur. Perhaps even if you paired it with a clamp-down on gun smuggling, perhaps you'd have something effective.
Woot, just like how gun nuts lobbying to keep their precious penis-substitutes are partially responsible for all the deaths of people by the hands (sorry, guns) of criminals who really shouldn't have been able to get their hands on one.
A criminal, in a gun-tolearnt country, is a law-abiding citizen right up until he draws the gun on some unsuspecting victim. In a gun-intolerant country, he is a criminal, and can be arrested as a criminal, right from the time he buys a gun from a black-market seller, who also can be arrested as a criminal. There's so many more points of failure between preparing for the crime and committing in which police can intervene.
That's not true! I would also consider confusing the word "offended" with the word "afraid" as being more stupid than being afraid of words.
Oh yeah? Capitalism is also a myth propagated by capitalist fat-cats. How's that for unassailable, circular logic?
I didn't know that the misread title meme could be stretched that far!
Think about it. If you wanted to garrotte someone quietly, why the fuck would you toss a firecracker? At least it will give you an option of either putting the police on your trail, or having to come face-to-face with a camera.
I don't think this would help in the long term. People crack games just so they can run it without the CD. Why wouldn't they crack it to remove ads? Look at the Adblock culture here on Slashdot. People lock down their browsers so that there is virtually no way an ad can enter onto their screen. They justify it with things like "it's my bandwidth" or "it's their fault for being so annoying". I simply can't see that, in the future, ad-supported games and people will get along any more than they currently do with paid-for locked-down games.
I for one prefer the new-ish Hot Coffee underladies.
I agree 100%. It's not so much libertarianism, as it is extremism. Slashdot can sometimes paint libertarianism in a bad light. I don't know if there really are so many libertarian extremists out there, or if it's John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory at work, but there's a lot of extreme libertarian views out there. People who think inciting violence or libel should be protected free speech, that (as you mentioned) the government should just fuck off out of, well, everywhere, that the government shouldn't be allowed to pass legislation like the patriot act in times of crisis (yes, I know, it's outstayed it's welcome by several years), or even that we should be allowed to shoot our leaders in the head should we be displeased with them.
Core values, like the tendency to grant freedom to individuals and to keep safeguards to prevent abuse of power, I think are all fine propositions, it's just that when they get taken to dizzying highs that they become somewhat repulsive. Just like with any ideology.
Hey! You're infringing on the trademark of the Film Actor's Guild!
If you say so, buddy.
I must say, I am a little curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that we were using different definitions of free? I was referring to the one that's usually referred to as "free as in freedom". I assumed naturally that information wants to be that kind of free. Was I wrong? I only ask because you have given me no indication that I was wrong, except those hollow, meaningless, and ultimately misplaced barbs. No actual substance, that I can see from this vantage point actually backs up anything you've said in this tragic piece of shit post that you've handed me.
The only substance in it is regarding the nature of the expression "information wants to be free", and frankly, you would have to be denser than a set of irrational numbers to not know already everything you just said. I know that information doesn't actually want to be free. My comment was more a jab at people who take it like it's like the 11th commandment of a God most of them don't believe in. That's all it is: an anthropomorphism and an observation. It doesn't tell us what to do with information, it doesn't tell us how to make our laws, it isn't justification to ignore the ones in place. It could be construed as a reason to instigate changes to current laws, but it isn't the only factor involved in such a decision, and is certainly not the deciding factor.
OK, that was simply awful. I'd have to rate that joke an abominable 68%.