I would argue that the last three achieved their political goals from existing terror. Democratically elected leaders tend to let a pervading fear amongst the population sway their decisions, since they are supposed to represent that population. The question is whether they are taking it too far.
I don't know why, but I find myself being almost physically disgusted by your response to the column.
It appears I was using an incorrect definition of free will. It was just a funny thought I had when I read it. The rest of the column wasn't bad, and if you read the rest of my post you will see that I wasn't so flippant about the actual content of the study (well, at least the part the column shared), nor the rest of the column. I brought it up as a point of interest, in response to a slashdotter who was burning a straw-man of his own, (mis)representing the anti-video game crowd with a single slogan: "Video games are warping children's minds". Speaking of strawmen and slogans, "It's inconvenient, so it can't be true", and "I don't want to believe it, so it can't be true" are absolute doozies.
I can't help but get the impression that you didn't actually read my response, and that you didn't (and you probably should) get any sort of context from reading the parent post. After all, "Why bother reading the comment, when I can just vent my anger now?"
Statistically, yes, there are no deaths to terrorism. Terror related deaths in the US (and the UK) are merely a rounding error.
In reality, however, there were terrorists, and they killed people. I'm sure if I did some research, I could prove to you that at least one or two existed previously, and that after 11/9/2001, they existed as nothing more than vapour. Now, if you wish to wave your hand in the government's direction, I suggest you show me, and the families of terrorist attack victims, some evidence that the government actually perpetrated the attacks. You, or the GP, who I suspect figured out that this argument was a quagmire to begin with, and decided not to pursue it.
Uh no, they can't do that. This is just a blocking effort. There is nothing in the law currently that permits arresting people for not filtering child pornography.
Look, I understand the reasoning. Once private businesses start blocking certain highly illegal things, then it's only a matter of time before warrantless arrests, total surveillance, slavery of the whole human race, and Hitler rising from the dead. I just don't think it works that way.
Oh well. It has all the important parts of illegal activity: you can be punished for it, it's frowned upon, and it's immoral. Whether or not it is illegal or a civil matter in your jurisdiction, the GP still raises valid points.
...which is great, because once we had sails, we didn't need slave rowers, and once we had steam, we didn't need sales, and once we had gasoline, we didn't need steam. Now that we have piracy, we...er...erm...
The reason open source has taken off so much is because it allows people who have no capital to dodge around the wage-slave line and produce things with their own tools.
Right. I guess it has absolutely nothing to do with it being cheaper and as good if not better? Yup, I'm sure that's why all the big players in the market (y'know, pros who use software like this every day) are all supporting it because broke people who somehow managed to get their hands on a computer, could theoretically make something of value. It makes perfect sense, if you just redefine the word "sense".
Capitalism and all its fictional scarcity have been destroying productivity in the name of control for a long time.
"Fictional"? If scarcity were fictional, everyone would be infinitely wealthy, and we would have everything we wanted. Last time I checked, that isn't happening. Where's the hold-up? Are we just limiting ourselves, saying "what the hey, let's be poor"?
Capitalist economics is a big shell game, meant to fleece suckers. It's monopoly, dependence, exploitation and theft, pure and simple.
That last statement is actually true! (Wow, you probably should be given an encouragement trophy, huh?) We do indeed hold a monopoly on revenue streams for business, they are indeed dependant on us, we do indeed exploit them (often by forcing them down to razor-thin margins), and we often steal from them (but obviously not legally).
Oh wait, did you mean the other way around? Well, that's a bit more contentious. There certainly isn't some kind of monopoly, which is immediately obvious when you look at the definition. I know, I know, it was supposed to be more inflammatory than true, but I still think it's important. We are undoubtedly dependent, but it is a mutual dependence, and the businesses we depend on are comprised entirely of people from our community, who are also dependent on other people, and so it goes. There has indeed been considerable exploitation from the side of business, but mutual exploitation is to be expected in a cut-throat game like capitalism. As for theft, I personally haven't been stolen from by any businesses (as far as I can tell) and the same goes for everyone else I know.
If they don't provide a mechanism for their work to enter the public domain then what the hell is the point of the deal?
But they aren't under any obligation to provide such a mechanism! They just can no longer exert any control over their works. Even if the law actually did say the public must be provided with a copy free from copy-protection measures (which it does not), these companies haven't yet welched (is that actually the correct spelling?) on their deal yet, because, as of yet, no copyright on software has expired.* They may still, if they are generous, start selling copy-protection-free copies after the copyright is expired, in which case they would fulfil this fictitious arrangement. In reality, when you pirate software (the royal you, you may not personally pirate), you are breaking the true deal with them.
* I realise that by saying this, I am, in fact, indirectly pointing out why the current implementation of copyright is absurd when applied to software. Nevertheless, I maintain that this is a separate issue, one that needs to be solved in the form of awareness-raising and political campaigning. It makes little bearing on the fact that this is what we have now, and is the "agreement" that we've made.
I was reading my paper a couple of weeks ago, and there was a column at the back of one section that talked about video games in a rather negative light. The columnist referred to a study about the effects of video games on children's minds. It said nothing about the violence (kudos, because so many people conflate video games with violent video games), rather it talked about the neurological effects of excessive playing (not just playing, excessive playing). It said that the constant gratification from short term goals is addictive, and the lack of focus on the situation surrounding these goals makes for a crisis in empathy.
The study apparently concluded (somehow) that video games were leaving a generation without free will. If that's the case, then there is a very simple solution: parents just need to tell their kids not to play them. Having no free will, they will have no choice but to obey! They certainly won't, oh I don't know, go behind their parents' backs and play them anyway, right?
Elaborate, lest the friends and families of terrorism casualties believe you are calling the death of their loved ones imaginary as well. So what's the explanation? Government conspiracy? Aliens? Both?
Here's a better, far more economically (and legally) sound idea. Why don't you just pay the price listed, or forget about it? The publishers are placing a price tag on their product (just like any other goods/service provider does) in the hope that it will gain them the most profit, by wooing people like you into buying it. If that's too high, well then you can try haggling, but when that inevitably fails, you just have to walk away empty-handed. Maybe the price that you thought it was worth (in this case, absolutely nothing) is unsustainable. It's not their responsibility to provide it for the price you want, no matter how much you kick and scream. It's also not your right (legal or natural) to have the thing you wanted so badly if you can't afford it. Don't give me this "information is everyone's property" crap, because it doesn't apply here. It's recent software, it hasn't penetrated the culture to any significant degree, and thanks are almost entirely due to the publisher, and the software writers they represent, that you even have a chance of enjoying this piece of software.
Your quasi-economic bullshit justification of piracy is just further evidence as to why the unwashed masses shouldn't have so much control in business transactions.
Some steal because it's the only way to get it, or at least the only way to get it in the form they want.
That's true, but often those people want as much as possible for free (hey, who doesn't, right?) That would make them less of an "unfulfilled market" as an "unfulfillable market".
At the risk of sounding like some kind of language-related Nazi, "College Preparatory Mathematics" is more of a misnomer than an oxymoron. An oxymoron is just a pair of words that seemingly contradict each other (e.g. "Microsoft Works").
... and one of my maths exams was pretty hard. I was told going in that %50 was a good mark, and that anything much higher than %75 or so was excellent. It covered the trickier sides of integrals, complex numbers, 3D trig, motion problems, and lots and lots of tricky little proofs. If you're interested, take a look. (PDF warning)
If shoppers would just exhibit a little patience instead of rushing out to buy the latest shiny, they too would benefit from the eventual lower prices.
If shoppers exhibited more patience, prices would start out lower than the customary $30 but also wouldn't drop for a very, very long time. You'd actually lose out in that scenario.
No, the explanation is energy, which flows through the body (sorta like blood), and if there is a problem, it will manifest in the energy flows. It probably has a scientific equivalent (energy throughout nervous system perhaps?), but I haven't researched it. All I know is that it works better with muscle spasms and cramps than any western medicine to date.
The point he's making is that South Park being comedy is an opinion.
Duh. My point was that the OP didn't deserve his flamebait mod. He just said that paedophilia disgusts him, just like snuff films or their fantasy equivalents. The next guy, in classic slashdot style, follows with a hyperbolic non-sequitur, by declaring that he must mean South Park. I tried to point out that it wasn't necessarily true, and that South Park is a comedy more than a fantasy snuff film. Then yet another guy decides that because I thought South Park was a comedy, that I must think that a video of a clown killing someone is also comedy! See the pattern here? Sometimes, I swear, the people here are total morons.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that the last three achieved their political goals from existing terror. Democratically elected leaders tend to let a pervading fear amongst the population sway their decisions, since they are supposed to represent that population. The question is whether they are taking it too far.
I can't help but get the impression that you didn't actually read my response, and that you didn't (and you probably should) get any sort of context from reading the parent post. After all, "Why bother reading the comment, when I can just vent my anger now?"
Uh no, they can't do that. This is just a blocking effort. There is nothing in the law currently that permits arresting people for not filtering child pornography.
Look, I understand the reasoning. Once private businesses start blocking certain highly illegal things, then it's only a matter of time before warrantless arrests, total surveillance, slavery of the whole human race, and Hitler rising from the dead. I just don't think it works that way.
Oh well. It has all the important parts of illegal activity: you can be punished for it, it's frowned upon, and it's immoral. Whether or not it is illegal or a civil matter in your jurisdiction, the GP still raises valid points.
...which is great, because once we had sails, we didn't need slave rowers, and once we had steam, we didn't need sales, and once we had gasoline, we didn't need steam. Now that we have piracy, we...er...erm...
I'll get back to you on that one.
Oh wait, did you mean the other way around? Well, that's a bit more contentious. There certainly isn't some kind of monopoly, which is immediately obvious when you look at the definition. I know, I know, it was supposed to be more inflammatory than true, but I still think it's important. We are undoubtedly dependent, but it is a mutual dependence, and the businesses we depend on are comprised entirely of people from our community, who are also dependent on other people, and so it goes. There has indeed been considerable exploitation from the side of business, but mutual exploitation is to be expected in a cut-throat game like capitalism. As for theft, I personally haven't been stolen from by any businesses (as far as I can tell) and the same goes for everyone else I know.
* I realise that by saying this, I am, in fact, indirectly pointing out why the current implementation of copyright is absurd when applied to software. Nevertheless, I maintain that this is a separate issue, one that needs to be solved in the form of awareness-raising and political campaigning. It makes little bearing on the fact that this is what we have now, and is the "agreement" that we've made.
I was reading my paper a couple of weeks ago, and there was a column at the back of one section that talked about video games in a rather negative light. The columnist referred to a study about the effects of video games on children's minds. It said nothing about the violence (kudos, because so many people conflate video games with violent video games), rather it talked about the neurological effects of excessive playing (not just playing, excessive playing). It said that the constant gratification from short term goals is addictive, and the lack of focus on the situation surrounding these goals makes for a crisis in empathy.
The study apparently concluded (somehow) that video games were leaving a generation without free will. If that's the case, then there is a very simple solution: parents just need to tell their kids not to play them. Having no free will, they will have no choice but to obey! They certainly won't, oh I don't know, go behind their parents' backs and play them anyway, right?
... Cuba's not too bad, and it's close too! North Korea, I hear, has some spectacular sights. Russia isn't too bad either.
Yup, plenty of free countries to go to, if you're willing to learn the language.
Elaborate, lest the friends and families of terrorism casualties believe you are calling the death of their loved ones imaginary as well. So what's the explanation? Government conspiracy? Aliens? Both?
Here's a better, far more economically (and legally) sound idea. Why don't you just pay the price listed, or forget about it? The publishers are placing a price tag on their product (just like any other goods/service provider does) in the hope that it will gain them the most profit, by wooing people like you into buying it. If that's too high, well then you can try haggling, but when that inevitably fails, you just have to walk away empty-handed. Maybe the price that you thought it was worth (in this case, absolutely nothing) is unsustainable. It's not their responsibility to provide it for the price you want, no matter how much you kick and scream. It's also not your right (legal or natural) to have the thing you wanted so badly if you can't afford it. Don't give me this "information is everyone's property" crap, because it doesn't apply here. It's recent software, it hasn't penetrated the culture to any significant degree, and thanks are almost entirely due to the publisher, and the software writers they represent, that you even have a chance of enjoying this piece of software.
Your quasi-economic bullshit justification of piracy is just further evidence as to why the unwashed masses shouldn't have so much control in business transactions.
LOL! I suppose that if you run out the door with a dozen books stuffed under your shirt, and never return, it's not stealing either.
At the risk of sounding like some kind of language-related Nazi, "College Preparatory Mathematics" is more of a misnomer than an oxymoron. An oxymoron is just a pair of words that seemingly contradict each other (e.g. "Microsoft Works").
... and one of my maths exams was pretty hard. I was told going in that %50 was a good mark, and that anything much higher than %75 or so was excellent. It covered the trickier sides of integrals, complex numbers, 3D trig, motion problems, and lots and lots of tricky little proofs. If you're interested, take a look. (PDF warning)
3. Face massive copyright infringement lawsuit?
What, just like your comments?
;)
And mine?
... what ramifications does ISO's decision actually have?
No, the explanation is energy, which flows through the body (sorta like blood), and if there is a problem, it will manifest in the energy flows. It probably has a scientific equivalent (energy throughout nervous system perhaps?), but I haven't researched it. All I know is that it works better with muscle spasms and cramps than any western medicine to date.
the ===||*FREE!*||=== is not going to lure me.
No, that would be a snuff film. I wonder what gave you that idea...