P.S.
I will add that Steam doesn't do shite to prevent the piracy of games that aren't Steam-exclusive releases, unless the game designers also invested in an effective punkbuster (Relic's Company of Heroes comes to mind).
Why the hell would I pay that much money for a game so I can get screwed by a DRM system that has done nothing to hamper piracy of the games in question?
Actually, Steam does a LOT to hamper piracy. It's far more effective than other company's solutions.
The key is that Steam requires you to connect to their online server in order to decrypt the game's files... sure, eventually someone will crack the encryption, but it takes a lot longer to do so. What's more, a lot of Steam's games are online multiplayer only, which means that unless you have a cd-key that was validated by Valve, you can't play the game even if you get around the encryption. It's only possible (and even then, difficult) to pirate single-player versions of Steam material.
Additionally, I don't see how you're "getting screwed" by Steam. The prices are all at market price (or in some cases, slightly lower than market price), and the client itself is very unobtrusive. Now, throw in the fact that you can install Steam on any computer, log on with your username, and start downloading any of the games that you've previously paid for, and suddenly buying a game on Steam seems more attractive than buying a physical disc. After all, discs can break, and if you don't back them up, you're fucked.
However, I believe in most cases, people who think the harm to other people is an arbitrary factor are the ones being arbitrary.
The point is that applying any moral philosophy (mine included) to the definition of geek-dom would be arbitrary, because that isn't what "geek" means. I'm not being arbitrary because I'm seeking to loosen the definition, not constrain it.
Remember the exact text that I was responding to: To call him a geek is an insult to me and all other geeks i know of...
Geeks come in different flavors, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that there could be such a thing as a "reckless Geek."
Personally, I'd never endanger myself by driving in the way that the article describes, but that doesn't mean that I renounce the man's geek-hood or anything. He's just a different sort.
That people can't agree on something doesn't mean it is arbitrary... The vandals might disagree with us, but they'd still be wrong
Applying the words "right" and "wrong" to different philosophies is inherently arbitrary. The vandals could easily argue that they were "right" and you were "wrong." Those are meaningless words.
From evolutionary perspective morality is essentially a fabrication to faciliate co-operation between members of a pack. Every pack-forming animal has some kind of rules of behavior. These rules are useful to the species, but only as long as all pack members follow them, so any member not following them tends to get cast out by other pack members. This explains why atheists are so quick to defend themselves against allegations that they might slip from adherence to these rules: it is simple self-protection.
Yes! Someone who gets where I'm coming from.
I only lie, cheat, or steal if it harms someone that I do not consider to be an immediate "pack member." This is because I understand the value of allies.
Most atheists won't do such things, of course, but they ultimately have no reason not to
Senseless slaughter isn't what I'd call "profitable," and that is literally my only reason for not engaging in it.
Being agnostic or atheist has no necessary connection to being amoral. Perhaps you're connecting morality with religion? I don't think it's necessary to do so.
No, I'm not. If I was, then I wouldn't have said "agnostic, amoral" I would have simply said "agnostic" and assumed that "amoral" would have been implied. However, while agnosticism or atheism do not have necessary connections to being amoral, being religious does typically have a necessary connection to being moral. I simply wished to further qualify that statement.
And as another poster pointed out, being a geek, or at least a "hacker", does usually imply some ethical constraints
And as I pointed out, that was the arbitrary distinction that I was objecting to in the first place -- his "point" added nothing to the debate, it just echoed the opinion of the parent.
Certainly you wouldn't argue that a blackhat isn't a geek, would you?
Secondly, utter disregard for human life is typically considered sociopathic.
It is. However, sociopathic behavior is not typically thought of as being philosophically motivated, and I felt it necessary to make the distinction.
Oops! From the wiki: "Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months and a median of 480 months.[32]"
I spoke too soon, I hadn't gotten to the part that was specifically about the United States.
P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation... anyone up to it? I'm tired. =P
If I knowingly do anything that involves unacceptable risks of killing anyone else, it sure as hell is attempted murder.
Actually that'd be reckless endangerment... and, if you did kill anyone, it could either be murder or manslaughter. You need "malice aforethought" for the killing to constitute homicide; according to the wikipedia, malice can be implied through extreme recklessness (but I haven't heard that before and I didn't see a citation).
No; I'm not opposed to spying on principle (I am opposed to being personally caught for crimes, but, that's a practical concern and not a philosophical one). I was just nitpicking, and wanted to point out that maybe we should consider more than simple legality when deciding whether or not we agree with a practice.
After all, everything the Third Reich did was legal, wasn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. I will add that Steam doesn't do shite to prevent the piracy of games that aren't Steam-exclusive releases, unless the game designers also invested in an effective punkbuster (Relic's Company of Heroes comes to mind).
to compensate for the "discomfort" (can't find a good word here, I'm sure you get my point).
The legal term would be "tort."
IANAL.
That would make it too easy. They'd rather "bear their crosses" and beat their chests (and bibles) over the literal translation. Idiots.
Why the hell would I pay that much money for a game so I can get screwed by a DRM system that has done nothing to hamper piracy of the games in question?
Actually, Steam does a LOT to hamper piracy. It's far more effective than other company's solutions.
The key is that Steam requires you to connect to their online server in order to decrypt the game's files ... sure, eventually someone will crack the encryption, but it takes a lot longer to do so. What's more, a lot of Steam's games are online multiplayer only, which means that unless you have a cd-key that was validated by Valve, you can't play the game even if you get around the encryption. It's only possible (and even then, difficult) to pirate single-player versions of Steam material.
Additionally, I don't see how you're "getting screwed" by Steam. The prices are all at market price (or in some cases, slightly lower than market price), and the client itself is very unobtrusive. Now, throw in the fact that you can install Steam on any computer, log on with your username, and start downloading any of the games that you've previously paid for, and suddenly buying a game on Steam seems more attractive than buying a physical disc. After all, discs can break, and if you don't back them up, you're fucked.
However, I believe in most cases, people who think the harm to other people is an arbitrary factor are the ones being arbitrary.
The point is that applying any moral philosophy (mine included) to the definition of geek-dom would be arbitrary, because that isn't what "geek" means. I'm not being arbitrary because I'm seeking to loosen the definition, not constrain it.
Remember the exact text that I was responding to: To call him a geek is an insult to me and all other geeks i know of ...
Geeks come in different flavors, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that there could be such a thing as a "reckless Geek."
Personally, I'd never endanger myself by driving in the way that the article describes, but that doesn't mean that I renounce the man's geek-hood or anything. He's just a different sort.
That people can't agree on something doesn't mean it is arbitrary ... The vandals might disagree with us, but they'd still be wrong
Applying the words "right" and "wrong" to different philosophies is inherently arbitrary. The vandals could easily argue that they were "right" and you were "wrong." Those are meaningless words.
That's because people take things they read for granted, instead of checking the citations.
That's the inherent flaw in the way that some people use Wikipedia.
From evolutionary perspective morality is essentially a fabrication to faciliate co-operation between members of a pack. Every pack-forming animal has some kind of rules of behavior. These rules are useful to the species, but only as long as all pack members follow them, so any member not following them tends to get cast out by other pack members. This explains why atheists are so quick to defend themselves against allegations that they might slip from adherence to these rules: it is simple self-protection.
Yes! Someone who gets where I'm coming from.
I only lie, cheat, or steal if it harms someone that I do not consider to be an immediate "pack member." This is because I understand the value of allies.
Most atheists won't do such things, of course, but they ultimately have no reason not to
Senseless slaughter isn't what I'd call "profitable," and that is literally my only reason for not engaging in it.
To the modders who insist on abusing the "Flamebait" tag: there isn't a "-1 disagree" tag for a reason.
Being agnostic or atheist has no necessary connection to being amoral. Perhaps you're connecting morality with religion? I don't think it's necessary to do so.
No, I'm not. If I was, then I wouldn't have said "agnostic, amoral" I would have simply said "agnostic" and assumed that "amoral" would have been implied. However, while agnosticism or atheism do not have necessary connections to being amoral, being religious does typically have a necessary connection to being moral. I simply wished to further qualify that statement.
And as another poster pointed out, being a geek, or at least a "hacker", does usually imply some ethical constraints
And as I pointed out, that was the arbitrary distinction that I was objecting to in the first place -- his "point" added nothing to the debate, it just echoed the opinion of the parent.
Certainly you wouldn't argue that a blackhat isn't a geek, would you?
Secondly, utter disregard for human life is typically considered sociopathic.
It is. However, sociopathic behavior is not typically thought of as being philosophically motivated, and I felt it necessary to make the distinction.
The right to due process, and a trial by a jury of peers.
The minute you decided to place intrinsic value in human life.
I should point out this point includes ethical constraints
This is the arbitrary part. Thank you for illustrating my point.
Not endangering others lives is not part of any particular moral philosophy, it's a part of any philosophy that deserves to be called moral.
You've excluded the possibility of amorality as a philosophy, like all of the other drones.
Rather, some of us are agnostic, amoral, and proud of it.
I'm not kidding. All moral standards are arbitrary.
I lol'd
P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation
P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation
P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation
Etc.
Oops! From the wiki: "Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months and a median of 480 months.[32]"
I spoke too soon, I hadn't gotten to the part that was specifically about the United States.
P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation ... anyone up to it? I'm tired. =P
If I knowingly do anything that involves unacceptable risks of killing anyone else, it sure as hell is attempted murder.
Actually that'd be reckless endangerment ... and, if you did kill anyone, it could either be murder or manslaughter. You need "malice aforethought" for the killing to constitute homicide; according to the wikipedia, malice can be implied through extreme recklessness (but I haven't heard that before and I didn't see a citation).
Legal definition of murder
IANAL. If a lawyer would shed some light on this for us, that would be rad.
To call him a geek is an insult to me and all other geeks i know of ... To endanger other people's lives like this is utterly despicable.
Don't apply your arbitrary moral standards to the rest of us. Being a "geek" has nothing to do with submitting to a particular moral philosophy.
Import duties aren't "bribes," they're just a mercantilist tariff.
transportation of obscene materials
Gotta love how this country likes to uphold the bill of rights /sarcasm
No; I'm not opposed to spying on principle (I am opposed to being personally caught for crimes, but, that's a practical concern and not a philosophical one). I was just nitpicking, and wanted to point out that maybe we should consider more than simple legality when deciding whether or not we agree with a practice.
After all, everything the Third Reich did was legal, wasn't it?
If the spying is done in a legal, constitutional way, with a judge overseeing the procedures, I don't think most people would object.
So, basically, as long as someone writes down somewhere that it's okay to do something, that thing is always okay to do?
Actually, the article says 5-10 gigawatts, the summary is incorrect.