what is age limit ? bad concept…
So where do you suggest to put it instead?
The sentence that I followed with was one suggestion (naturally, people care about themselves and those close to them). Another is just for people to stick their heads in that machine where you’re supposed to go crazy from realising how small and insignificant you are in the universe… the one from Hitchhiker’s Guide. : )
But that’s the same place - individual lives. You say people put too much value on them… so where to put the excess value instead? And how much is too much?
Ah, yes, now I remember who that reminds me of… brain the size of a planet… hello Marvin 
You say people put too much value on them… so where to put the excess value instead?
People think individual people (regardless if they actually know them or not) are the best thing since sliced bread. Just because they are physically humans, and not because of any true inherent value in them. Other than animal-rights freaks, most people would save a braindead child hooked up to a machine than some intelligent being who happened not to be human (I’m not going to name a species, who cares which?). Let’s say there’s only enough electricity to run machines for one being. Which one gets it by default? I shouldn’t have said too much value; I should have said misplaced value. There’s a term for it I think… specieism? My spellcheck is for Dutch so I can’t tell if I mispelled that since my browser is telling me all these words are misspelled. Bleh.
Excess value, I’m not sure, is this like a waste substance that we make too much of? If we stop overvaluing something that’s as easy to make as a baby bunny, do we now have excess value? I’m pretty sure if we did start killing off old people (or any other kind of people) for overpopulation reasons regardless of how awesome they are that we won’t start drowing in excess value.
Knowing humans, we’d stuff all that excess value in a space ship and send it off, like they want to do with nuclear waste. So, just more space pollution. Or we’d bury it in a landfill. Or we’d burn it for fuel to keep the starving masses warm in the post-apocalyptic zombie-infested winters.
My feedback on this topic:
When the whole download torrent/p2p movement happened alot of ppl didnt realise that it was illegal to download media on the internet, its like you found this cool program/site and all of a sudden u were telling ur friends and they got it and told theirs etc - i dont think ppl realised they were stealing media because back then software moguls never really told the end user that what they were getting into wasnt legal! It was all about exposure for them and now the innocent parties are paying the price in some instances and those software scammers are rolling in the cash!
even some torrent sites have exclusive membership services where u pay a flat rate monthly fee and offer u “secure privacy” on their servers and additional perks if u keep up with their service - how can they still operate without being caught for this? like ur paying for the media ur downloading in essence, but ur not really when the torrent site disappears after a while and then where are u left? there are too many of these places around and loop holes - theres just not enough information around for ppl to wise up to them
IMO the accountability and responsibility lies with the software and search engines who promote these torrent sites and the software listings, it is not the end user fault because lets face it not every1 is as adept to the net as say we are and can get into trouble very quickly
ps: if u wish to quote me in ur project can u ask me first 
as its copyright
When the whole download torrent/p2p movement happened alot of ppl didnt realise that it was illegal to download media on the internet, its like you found this cool program/site and all of a sudden u were telling ur friends and they got it and told theirs etc - i dont think ppl realised they were stealing media because back then software moguls never really told the end user that what they were getting into wasnt legal! It was all about exposure for them and now the innocent parties are paying the price in some instances and those software scammers are rolling in the cash!
Hmm, I dunno, I do remember a LOT of media attention to Napster and the guy who started it, because “illegal music sharing” came up right away. This was before torrents but the issue followed all these peer-2-peer networks.
In the Netherlands, it is not illegal to download music, movies, etc. However, it is illegal to upload them (if there’s copyright and no permission I mean). Heh, which makes using torrentz illegal in my country (unless you do as Felgall says, and turn the uploading part off… I didn’t even know you could do that).
However the software itself is not illegal. I’m not really sure if the it’s the software’s responsibility to inform people on what’s legal and what isn’t, esp if it’s being used in multiple countries with different rules…
…and there’s a great possibility that you’d end up with those hilarious stickers you see… like the one on the toaster where a stick figure is sticking a fork or knife into it and getting zapped with big letters saying in Engrish “Do Not For The Utensil In The Toaster If Lack Of Life Love, As Death May Results.”
Lawlz I love those.
Some clients let you do it, but it’s usually not a good idea to do so. Your download speed is proportional to your upload speed, so if you never upload, the torrent’s tracker will try to make sure you are allocated very little bandwidth for downloading. Many trackers will also eventually ban you from connecting at all if your download to upload ratio becomes very high.
well i see what ur saying alright and i guess there cant be a universal rule for all countries - its a tricky one
But i still maintain the viewpoint the the end user shouldnt be responsible for the wrecklessness of the software distributer - if we go with the idea that the only way around not being charge/caught for the downloading issue is that we do not distribute copyright material which we have unknowingly download then the software mogul who did distribute it i.e. the software we used should be the party who is guilty then in that case!
on a side topic: its scary that u didnt know u could disable the upload feature, u see thats my point, ppl are downloading these utilities and they dont know enough about them when they are using them, even expert users just dont have the time to read through scrolls of how-tos and will figure out as they go along, some dont even bother, it should be written in lights or something to warn ppl about what to expect from their software so yes it is their responsibilty IMO
But i still maintain the viewpoint the the end user shouldnt be responsible for the wrecklessness of the software distributer
What about this way?
But i still maintain the viewpoint the the driver shouldnt be responsible for the wrecklessness of the luxury automakers (porsches and lambourghinis etc).
I didn’t know you could turn it off, but then, I don’t torrent (I have a torrent client and I have used it once as someone was explaining the Torrentz site, gosh was that over 2 years ago? And I’ve surely had software updates since then). Or possibly it never was possible on my version.
But I come from a Nanny state. I believe people need to take responsibility for learning how to use stuff they choose to use, at least at some level. Oh, that Porsche can go 200kph? By having that, is the automaker suggesting it should be driven at that speed? Well, possibly, it’s a selling point surely.
But users are the responsible ones.
What do we keep saying every time someone wants to go sue McDonald’s for getting fat from their food? We say “dude, who put a gun to your head and made you eat that crap every day?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPqdRqacpFk
‘Wrecklessness’ in what way?
[I]But I come from a Nanny state. I believe people need to take responsibility for learning how to use stuff they choose to use
[…]
But users are the responsible ones.
[…]
“dude, who put a gun to your head and made you eat that crap every day?”[/I]
[FONT=“Georgia”]If you’re looking to dismantle that nanny state, people like Milton Friedman are the ones you need to look up.
[/FONT]
Which do you think would that “intelligent being” choose under the same circumstances?
Saul: do you mean if they were both brain dead? To me, that’s just dead, so I guess nobody would choose anything.
If you mean, if an intelligent being was asked to choose between a brain-dead child and some other intelligent being… I assume the one who is deciding would choose based on his/her/its own biases and preferences. If they are biased towards humans, they’d prolly vote for the child because “it’s a child.” If not, then maybe not.
I’m arguing that humans have (naturally) a preference for other humans over other species, which by itself makes total sense, but now that we are a species in power over others, and since we’re conscious of our decisions and are aware of others and we debate over things, I think the knee-jerk (or, immediate first-thought) reaction of going for the brain-dead child over the intelligent being (intelligent doesn’t have to really be all that much, I mean, we’re comparing to a Baby Theresa here) is, well, a misplacement of values.
Automatically we must always save all humans in all situations.
Shaun: I live in a Nanny state, but I’m not going to start any revolutions. I’ll just vote D66, which believes the government is far more capable of helping keep a safety net in place (ideally they are accountable to us, aren’t they?) but that individuals need to take responsibility for their actions and not expect the government, charities, organisations or companies to look out for every little thing all the time. When people deliberately do stupid things, well, I don’t see any problem with a bit of reduction in the gene pool.
Recently read an article in the Street Magazine about how “dangerous” over the counter painkillers are. Whoa, really? You mean to say, if I drink a 6-pack every night with 30-40 paracetemol, that that’s dangerous? (as one guy who’s story they tell did. He figured his problems and blurred vision were coming from the beer so he stopped with the beer, but strangely, his problems persisted…)
Yeah if you choose to use a drug without reading the label on the back of the box, well, do you get what you deserve? (extenuating circumstances not included)
That goes against the nature. You can’t be on top of the food chain and somewhere lower down the chain at the same time. You’re either on top or not.
The only reason you’d save a member of other species is to later eat them or put them to service. If that’s of a greater value than the other member of your species in question, then it’s your choice. But yes, any individual likes the other one better if they are more like them, and like them less if they’re not. All preferences will be based on it inevitably.
That goes against the nature.
True. However you and I do a lot of things that go against nature. Like the dude who thought drinking a 6 pack and taking 30-40 paracetemol every night was a Good Thing : )
And when we argue over ethics, I was interested in the part where Christian and Felgall and everyone was talking about what was good for humans as a whole vs individual humans vs is any of that Right (in the absolute sense of the word, lawlz, which can’t really exist).
comparing torrents with driving a car is very different - i would hold the car manufacturer responsible for shoddy workmanship or design so as to cause failure with electronics, steering or whatever - again its an issue also with being informed about the car or indeed in this case the software - if a user knowingly uses torrent software and is fully aware of the illegalities of it all then of course the user is responsible for stealing but if on the other instance where the user is a newbie and does not know the ins and outs of the software or that theres no clear warnings when using the product then the responsibility is not theirs IMO its all about being informed and wise to these things and lets face it there are still alot of ppl who fall victim to these things online
i do agree with u on the point where u say we have to take responsibility for our learning - we should keep informed yes and up to date on whatever we choose to use whether its ur new car or the latest torrent software - but most ppl never read the fine print, and these software companies only know this too well and they dont care, why cant it be in black n white ILLEGAL - USE AT UR OWN RISK - I bet many ppl would think twice and not use the software - its entrapment to be honest IMO but again i do believe those who know fine well what they are doing are responsible for their actions.
You’re missing the point on that…the point is, your bank account should be growing each time somebody purchases your software, and when somebody steals it your account is not growing as it should.
So, however many times somebody stole your software…that’s how much
larger your account should be, but it isn’t.
Feel cheated yet??? You should, because you are being cheated.
Maybe it should, but it wouldn’t. What’s the point in deluding yourself into feeling cheated over something you never had, never would have had, and never will have?
Each time somebody steals your software, that represents a paying customer…that doesn’t pay, but gets your software anyway!
So, you are in fact loosing revenue that is rightfully yours.
But, hey! If you don’t mind this sort of thing maybe you can just give your stuff away and quit charging across the board. You don’t really need any money anyway, do you? Workin for free is cool, right?
Didn’t say it was right. But a thief is never a buyer and he does not represent a paying customer. It’s not a fact that you’re losing revenue.
Really? Then whassup with all these laws (that most people agree with)
making it illegal to steal??? It is actually a fact that you are losing money
each time somebody uses your product without paying.
What about say a restaurant? When somebody orders food, eats it, and then leaves without paying…since that person is a thief, does that mean that plate of food isn’t lost revenue? Just because something is “virtual” doesn’t mean it’s worthless if somebody steals it.
If there were no laws against stealing…nobody would be paying for your software and you’d be making zero.
Best thing you can do is rig your software to “call home” so it becomes inactive if the keys aren’rt registered with your system. That way, you have one key that allows each software copy to work and helps prevent piracy.