Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

I am not reopening debate.

Neither am I, despite your claims that I am. And I never claimed you were.

We disagree.

I agree.

There is no reason or purpose to further debate.

Again, I agree. That's why I asked that you do not interpret my words as an attempt to continue debating.

I'm ready to let go, anytime you are.

I've been ready at least since the moment you first said that there is no reason or purpose to further debate.

See you in another life, brutha'.

Actually, I do not believe that there's another life, but that's a bit off topic (wait, do we still have a topic here? don't answer, it was a rhetorycal question).

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

Stop reopening debate.

As I said, stop misrepresenting my words as an attempt to continue (or in this case, reopen; the difference between the two terms is largely irrelevant) some non-existant debate.

I'm ready to let go, anytime you are. We disagree. There is no reason or purpose to further debate.

See you in another life, brutha'.

Refer to the previous paragraph.

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

This isn't about "having the last word". Let me quote myself here:

No, you do not understand me just fine.

Let me clarify again: "I disagree with your opinion."


I didn't. I simply stated that I did not see how that was related to what looked like a case of you being unable to understand me (regardless of you agreeing with me or not; in case you hadn't noticed, one can agree with things he/she understands and with things he/she doesn't understand, as much as one can disagree with things he/she understands and also with things he/she doesn't understand). Anyway, that's a moot point by now since you have stated that you understood me, and I'm willing to believe that if it'll help to end this rather idiotic argument we're having.

The only reason that is apparent to me is simply to be antagonistic.

This was the perfect opportunity for you to say: "yeah, we're never going to agree. 'See you in another life, brutha.'" And then it's over.

Done. Poof. Finished. We both walk away.

If you want to give a parting statement, that doesn't reopen debate, then I'm fine letting you "have the last word". But you just don't seem to want to let go.

I'm ready to let go, anytime you are. We disagree. There is no reason or purpose to further debate.

See you in another life, brutha'.

Then stop misrepresenting my words as an attempt to continue some non-existant debate. I believe I already said that's never been my intention, and if I haven't (probably because I thought it was implied or sufficiently obvious) or if you need me to explicitly state it, I'll do it now: that was never my intention.

Comment Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (Score 1) 398

No, I don't. It is implemented exclusively by consumers, but the distinction "completely unaffected by any external influence" is useless. By that metric, the system is partially implemented by lightbulb manufacturers, since its their lights which control the lighting conditions in which the clothes are seen, and thus which fashions are bought.

But then we get into the not so obvious question of quantifying the effect of everything on everything (for example, I suggest that the effect of lighting over sales of brand clothing is lesser than the effect of advertising)... And frankly I believe both of us have better things to do.

Basically, what this comes down to is that the responsibility lies with the consumers, not the industry. This doesn't mean the industry has no effect on consumers' actions. The industry can encourage that behaviour, but again, the final word is given to the person themselves.

Agreed, but note that there's a difference betweeen "exclusively implemented by" and "the responsibility lies with". The first wording may be interpreted as you saying that there are no external influences, whereas the second can only be interpreted as "there may be influences, but ultimately it's up to the consumer and his willpower to resist those influences". But you've clarified what you meant, so yeah, not much to discuss here. ;)

Oh. Well, sorry. :-)

Oh, don't worry. That sentence of mine may in fact have been a little too vague, I'll just try to be more precise from now on...

Comment Re:Don't care about Copyright? (Score 1) 398

No. Without copyright, all programs would be free to copy, but the source code would not be available.

I assume you mean "would not necessarily be available", since obviously one could still release source code he/she creates. Authors of derivative works, of course, wouldn't have to release the code, but even under the GPL in its current form (with copyright and all) they'd only be required to do that if they distribute the modified binaries. But none of that is absolutely dependent on copyright, which brings me to my next point:

GPL forces anyone who distributes a program to also distribute the source code, and without copyright there would be no way to enforce it.

Couldn't there be a sort of contract to which you have to agree before you can use the software, that could exist without copyright? I'd think it's possible, but I might be missing something.

Comment Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (Score 1) 398

Since when was free will, on any subject, completely unaffected by any external influence?

So you agree that it's not "implemented exclusively by the consumers", since those consumers can de influenced.

I think it's pretty funny that you pointedly exclude "those that don't", as though they aren't influenced by companies when they buy clothes.

Quite the opposite actually, I mentioned "those that don't choose to buy last year's fashion" as an example of people who might be influenced by companies. But after all, even those that choose to buy last year's fashion might choose that because they were influenced...

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

That I disagree with your opinion does not mean that do not understand your position.

True. But I never claimed that the proof of your inability to understand was your disagreement, did I?

Being that this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Period.

By that logic, almost nothing could ever be discussed. Or in other words: I disagree.

But I must say that was a nice try to convince me of letting you say the last word. Which I might end up doing if your self-esteem requires it so badly, after all I'm not here to do harm.

Yet you HAVE been disputing it... if you weren't you would have shut up by now, because this is a debate over opinion, and "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Yet you persist in debating.

But I am not debating or disputing your disagreement (originally I was, but you're too stubborn, so it's not worth my time). Where did you get such a ludicrous idea?

My statement of mental deficiency is applied appropriately to people who would necessarily lack the sufficient mental capacity to engage in interpolation and extrapolation.

This is my opinion. And since this is a debate over opinion, "I disagree" should be the end of the debate. Full Stop.

I believe I've sufficiently adressed all of that already.

No, you imply it by failing to understand my position: "I disagree with you, and you are not changing my mind." This being a debate over opinion, "I disagree with you" should be the end of the debate. End paragraph.

Once again, I'm not failing to understand your position. Where did you get such a ludicrous idea?

Asserting my opinion does not make me a troll, which requires a disingenuous representation of an position.

True. But I never claimed that it was "asserting your opinion" that made me think that you are a troll, did I?

I fully hold honestly and earnestly, that if someone really did need the explicit context, which you suggested, then they are mentally deficient.

As I said, there's no reason to insult anyone, take a chill pill and be a little more respectful of your audience (and notice that I said "audience" and not "me", by now it seems quite obvious that you can't treat me respectfully).

If it makes you happier to label me a troll, and construct your opinion of me with such language, then well... fine. Such is your perogative.

However, please consider your own position. You keep forcing your opinion on me under the claim that I do not understand you.

I understand you fine. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. This will not change.

That you keep pressing this issue shows either assholery, stupidity, or mental retardation.

Your opinion is rejected. I understand that you reject my opinion.


OK, make that two chill pills. Heck, better take a bucketload of them. Maybe then you'll calm down and notice that it's precisely things like this that make me think that you don't understand me and that you're a troll (on that topic, maybe I should remind you who was the first one of us to call the other a troll).
Me, forcing my opinion on you? Yeah, sure. I wonder what opinion exactly am I forcing on you...

Comment Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (Score 1) 398

There's nothing whatsoever preventing people from buying last year's fashion (or fashion from several years ago), and many people do.

And those that don't, they all choose to do so out of their own free will, completely unaffected by any external influence? Frankly, I doubt that, and therefore doubt that "this system is implemented exclusively by the consumers". Brands wouldn't spend as much as they do on advertising and marketing if didn't have an effect on at least some people.

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

Firstly, I'm going to apologize up front for descending yet again into offensive language again, but seriously, jesus fucking christ.

I mean, holy fucking shit, are you seriously this retarded that you need need me to spell everything out for you in such explicit terms?

First, there's no need to insult anyone, take a chill pill. Second, I'm not retarded, and your inability to understand is no reason to think I am.

Yes? Ok, then, let's get to it. I clarify here as explicitly as I possibly can be:

"You presented an initial critic about the presentation of my hypothetical situation. This opinion is that I should have been more explicit. Having evaluated your opinion, I do not find the criticism reasonable, and refuse to revise the presentation of my hypothetical situation in any way. The key reason for rebuking your criticism is that I have the opinion that any individual that is a part of my target audience will not need their hand to be held so explicitly during a hypothetical situation. I am not addressing idiots, retards, or any individuals of deficient mental capability."

Yet the criticism is reasonable (but you're entitled to disagree, and I won't dispute that), specially considering how it doesn't imply "explicitly holding the audience's hand". Also, the fact that you think that additional clarity in the presentation of your hypothesis immediately implies that you'd be treating the audience as "individuals of deficient mental capability"... Well, let's just say it's a little bit on the disrespectful side towards said audience.

I am finding it difficult to have a high opinion of your intelligence due to your constant need for such explicit explanations.

Now you're being silly for no reason, unless you're really unable to read, which I doubt since your replies are somewhat consistent with my comments. Let me ask you something: did I ever say that I needed such explicit explanations? In case you hand't noticed despite me stating it many times, it was merely a suggestion, not something I needed. Again, I refer you to my comments, as they show I've understood yours and therefore I don't need any explicit explanations other than the ones you gave on your original post.

Did that clarify the difference between "suggestion" and "necessity" to you?

You are not a computer, you are not dumb... you should be capable of extrapolating and interpolating. Please start doing so.

My apologies if you have a mental variation which makes you incapable of properly understanding without pedantically explicit detail.

Such apologies are not needed. It's me who should be apologizing to the rest of the slashdotters for continuously feeding the troll.

Comment Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

I will restate more clearly: I do not think it fundamentally necessary to explicitly state the information, as it was a given in the hypothetical situation.

I believe I've sufficiently adressed that topic in my previous posts. I suggest that you read them.

You do not seem able to understand my point either: my post proved the point I was trying to make.

On the contrary, I understand your point just fine, reading my posts (provided that you understand them, of course) will prove that to you just fine. What you don't seem to understand (apart from my point) is that not once have I said that your post (the original one about the plant, the guest and the subpoena, that is) didn't prove the point you were trying to make. And that's like the third time I state this, which makes me even more convinced that you have no intention whatsoever to understand or make any effor to understand.

Comment Re:Inevietable (Score 1) 230

I see, you are the type who marches, well dressed, sporting a fancy watch into a dark alley full of thugs twirling baseball bats with nails sticking out of them and declares "until they actually bash my brains out, I refuse to engage in gazing in crystal balls". Too bad your ilk finds itself floating in the river more often than not. One could think of it as natural selection of those who never grasped concepts like "pattern of behavior" or "probability of success".

No, it's just that certain assumptions are more likely to be correct. Yours is not, specially since it includes irreversible changes.

See above. The past pattern of behaviour of the mega-corps, their lobbyists, corrupt politicians, mass media etc indicates clearly that the efforts have extremely high probability of success and that the effort required to reverse these changes is beyond the docile citizenry and, at best, it would take many decades to succeed.

Great step forward you made here: you've at least admitted that, should the efforts succeed, their effects could eventually be reversed.

I am objecting to your use of terms like "crystal ball" when not only we have a massive pile of evidence describing the successes past but we also have a pile of evidence highlighting the operations under way. If one were to apply your standards to, say, the sunrise, you would be claiming that the Sun "might" be raising tomorrow and that I should not be making any "crystal ball" predictions as to the event because I am "taking for granted" that the event would occur. The probability of success of the efforts of the mega-corps in the area of perverting laws to their liking is at this point in time only slightly lower than that of the Sun raising tomorrow.

Refer to the first paragraph of this message.

Comment Re:Inevietable (Score 1) 230

What are you talking about? Efforts are presently underway to "homogenize" the copyright laws to the US standard (actually exceeding it) in all of the most industrialized countries, with the idea of overriding the wishes of local electorates via international treaty mechanisms. Or haven you heard about ACTA?!. There is no need for any "crystal balls" when we have the whole scheme spelled out in black and white by its own peddlers.

Irrelevant. Until those "efforts" crystallize into a real change in laws, what you're engaging in is nothing more than gazing into a crystal ball to make predictions. You're taking for granted that such efforts will succeed and that once they do, nothing can be done to revert the changes they cause.

Also, I see that telling you in advance that I wasn't implying that you're wrong, and that therefore trying to refute my words on the assumption that they meant that you're wrong, was futile.

Slashdot Top Deals

The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force. - Darth Vader