Quoting: PublicNuisance

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: PublicNuisanceLet's apply some logic. You get caught not paying your ticket. They ask you to but you refuse. They call the police. The police tell you to but you refuse. The police issue you a ticket or straight out arrest you and you refuse to comply. They go to take you by force and you resist. They end up killing you in the struggle.

You think that is bogus because you yourself follow the law and comply with law enforcement but not everybody does.

Not everyone complies with law enforcement, but people not complying with law enforcement really rarely results in anyone dying, especially when it comes to white collar offences, and especially especially civil ones. Even criminal ones--how often have the cops ever killed anyone over embezzlement? Most laws don't result in stereotypical interactions with cops in your car or whatever. And of course, in nearly all developed countries other than the US and to a much lesser extent Canada, the police don't kill people.

But sure, if all the worst possible chances add together, a death could result. So you're saying that if something goes fantastically wrong, any given law could kill someone, therefore you have to never pass a law unless you're willing to imagine it carries the death penalty. No, that's silly. Sure, it's possible, but all kinds of actions could result in death. Saying "As soon as you make a law you have to be willing to have have people killed to enforce it" is roughly equivalent to saying "As soon as you upload a 3d printer design you have to be willing to have people killed to manufacture the plastic it uses." After all, there are factory fatalities, not to mention people working in chemical plants that make the plastics have higher cancer rates. If people start using that design, the additional manufactured plastic could cause death, which by your logic means you have to assume it's going to.

The 3D printer argument isn't really the same thing. I'm talking about having government introducing a law that will bring people into contact with law enforcement. What is more likely to bring you into contact with law enforcement: making a law that people will be expected to abide by or uploading a document that they are not ? The easy way to avoid this line of thought is to not have the knee jerk reaction of making more laws and trying to force your views down other people's throats. We need less laws not more, especially when it concerns soemthing as trivial as whether people use FOSS software or not. Let's not forget it is that which prompted this debate, someone trying to control what software other people use. The hilarity of that is that many if not all people on this site use hardware that is not FOSS and play closed source games with it. If you try to allow the government to control what software you use don't be surprised one day when they use that precedent to try to force you to use Windows. But go ahead and proceed to try to lock people up for using Github or something else like it.

Your entire logic there is a shifted goalpost. You're saying the law proposed is a bad one; I daresay you're right. Really, law is a complicated matter and most laws people propose off the top of their heads, even if the general thrust is OK, would probably be bad. A law for all software to be open source, for instance, would not work well unless you'd changed a bunch of other stuff about our legal and economic regime too (something I think is well worth doing, but that's a whole other very elaborate conversation).

That's an entirely different thing from saying you have to be willing to kill people for a law before you pass it, which is not the case. It's one of those dramatic statements that sounds profound until you actually stop and think about it. Some municipalities in my area are passing laws that new buildings shall not have connection to natural gas--they'll have to use electric heat pumps for heating, electric stoves and so on. The local gas company is very upset, and very willing to spend masses of money on PR, bribes and so on to try to stop it from happening. Nobody is going to die over this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisanceLet's apply some logic. You get caught not paying your ticket. They ask you to but you refuse. They call the police. The police tell you to but you refuse. The police issue you a ticket or straight out arrest you and you refuse to comply. They go to take you by force and you resist. They end up killing you in the struggle.

You think that is bogus because you yourself follow the law and comply with law enforcement but not everybody does.

Not everyone complies with law enforcement, but people not complying with law enforcement really rarely results in anyone dying, especially when it comes to white collar offences, and especially especially civil ones. Even criminal ones--how often have the cops ever killed anyone over embezzlement? Most laws don't result in stereotypical interactions with cops in your car or whatever. And of course, in nearly all developed countries other than the US and to a much lesser extent Canada, the police don't kill people.

But sure, if all the worst possible chances add together, a death could result. So you're saying that if something goes fantastically wrong, any given law could kill someone, therefore you have to never pass a law unless you're willing to imagine it carries the death penalty. No, that's silly. Sure, it's possible, but all kinds of actions could result in death. Saying "As soon as you make a law you have to be willing to have have people killed to enforce it" is roughly equivalent to saying "As soon as you upload a 3d printer design you have to be willing to have people killed to manufacture the plastic it uses." After all, there are factory fatalities, not to mention people working in chemical plants that make the plastics have higher cancer rates. If people start using that design, the additional manufactured plastic could cause death, which by your logic means you have to assume it's going to.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisanceAs soon as you make a law you have to be willing to have have people killed to enforce it. If you aren't then you can't have the law.

You're an American, aren't you? Just a wild guess.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Linux_Rocks

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load.

Source: media1.giphy.com

View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

Whoa. That was weirdly mesmerizing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CyborgZetaNo offense to people who like cryptocurrency, but I remain highly distrustful of crypto.

I don't understand why. Crypto's value is just as reliable as any other traded commodity with neither any inherent value whatsoever nor any institutional backing. And it has no more scammers than anything else completely dependent on a get-rich-quick mentality to keep it afloat. :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EagleDelta

Quoting: damarrinIs creating a good server-side anticheat solution even possible?

Yes, it is. Rather than just spout that it's the only way or anything else vague, the appropriate solution would be to hire a team to reverse engineer the cheats, tear them down to their basic components and build heuristics on that.... but it costs money and likely a new team dedicated to doing that.... and it's not cheap, so the money is in picking the easiest option that makes it LOOK like the business side cares.

What if someone writes new cheats?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well. They said they would, and they did. My faith in claims these developers make has been Reinforced.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I still don't understand why anyone would expect things to do with crypto not to steal your money. Seems like normal expected behaviour to me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Stray Shot has a cute trailer. Don't think I've ever seen a trailer end with "You know what? Fuck this game!"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

We're getting to where if someone says "I have an X-box" I won't know if they have a Microsoft console, and old school Linux computer that still uses X, or an appliance dedicated to their Twitter account.

View this comment - View article - View full comments