What's insignificant? Is 8 million people insignificant considering we are 7, 8 billion? It doesn't really matter. The number may be insignificant considering the general population but it's still an issue for those who are being screwed.
The games are old and very few Windows users will still be playing them
Hmmm, really? That could be the case for crapware out there but GOG (for instance) is there to prove the contrary.
Fortunately we also have the pirates and eventually emulation (like DOSbox for DOS games) so these owners can rest assured they will be able to play the games they legally played. Thanks to the pirates. Amusing.
As always, the Government will only take action when the problem is insanely big and expensive to solve. While we pay the price. I'm trying to avoid products with microbeads but it's not that easy to know which ones have them.
I don't think that theft or fraud causes you any physical harm. They may cause mental anguish, but no actual harm done. If I digitally remove all the money from your bank account, have I harmed any bytes along the way?
Have you heard of psychosomatic symptoms? Seems not. I like to tell this little anecdote to people like you: Brazil had a president that was impeached from his position for various crimes. Before it happened he confiscated most financial savings from the people. The result was a heavy spike in suicide rates from people that lost a life of savings overnight. I was too young to understand but my father was lucky enough that he had used up all his savings buying the apartment we lived for most of our lives or he would have lost everything. But he had 3 friends who lost everything, despaired and committed suicide. So there is a lot of harm even from crimes that don't directly cause physical harm.
Murder, for that matter, is a question of morals as well. Consider some countries where killing your wife or daughter because they brought some shame to your family is an acceptable outcome. It's not acceptable in the US. Why? Well, morals. You can go on and on about harm, but the reality is in some places, murder is somewhat acceptable.
Yes, undeveloped societies or extremist religions do that indeed. And, oh wow, we as a society decided that this is wrong and unacceptable. Unless, of course, you are talking about the Middle Ages. Have I told you that you are disgusting?
Put another way (and this will make you groan) the easiest way to spot that laws are generally a moral issue is to match them up to the 10 commandments or other religious guidelines. They are "moral" rules which seem to line up nicely with the laws of a given country. The US is pretty darn christian, and as such, the laws pretty much follow those two slabs that a mythical being brought down from a mountain.
Really? That's why we decided the Government should be neutral, laic. Interestingly I have quite a few atheist friends that don't thin murder is ok. Go figure. So the laws should be based on something that provides equal rights and protections for everybody independently from religion or minority morals. You cannot kill me even if your religion says it's ok to kill the infidels because we both have the right to live enshrined into the law.
You are utterly wrong in almost everything you said so far. And again your little tyrant inside is showing its face.
You only need to look at places where the laws are generally ignored. Would you prefer the US is turned into Brazil, as an example?
Actually Brazil is an example of a place with systemic Government failure. The criminality here is an evil mix of huge social gaps, outrageous basic education, neglecting of basic needs, impunity, corruption and others. That we actually have an insane number of laws and that a lot of punishments don't fit the crime is merely the cherry topping. Incidentally, there are poorer masses that are almost in that same situation in the US and you'll only see the problems rise one or two generations ahead.
Still, Chicago level murders have nothing to do with society accepting murder or not. It's proof that Chicago sucks at multiple levels (not limited to law enforcement). I mean, even if you consider 1 murder case per murderer it's still a very small portion of society. But when you have a much larger part that finds something normal and it does not harm society as a whole then yes, that law should be adapted. Think homoaffective relations. A good portion of the society doesn't approve it due to religious motives or whatever bigotry but it does not mean it should be forbidden because there is a significant number of individuals in that situation out there and it harms nobody.
And you can't see ti but there's no common good in making minor offenses felonies. But the harm will only appear in the long term.
Eu vejo na TV o que eles falam sobre o jovem não é sério O jovem no Brasil nunca é levado a sério
Translation: I watch on TV what they say about teenagers is not serious/Teenagers in Brazil are never taken seriously
Replace Brasil with any country and it applies just as well. Government, the media. How come people that have gone through their teens doing all sorts of stupidly teenage things can be so dislocated from reality?
This campaign is so full of wrongs that I'd take a long post to address them all but a few struck me:
• anxiety, depression, paranoia, suicidal thoughts or other mental health issues
As someone who dealt with close depressive individuals twice now this is very, very, very troubling. It is not a sign of radicalization, it's a sign that the person is ill and needs help.
• personal issues such as health problems, addiction, anger or social problems
Health problems, really? I'm not even commenting. Social problems, really? So everybody society chooses to make an outcast either because we humans are stupid bigots by nature are now radicals?
And the story about the girl that went into activism is simply enraging considering THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF often escalates the violence nowadays.
No, seriously, I hope this is one of these ads of olden we see today and, roll eyes and shake heads while laughing at how pathetic society was.
Hmmm. Because all rules are reasonable and the common citizen can easily distinguish what is or isn't legal/lawful without being a fully trained lawyer, right? Because everybody has access to education, health, food, housing etc equally, right? There is some wisdom in parts of what you said but seriously, the police should be fixed yes. The Government needs serious fixing. It seems to me that the US (much like a lot of other places) is in a downward spiral where bad Government practices lead to the worsen of new generations that lead to more Government bullshit that lead to worse generations in a perverse cycle that won't be fixed unless drastic measures are taken. But I wouldn't blame the John Doe that was left in the margins of the society for this.
cable and broadcast executives (and if you're Comcast NBC Universal, that's one and the same) could stop all of this right now if they were willing to offer more flexible channel lineups and compete on price, but they've grown too fat and comfortable to notice the storm clouds gathering on the horizon
I'd say they are actually moving to address this problem. It's just that it isn't in the way you (and pretty much anyone not linked to the industry) are proposing. They are trying via bought/imposed laws and treaties. So we will see blood before we get better services. It has been this way in the past, it will be this way in the future.
Re: Re: Re: The only allowed creation is authorized creation
That. Sometimes a mere remake of an old movie with better resources produces an entire new work because the details gain life and richness. I mean, take any black and white, mute movie and push new cameras, effects and treatment on it and you have an entirely new creation that does not deprive the original of its value. I always watch both/all movies when such thing happens (and both new and old are available).
Re: The only allowed creation is authorized creation
Have my insightful vote, sir.
If anything, this is not promoting creativity, arts and whatever. This version would NOT be produced anyway and the author clearly didn't make any money on it so how the hell is this a win for anybody? I think the reasoning behind this is the same of giving a 75 year post mortem copyright lock, whatever this reasoning is since the decease will not be creating anything anymore.