If it's okay for him to hack one PS3, why shouldn't others be allowed to do the same?
I hate Justin Bieber because he won't disappear. I'm fed up with hearing about him. I'm fed up with hearing about the haters. I've heard more haters than I have fans. It gets posted everywhere, from youtube comments to Facebook to the Spamzone. I don't care about him. He's some kid who may or may not be able to sing, he's a bit of a twat and he hasn't hit puberty. He's not worth caring about. With any other musician, I can avoid them easily enough. If I don't watch their songs, or go into discussion threads about them, I should be fine. I don't see or hear about them. Not so with Bieber. Everyone keeps bringing him up, and it irritates me to no end. I hate the haters far more than I detest the original guy. tl;dr: Stop talking about Bieber. It's pissing me off.
The hack gives the same freedoms as a computer. The computer game of MW2 doesn't seem to have these problems. How could Geohotz predict what was going to happen? It's a matter of free will. He gave people the power to do what they want with their systems. Other people then developed homebrew code, among them the MW2 hacks. I hate to use these analogies, but I'll keep it brief: It's similar to the tales of Genesis, where God gives Adam and Eve free will. Very few people think this was unethical, despite the number of wars and the like it caused. This is Geohotz' position (except unlike God, he isn't omniscient, so he can't know all the outcomes, so he's even less unethical). EDIT: I prefer the analogy of the blunt-trauma PS3. Let's go with that.
Will you object if I violate the five-questions-per-post rule? Do you mind if I ignore the 30-questions-at-a-time rule?
It's interesting that you've redefined frozen embryos. I suspect that also means you allow stem cell research, although I don't know enough about that procedure to be certain. I'm curious as to your reaction for this different approach. Let's agree on foetuses hypothetically being 'human', and killing one to be murder. This seems to be a fair enough approach to me. If a criminal kills a pregnant woman, then the criminal is often charged with two counts of murder. The baby takes nutrients from the mother. However, at no point does the mother lose any of her rights. In other words, she is allowed to eat whatever she wishes, be it fruit, vegetables, offal, wine, beer, whiskey, tobacco or an abortion pill. These are natural rights that have always existed for her. To rob her of these rights is to restrict her freedom, and is clearly unethical. Whatever happens to the child is none of her concern though. It is its own human being, and while there are laws on what a parent can feed to a minor, there are no laws on what a person can choose to eat themselves (excluding some illegal drugs). The mother isn't directly feeding something to the child; she is merely eating something herself. The mother doesn't have a responsibility to ensure that the human being parasitically living off of her doesn't suffer for her diet. There's something that doesn't seem quite right about this argument, although I can't put my finger on it. Ah well. That's your job.
Reminds me of Mai-HiME. I don't like being reminded of Mai-HiME.
And all an egg requires to grow is a sperm cell.
He has no responsibility for other people's actions. He intended to give people control of their systems back, including a feature Sony removed (booting Linux). Other people chose to abuse that. He himself did nothing what-so-ever. Or are you suggesting he shouldn't have given people access to their own systems, or homebrew, for fear of what others may create and do in his footsteps?
Geohotz gave people free will. What they choose to do is not Geohotz' fault, it's theirs. Pin your blame on the right people. While he is involved in the chain of causality, it's no more fair to blame him than it is to blame the hackers' parents for giving birth to the hackers.
That is my point. The current analogies are directly linked to current rules of authority, and are, as such, poor analogies for the situation.
No, I see how it is. You can then enjoy painting an abstract work of art on the footpath by chucking the child off a bridge.
You protested to the destruction of embryos created outside of the womb. They would not develop into a human at any point in time. Why is their destruction taboo to you?
Too late. I left 45 minutes after you first posted.
Killing the foetus is a perfectly acceptable answer to an unwanted pregnancy, if you don't define it as human, which I don't. I'm trying to figure out what part of it you think is human. What trait of an embryo makes it a 'human being' in your eyes?
ftfy .
Get in there!
Does it have to be in the womb? What justification is there for killing it in this situation? Self defence? If so, I present the argument that the child is leeching off of the mother without permission, and is still providing a degree of danger to the mother at birth. Therefore the mother is justified in killing it. What's the difference between chucking a bunch of semen in a condom into the toilet, and removing an embryo or foetus? The basic parts of the child are still killed. I'm arguing in the case of it not being murder. Anyway, the world definitely does have an overpopulation problem. It's plain to see. But even if we assume it doesn't, then we're now getting an influx of millions of children, few of which are actually wanted. Due to being born into an unprepared family, their standards of living are probably poorer, and if they're put up for adoption, then the entire system will get overloaded. Furthermore, the adoptive process isn't a particularly pleasant one. More often than not, it won't turn out well for the kid. I was talking about fatal childbirth here, not incest. Why should she be forced to have the child? She doesn't want it, and society doesn't accept it. It's completely rejected, by its mother and the world. In that case, it's a tad too late to do anything about the problem. However at the point where it is still a foetus, it is not ridiculous to consider aborting it, especially when the woman who has to carry it to labour doesn't want it, and the world doesn't want it.
To me, the original GBA game is superior. Not from any graphical differences, or because of gameplay, or even due to story. I consider it to be better, because it actually came out of the US. RECOM, on the other hand, did not. So I never got to play it. A flaw in the game that makes it completely unplayable for the entirety of the UK is more than enough to drop it below a GBA game in terms of standing in my eyes.
This is why the analogies are completely and utterly stupid. There are road safety rules, and those changes violate road safety rules. However the argument at hand is about intellectual property, which means that the ten-wheeled Toyota doesn't fit in, and is being misused. You are attempting to apply properties from the Toyota upon the PSP, when the PSP does not violate any such road rules. We are only discussing intellectual property. If you were to do this ten-wheeled Toyota thing out on a farm, on your own property, there wouldn't be a problem. Also, the chainguns were a bad idea to include, because they draw upon weapon and gun regulations, which follow completely different rules to those of PSPs.
Futanari would like to have a word with you.
