Comments | infohigh: hobo time was now; then; a river of bass

infohigh

hobo time was now; then; a river of bass

Apr 09, 2007 01:50

Life is absolutely nuts. Wonderful weekend, with understanding (and encouraging) family, relaxing, a vacation I kinda needed to help me feel a little less of a failure. But first, for you FFVII fans: Feffiroff!! Thank you, Alex :)

My mom bought me a black macbook. It is <3 <3 computer <3. Love in a box. My best friend. My life. I require ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

g4c9z April 9 2007, 19:50:51 UTC

I'm actually kinda excited to be moving (from the "comfy++ apartments" with alfedenzo to the "Kinderhaus" with g4c9z;

Hey! That's awesome! Now I might not want to move out as much (at the end of the summer I mean).

Now we definitely have to find a way to get Ikaruga.

daniel_ream April 9 2007, 20:48:27 UTC

Which platform do you need it for?

infohigh April 9 2007, 21:17:23 UTC

I think he things gamecube, but I suppose dreamcast would work just as well. Hurray for dreamcast :)

infohigh April 9 2007, 21:18:27 UTC

*I think he thinks gamecube. bah typos.

daniel_ream April 9 2007, 21:51:23 UTC

I'm pretty sure I have Ikaruga for the DC somewhere. I can make you a copy.

g4c9z April 9 2007, 22:04:38 UTC

I meant Gamecube (didn't know it was also on Dreamcast - I don't have a Dreamcast but maybe Mike would want a Dreamcast copy).

But I only want to play an authentic copy. I'm anal that way.

daniel_ream April 9 2007, 22:13:19 UTC

Good luck with that.

http://search.ebay.ca/ikaruga

g4c9z April 9 2007, 23:41:13 UTC

That was actually cheaper than I expected to be able to get it for. Thanks! ;) Don't know why the thing is so rare; why can't they just make more copies?

Though I do hate using eBay. And yeah, I'm fully aware that the seller quite possibly burned him/herself a copy and sold me the original. But that's not my fault, now is it? :)

infohigh April 10 2007, 00:22:12 UTC

They can't make more copies since not many people would buy them. It wasn't the most successful game in the world... and it would probably be pretty dumb to make Dreamcast games these days. So I'm not sure why you have moral qualms with "pirating" software you aren't actually able to buy (certainly not in any way that would support the developers).

g4c9z April 10 2007, 00:39:01 UTC

They can't make more copies since not many people would buy them.

That's circular. More people would buy them if they couldn't burn/emulate them. I for one would have owned a new copy already if EB had had it.

It wasn't the most successful game in the world

Really? That's strange. Do you mean the Dreamcast version or its reappearance on Gamecube?

So I'm not sure why you have moral qualms with "pirating" software you aren't actually able to buy (certainly not in any way that would support the developers).It's a case of pragmatism vs. Kant. Even if I agreed with you that I'm not affecting the developers' well-being either way, I think that if everyone in the world simultaneously stopped stealing it, and they made a few more copies, some people would buy those copies, then they'd make more, then those would get bought, etc. until everyone who's willing to buy it has done so. (Unless there's something else restricting them from making more copies that I don't know about.) And when determining what's morally right, you should ( ... )

infohigh April 10 2007, 01:07:26 UTC

That's circular. More people would buy them if they couldn't burn/emulate them. I for one would have owned a new copy already if EB had had it.

There are deeper economic issues than that I'm sure, and I'll have to trust the company to decide for itself if it's worth printing more copies or not.

Really? That's strange. Do you mean the Dreamcast version or its reappearance on Gamecube?

Wikipedia seems to imply that its sales were mediocre, despite its great reviews, and I'm not sure which version it's talking about; I didn't read it too carefully.

And when determining what's morally right, you should assume everyone else will do what's morally right.

Whoooooaahh, I dunno about that one! My instinct is to go off common sense about how the world will respond to my actions, rather than the irrelevant, intangible hypothetical. But I don't know the basis behind why you'd make that statement, it's not something I've looked into.

And since it's theirs, they have the right to disallow it.I disagree... but I don't think you should be ( ... )

g4c9z April 10 2007, 01:56:42 UTC

There are deeper economic issues than that I'm sure, and I'll have to trust the company to decide for itself if it's worth printing more copies or not.

OK. It's not dependent on my main point anyway. It's certainly possible, for example, that the company purposely produced few copies and jacked the price to try to make it a "rare game" that everyone wants. But even if it's very nice of them to do that, it's still their right.

Whoooooaahh, I dunno about that one! My instinct is to go off common sense about how the world will respond to my actions, rather than the irrelevant, intangible hypothetical. But I don't know the basis behind why you'd make that statement, it's not something I've looked into.Well, it's hard to describe, and it also doesn't appear to affect my argument (yet), but I can try to explain. Morality involves doing one of a set of actions that are within the "sphere" of God's will. God created a universe inhabited with things with free will, such that if those things choose from among a certain set of actions (of ( ... )

infohigh April 10 2007, 04:54:16 UTC

Morality involves doing one of a set of actions that are within the "sphere" of God's will.

Not in my worldview. I see morality not as actions but as intent, for starters ;) To feel violently about someone is basically equivalent to harming them; the actual act of harming them itself is not sin, but part of the tragedy that results from the sin.

I think it's sort of silly and naive to think that if you are to act now, in a way that would work perfectly if everyone else were to act perfectly, is what would be "perfect" in the here-and-now. It's not just that I don't believe in "perfection" (within this universe) in any meaningful sense.. but that I know there will always be tragedy in this world, as well as sin, and I want to do whatever I can (by the means that make sense to me) to hold it back a little. I think that's all we're expected to be; while experiencing life in the fullest in our living here as mere simple agents across a massively multi-agent system.

Being unable to copy data? Why shouldn't that be allowed?Fair use ( ... )

g4c9z April 11 2007, 00:42:17 UTC

I see morality not as actions but as intent, for starters ;)

So do I, actually. I meant that morality involves intending to do what you believe is God's will, which is something that if everyone did, would result in a perfect universe. Sorry for the confusion.

I know there will always be tragedy in this world, as well as sin

So do I.

I think that's all we're expected to be

What do you mean "expected"? The Bible says that perfection is "expected", though not required for unconditional love. In what sense does God require people to be only somewhat perfect or good, and how good is good enough, and what happens if you aren't good enough?

As to that paragraph in general, I refute your explanations - at least based on my definition of morality - by referring you back to my proof. I'll need to know your full definition of what's moral before I can accept your beliefs about it.

Fair use.

I believe in fair use too. But I don't see how it applies here.

Since you brought christian morality into this in the first placeActually I ( ... )

infohigh April 14 2007, 09:15:22 UTC

I meant that morality involves intending to do what you believe is God's will,

I still disagree with that, although it might be a matter of semantics. I don't think there's anything "moral" about someone doing (or intending to do) what they think is the will of whatever God they believe in; or rather, that's a moral choice within their system of morality.. but not only do I most likely disagree with the morals of that system (and so declare it immoral to follow them... lol), but I think it is very wrong to do evil because you think it's what your God wants. It is a crummy system of morality that would allow for that.

It's probably just the direction of our definitions. I would not define evil as "whatever God doesn't like", although that may be (and I think it is); I see that as more of a property of evil than a definition.

Here, let me phrase it better. Suppose God actually wanted us to stone prostitutes. I think that's horrendously immoral, and don't care if it is what God wants. I think morality has more to do with ( ... )

g4c9z April 14 2007, 15:26:04 UTC

I don't think there's anything "moral" about someone doing (or intending to do) what they think is the will of whatever God they believe inThis is a straw man argument. Almost everyone, in one way or another, accepts a certain morality based on conscience. Even if they believe in some morality written in a book by some god, they generally only pick that particular god if his morality is true. It's no more evil to claim that the morals that are already in my conscience came from God than to claim that they "just exist ( ... )

Back to all threads