PM_Tech

The article fails to realise that in most of the anecdotes retold; today the state would intervene at the behest of a neighbour and "I read it in the New York Times" will not really prevent the investigation into why you allowed your child to play with knives, live for 3 days at the top of a slag heap of rubble or hold a loaded handgun.

Also - teenage mortality has reduced drastically[1]. It's hard to argue that could be a bad thing.

It is probably because we don't let them (wherever possible) carry out activities that might kill themselves.

I am a parent of 3; I will happily take my children mountain climbing, skiing, snowboarding, trekking, wild swimming. In a few years we plan to trek to Everest Base Camp and they are coming with me to the Andes.

We engage in controlled risk. If they break a limb skiing then they break a limb skiing. They pushed beyond their abilities in some way. I don't need to give them wrappers of cocaine from a criminal and a handgun to be a better parent.

There is also a very real risk of the "Tom Sawyer" bias. Each generation thinks their generation took greater risks and had more vivid adventures than the one previous. The cognitive dissonance curiously avoids the higher levels of child abuse, abduction, injury, poisoning, asphyxiation, malnutrition and disease. My father used to have great adventures playing as a child in asbestos riddled houses. You can talk to his friends about it sometimes...well the few that have not died before 60.

Oh look here is a group of kids that used lethal asbestos as chalk. [2] They really learned a valuable lesson about ad-hoc citizenry there.

[1]http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publi... [2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-24942338

Did she think it was ice-coffee? Had she ordered an ice-frappe and been delivered hot coffee which is typically made with freshly boiled water?

Is your argument that certain crimes are not crimes in your eyes?

You must see how that is completely incompatible with any functioning society. You have decided arbitrarily, in opposition to the majority of society according to our legal and civic models, that you are going to ignore the law regarding DRM?

That is fine. But you would be the first to call the police if people decided to ignore the law and it negatively impacted you. Your hypocritcal attitude is equalling breathtaking and juvenile.

Ultimately you believe "the law should stand except when I want something; then I should be allowed to steal it because the internetz and copyright is slaveries and yada yada...

Honestly. Grow up.

It's not crude. The comment was stupid. It was ill informed, blunt and a complete lack of understanding.

I don't need a source to prove it. The comment speaks for itself.

"You need to Google your way to success"

I suppose that says it all! What a brilliant demonstration of exactly why you should be ignored.

Keep up the good work, you are a fine example of modern reasoning.

Nope it's a piracy debate. Zero Freedom of Speech applicability. FoS is also not absolute.

It's not a slippery slope at all. It's quite clear cut.

If a shop was distributing fenced goods or human traffic we wouldn't allow it to remain in business because they also distribute free and legitimate groceries.

Do you see how slippery the slope is? You have left from the tiny tiny tiny niche use of file transfer for free content to the massive industrious downloading of intellectual property.

As long as you are still being paid your salary though...easy to have a faux-morally superior position when it is not your efforts being ripped off.

Yes. Unless you think someone should be allowed to post videos of themselves breaking into your house and raping your family?

A crime is a crime. That's it. If you don't like copyright then advocate it's removal but we live in a consensus based society so if you lose you shut up about it.

^^ This is exactly why you are supremely unqualified to understand or debate the issue. Honestly. Your comment was simply stupid.

The takedown request was not because the screenshots are copyrighted. That is not the infringement. If you don't understand that then you might want to read a bit more before becoming involved with the grown-ups.

It is common sense that pedestrians should stay out of streets. And for many years in the UK the pedestrian had the right of way; right up until a Judge was smart enough to realise it is easier for a pedestrian not to step into high moving traffic than it is for a 2000 kilogram lump of metal hurtling along at 30-40MPH to accomodate such idiots.

So now, the law is balanced again. Pedestrians are given safe crossing points but the roads belong to vehicles.

It was never common sense that cigarettes didn't cause harm. It was a lack of medical research.

It is common sense that piracy is theft. You the deprivation argument is utter bullshit. Otherwise you won't mind if I make copies of all of your house keys; car keys and private documentation. After all; I am not depriving you of the originals and they are just a series of atoms. No biggie.

Seriously; just grow up.

I absolutely love that the majority of this thread are claiming all sorts of legal protections for Popcorn Time - all the way from free speech to ludicrous comparisons with screenshotting screenshots.

So you guys love the law - right up until Crawford posted MGM vs Grokster as the binding ruling and now suddenly it's all...

"The law is wrong and archaic!"

Honestly. You sound like teenagers throwing a tantrum. Just grow up and admit you want to steal content you didn't pay for. I would have a lot more respect for you than you. When you try and justify it you sound like a moron.

One poster below even went so far as to insinuate theft is OK because the movie publishing houses have so much money. Is that the standard we apply is it? If a company is successful it becomes OK to pirate their stuff?

Moron. Downvote away, it doesn't make the attitude any less moronic.

Apart from the fact of being completely substantiated of course. But hey, don't let actual facts get in the way of your opinion.

Voting you back up for being correct. Why I am not surprised the juveniles here voted you down [eyeroll].

Seriously, listen to yourself.

Here is a little fact; you are not that clever and the rest of the world is not that stupid. Save your strawman arguments. If movies are released by content creators for free they will release them via channels you can access.

if you can't access them; tough. No one said you had a right to content.

By censorship, you mean facilitate crime and remove money from people who generate content?

Feel free to send me all of the proprietary data at your workplace since you care nothing about copyright. Or just post it all to Pastebin.

You are if the video player finds copyright DVDs and then delivers them to your door without the permission of the content creator. So yes. Stop being absurd.

Except we all know it is. Just like I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for.

IT communities seem to think Judges are stupid or that the actions of general crowd are somehow excused by the niche applications of a technology. That is not the way society or common sense works.

Does employment in a CS career mean that you must be prescriptive in every aspect of your life?

The 10,000 hours is a rough guide to a general consensus of sporting and professional pursuits.

It is not appplicable to all people in all walks of life.

Sometimes I fear for the sanity of coders; how do you people function without technical specifications telling you what to do??

You have just written the biggest pile of unsubstantiated bullshit I have read on HN.

You are quite simply wrong. Not just your conclusions, but your entire understanding of native talent is incorrect.

It is not surprising you hold the viewpoint you do. If I started off thinking 2 + 2 = 5 then I would argue 4 + 4 = 10.

That is essentially what has happened here. You have misunderstood native talent, how it is defined and measured and are now arguing from a position of factual incorrectness. No point continuing really. It is obvious you will never read anything to change your own mind.

Greenspun def attacks Piketty as an individual and has done numerous times it appears.

RSJW is right on the money with his TL;DR

What argument? WTF are you talking about? Who is arguing?

The best tl;dr I have ever read. You are totally accurate. That is exactly what Greenspun is claiming. :-)

False.

Management refers to the coordination of people, not the exercise of power. It is to coordinate the people towards a goal in conjunction with available resources in an efficient manner.

Example - A Project Manager has no power over the workstream leads other than to assign them tasks, resources and milestones in line with the vision of the Project Board.

Self-Management is nonsense. One or two use cases does not make it applicable to the entire corporate world. How does one discipline a colleague for taking 180 days off per year?

Who exercises executive authority over mergers/acquisitions/hiring/firing/downsizing/scaling/purchasing?

You are arguing for the sake it, no need to reply. I am done with your drama.

No I am good thanks. I will just discount it. I don't consider a blog post a suitable way to analyse the magnum opus of an economist of the stature of Piketty.

EDIT : Curiousity got the better of me. I read the review of Capital.

I stopped at this line -

"Here are some ideas, some taken from my 2009 economic recovery plan for the U.S."

The author is a supremely talented electrical engineer. Stick to that instead of whining "No one listened to my economics ideas."

Last time I checked, economists don't post blogs claiming no one is listening to their ideas about microprocessors or front end development.

Thank you for that insight. I couldn't upvote it enough.

People in my country, and almost every Western nation in the world can afford medicine.

The problem you speak of is unique to the USA's backwards healthcare system that costs more for worse healthcare.

I very much doubt anyone can tear Piketty to bits. At all.

Not without a book of comparable size and research time invested.

You know better than to bring logic to HN. Someone is having a rant; don't cloud the issue with facts.

Nope.

Can you give an example of a "talent" that you think is heritable?

I ask because inherited talent is a myth.