5 ms·

Maybe, but that’s not even orthogonal to my point, and unrelated to my post or this topic. I’m not going to engage in a trite debate over well-worn ideological

Maybe, but that’s not even orthogonal to my point, and unrelated to my post or this topic. I’m not going to engage in a trite debate over well-worn ideological ground in which you scream “freeloaders” and I talk about the right to fast forward through ads, or turn down the volume on the radio during ads. Instead I’ll just say that a majority of users believe that their computers are their property, and have the right to control what runs on them. This is especially true when advertisers have shown contempt for user privacy and even whether or not they deliver malware. Beyond that, I hope that you can start responding to things I’ve actually said, instead of just responding with “pithy” and tangential one-liners. I’m not interested in an intellectually bankrupt form of posturing in place of real debate.

falcor84 8y ago
>not even orthogonal Sorry for nitpicking, but I just couldn't get this to leave my mind. I understand that you were going for a wordplay with "not even wrong", but I'm still trying to imagine whether there's a geometric interpretation to make sense of this. Would this imply that the angle between the two things cannot be defined? If so, what would be a possible situation here?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > but I'm still trying to imagine whether there's a geometric interpretation to make sense of this. Well, I suppose there's a framework in which orthogonal could imply coplanar and so skew lines would.be “not even orthogonal”; particularly they'd have no contact at all irrespective of relative alignment.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  I have to admit that it was just a play on words, and except for dragonwriter’s formulation I have nothing to offer on this one. On the other hand I enjoyed your comment, and didn’t find it nitpicky at all.
- zenpeace 8y ago
  This is actually quite possible in non-Euclidean geometries even for things that usually have angles in real world [1]. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry
Tsubasachan 8y ago
People who block ads aren't freeloaders. I have seen this argument before. We are all paying for those marketing budgets- its included in the price of everything we buy. Paying for our own brainwashing.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  Whether people who block ads on advertiser-supported websites are "freeloaders" is a worthwhile question, but "we live in a consumer-driven society buying products from companies that use part of their revenue to advertise more products to us, ergo you should not object to me blocking ads on your website" strikes me as a bit of a shaky argument.
atomical 8y ago
> I’m not going to engage in a trite debate over well-worn ideological ground in which you scream “freeloaders” You must have me mistaken for another commenter. I never said the word "freeloaders." Perhaps are you projecting? Turning down the volume on the radio doesn't involve hijacking any DRM or ad tech. It's built into the hardware. To wit: The analogy is bogus. Do you have the right to control what runs on your computer when you don't own the copyright? The answer to that is no. The copyright owner decides that. You can opt out by not visiting your favorite sites in the future. Please take a stand and do not visit them. > Beyond that, I hope that you can start responding to things I’ve actually said, instead of just responding with “pithy” and tangential one-liners. I’m not interested in an intellectually bankrupt form of posturing in place of real debate. I continue to do that sir.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  Do you have the right to control what runs on your computer when you don't own the copyright? The answer to that is no. This is factually incorrect, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread. You can do whatever you like with what’s runs on your computer, assuming that you legally acquired it. Feel free to levy a moral objection if you like, but don’t pretend that your personal hangups are reflected in law. Your right to play with something on your computer is the same as your right to remix music you own; it only ends if you try to distribute it.

falcor84 8y ago

>not even orthogonal Sorry for nitpicking, but I just couldn't get this to leave my mind. I understand that you were going for a wordplay with "not even wrong", but I'm still trying to imagine whether there's a geometric interpretation to make sense of this. Would this imply that the angle between the two things cannot be defined? If so, what would be a possible situation here?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> but I'm still trying to imagine whether there's a geometric interpretation to make sense of this. Well, I suppose there's a framework in which orthogonal could imply coplanar and so skew lines would.be “not even orthogonal”; particularly they'd have no contact at all irrespective of relative alignment.
Pharmakon 8y ago
I have to admit that it was just a play on words, and except for dragonwriter’s formulation I have nothing to offer on this one. On the other hand I enjoyed your comment, and didn’t find it nitpicky at all.
zenpeace 8y ago
This is actually quite possible in non-Euclidean geometries even for things that usually have angles in real world [1]. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry

Tsubasachan 8y ago

People who block ads aren't freeloaders. I have seen this argument before. We are all paying for those marketing budgets- its included in the price of everything we buy. Paying for our own brainwashing.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago
Whether people who block ads on advertiser-supported websites are "freeloaders" is a worthwhile question, but "we live in a consumer-driven society buying products from companies that use part of their revenue to advertise more products to us, ergo you should not object to me blocking ads on your website" strikes me as a bit of a shaky argument.

atomical 8y ago

> I’m not going to engage in a trite debate over well-worn ideological ground in which you scream “freeloaders” You must have me mistaken for another commenter. I never said the word "freeloaders." Perhaps are you projecting? Turning down the volume on the radio doesn't involve hijacking any DRM or ad tech. It's built into the hardware. To wit: The analogy is bogus. Do you have the right to control what runs on your computer when you don't own the copyright? The answer to that is no. The copyright owner decides that. You can opt out by not visiting your favorite sites in the future. Please take a stand and do not visit them. > Beyond that, I hope that you can start responding to things I’ve actually said, instead of just responding with “pithy” and tangential one-liners. I’m not interested in an intellectually bankrupt form of posturing in place of real debate. I continue to do that sir.

Pharmakon 8y ago
Do you have the right to control what runs on your computer when you don't own the copyright? The answer to that is no. This is factually incorrect, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread. You can do whatever you like with what’s runs on your computer, assuming that you legally acquired it. Feel free to levy a moral objection if you like, but don’t pretend that your personal hangups are reflected in law. Your right to play with something on your computer is the same as your right to remix music you own; it only ends if you try to distribute it.