> how would you feel if someone came into your house every day and stole something from you
Umm, hello, nothing was removed. I wouldn't be too happy about the breaking & entering, but if someone came & PHOTOCOPIED something of mine, I don't give a hoot.
> no one has any empathy or compassion for their fellow human being
I have some compassion for humans, but not for corporations. Not for those whose only god is money. (I, personally, have no god at all, but that's not the point.)
> But allowing access to millions of other is not sharing with friends
Screw you, I consider all 6 billion people in the world to be my friends. Well, except for just about anyone who works in any government, ??AA, MS, etc. But if they are DLing my music, they're doing it without my consent! They're the REAL lawbreakers.
(Hey you, it's sarcasm, don't try to argue points)
WTF is wrong with you? The site is not called "DotSlash, News for Dyslexics. Stuff that's misspelled." Although I may be wrong about the misspelled part, judging from most posts here.
> it's like calling a murder 'manslaughter', the end result is the same.
As far as I know, manslaughter happens when you didn't try to kill anyone, it just happened. So no, the end result is NOT the same. For the victim, sure -- he's dead, nothing will change that. But for the "perpetrator," the end result is VERY different. A murderer can say "hehe, I offed that rat bastard." Someone who "commits" involuntary manslaughter has the fact that someone died because of him looming over him the rest of his life.
> it still is the loss of a sale for the label and the artist.
This is obvious bullshit, and you know it. The 12-yr-old wasn't going to buy all those albums, so the cartel was NOT deprived of a sale.
> the RIAA or its members are still incapable or unwilling of delivering a service [...] such as Kazaa
Just a minor point - certainly they have shown that they are unwilling, but I have no doubt that they are capable of it. It's just that they wouldn't have justification to charge the outrageous prices (to pay their CEOs, board members & congresspeople) if they had online music.
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse [for breaking the law]
I am going to go out on a limb here, 'cuz I'm "sure" no one will agree with me.
If you are ignorant of a law, and have no idea that what you are doing is "illegal," doesn't that imply that the law is probably overly broad? I know this isn't completely true all of the time, but most people have "morals" and know when something is really wrong. If completely moral people have no idea something is wrong (and especially why it's wrong), maybe it isn't.
> Just like when the people of the United Stated of America (*gasp, that was long, have to inspire*) wanted [Joe Schmoe] to be president...
Please stop bringing that into it, it only makes you look bitter. Get over it, and go out & vote next time to make sure "That Guy" isn't president next time.
> people are regularly executed for crimes they did not even commit
Way to go: start off a valid point with an outright lie. You don't know how many of the executed people didn't commit their crimes. Even guilty ones will deny it up to the point they stop breathing. After that, there's not much point in lieing: either you're just dead and can't lie, or God knows better.
ANYWAY, I would like you to define what you mean by "regularly," as I don't think you understand what the word truly means. Regularly means something to the effect of "on a regular basis," which doesn't even mean "often." Just that it can be predicted whenabouts (if "whereabouts" is a word, "whenabouts" is a word) it will happen again.
You seem to imply that these "regular" wrong executions happen all the time, which is total B.S.
> > "more people share MP3s than voted for the President!" > Not exactly: 50,456,169 + 50,996,116 = 101,452,285, which is greater than 57 million..:^)
Hey dumbass, 50,996,116 DIDN'T vote for the president, so you can't add them in. If he had said "... than voted in the presidential election," you'd be right.
It is. The poster was making either a misinformed or manipulated statement. Minnesota is making that information available in a purely anonymous way. The MN state government doesn't even have names or SSNs or any identifying information for each set of information. Just info on the reason the person was at the hospital.
This is perfectly justifiable, and possibly good, since it would help in infection control. If a large trend of people in an area started getting symptoms that point to an unknown/hazardous disease, this information would help pinpoint when & where it started, and that would help in trying to fight it.
The poster is simply being paranoid & trying to make you paranoid as well.
> Is there a decoder ring or something I need to see the Constitution as Congress sees it?
1. Smoke lots & lots of marijuana until you are 100% paranoid and think that everyone is out to screw you 2. Top it off with some crack so you have no idea what's going on 3. Start writing laws based on your paranoid delusions 4. Give yourself a payraise every year
If you start using that sort of argument, you can automatically discount anything that takes up any land. If you believe in evolution, isn't it possible that the "next level" of human evolution would have been born if his grandparents' house hadn't been torn down to put in that nuclear power plant? I understand the feeling behind your point, but to tap ANY energy source we are possibly halting some other natural ocurrence.
Hell, just by landing Anglos on what is currently U.S. soil we changed the world.
> the ones I know are in favor of developing renewable energy sources,
Yes, but when one comes around they automatically find something wrong with it and drive it into the ground with lawsuits. Does that sound like a good way to get things done to you?
> Does this mean if I shoot some punk spray paining my house I killed [an] artist[?]
Yes and no. Who are you to say he isn't an artist? In my mind, everyone is at least part-artist. For you to say he isn't is a form of attempting thought control. Not to mention murder, but I'd want to kill him too for spraypainting my house. But he's not spray-painting your house, is he? No, he's usually spray-painting public space. If you catch him, knock him out in 1 hit & call the police. Tell them he fell down & bumped his head while vandalizing your property. They'd be more than happy to cart him off for you.
> No one said he was in a psych ward. > He also has not quit school.
Please RTA, it says he had to quit school and that he was undergoing extensive therapy for an "indeterminate amount of time."
> > He doesn't want a movie career, > How do you know what he wants?
It said in the article that he didn't want any fame or any movie career.
> Clearly no one has asked him
No, but they have suggested it and his parents made clear his lack of desire.
> His parents' complete disregard for his feelings
They disregard his feelings? Is that why they are suing on his behalf? Unless they are completely greedy people (which is just as much speculation as saying "they are suing for fame"), they are suing because their son was hurt.
> he has already shown that he likes acting like a jedi for the camera
For a camera, yes. Not for an audience. It was for a school project that he HAD TO DO, he just chose that because he likes Star Wars, not because he wants to be an actor. Most likely, even if he was going into films, he would probably want to be a director or cinematographer, since he filmed it & did the graphics himself.
> Which makes you out as even more maladjusted than this kid's parents.
Even I can see absolute truth when spoken to me.
> you are going to kill someone because they published a video you made in which you made an ass of yourself out on the 'net?
No, I would kill them because they made a very concerted effort to ruin me, to steal my equipment and work, and to attempt to steal money that was intended to go to me. THEN, they make sure that my name and image is splattered all over the media so that every Joe Shit walking down the street could potentially identify me as "That pudgy kid who thinks he's a Jedi" and laugh & point. Just what he needs, thanks.
> But it is probably the best thing to happen to him
Aaaah, excuse me, I didn't realize having to quit school and spend "an indeterminate amount of time" in a psychiatric ward was a "Good Thing."
He doesn't want a movie career, so the fame part doesn't enter into it at all.
> I think you meant to say that you are not a physicist, did you not?
Eh, I guess I did, but it proves that whatever "IT" is, I am not part of "it.":)
> I believe that it is safe to say that we do know exactly how electricity works.
Please enlighten me then. How does an electron create heat? On such a small scale it would seem that it is a little ball (or whatever) flying around another mess of little balls, in what would basically amount to a vacuum.
Since there isn't any way to transfer heat through a vacuum, how does the heat move? Yeah, the electron moves from atom to atom, but moving doesn't imply heat without friction being present. Since it's a virtual vacuum, no friction. Where does the heat come from? Is heat simply electrons flying off and hitting our skin, giving us the sensation of heat?
What makes an electron give off usable energy? And if it does, wouldn't it then be said that the electron has changed, somehow, and is no longer an electron? In that case, we better stop using computers before all the world's electrons are used up. Unless, of course, electrons can just be respawned out of nothingness.
I don't think we "understand" electricity completely, as we can't see it. We can make conjecture, and even possibly very accurate models to explain it, but we cannot be 100% sure.
> evolutionists and creationists are equally dependent upon faith
Of course, despite my little nitpicks, you just summed up what I am trying to say. To say we "understand" electricity is to be blindly faithful to an idea that we are only guessing at, even though our model may act the same as reality, it does not make it reality -- it's still just a model.
> This world never learns that vandalism is not art.
Vandalism, art, spaghetti. It's all the same -- it's an expression. Just because you don't "get it" does not mean it's not valid. It portrays the "artist's" feelings, which is what art is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
> how would you feel if someone came into your house every day and stole something from you
Umm, hello, nothing was removed. I wouldn't be too happy about the breaking & entering, but if someone came & PHOTOCOPIED something of mine, I don't give a hoot.
> no one has any empathy or compassion for their fellow human being
I have some compassion for humans, but not for corporations. Not for those whose only god is money. (I, personally, have no god at all, but that's not the point.)
> [Good musicians] are going to asked to get paid for their music.
That's why they go on tour, sell T-Shirts, buttons, stickers.
> But allowing access to millions of other is not sharing with friends
Screw you, I consider all 6 billion people in the world to be my friends. Well, except for just about anyone who works in any government, ??AA, MS, etc. But if they are DLing my music, they're doing it without my consent! They're the REAL lawbreakers.
(Hey you, it's sarcasm, don't try to argue points)
> other ./ threads ./ crowd
> the
WTF is wrong with you? The site is not called "DotSlash, News for Dyslexics. Stuff that's misspelled." Although I may be wrong about the misspelled part, judging from most posts here.
> it's like calling a murder 'manslaughter', the end result is the same.
As far as I know, manslaughter happens when you didn't try to kill anyone, it just happened. So no, the end result is NOT the same. For the victim, sure -- he's dead, nothing will change that. But for the "perpetrator," the end result is VERY different. A murderer can say "hehe, I offed that rat bastard." Someone who "commits" involuntary manslaughter has the fact that someone died because of him looming over him the rest of his life.
> it still is the loss of a sale for the label and the artist.
This is obvious bullshit, and you know it. The 12-yr-old wasn't going to buy all those albums, so the cartel was NOT deprived of a sale.
> Who knew that Slashdot trolls were writing articles at FoxNews?
/. trolls, but trolls nonetheless.
I knew. Well, maybe not
> This story reeks of sensationalism.
That's a redundant phrase if I ever heard one. If it wasn't sensational, it wouldn't be a story (or at least it wouldn't be reported).
> Farwell RIAA I hardly knew ye.
You're lucky.
> the RIAA or its members are still incapable or unwilling of delivering a service [...] such as Kazaa
Just a minor point - certainly they have shown that they are unwilling, but I have no doubt that they are capable of it. It's just that they wouldn't have justification to charge the outrageous prices (to pay their CEOs, board members & congresspeople) if they had online music.
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse [for breaking the law]
I am going to go out on a limb here, 'cuz I'm "sure" no one will agree with me.
If you are ignorant of a law, and have no idea that what you are doing is "illegal," doesn't that imply that the law is probably overly broad? I know this isn't completely true all of the time, but most people have "morals" and know when something is really wrong. If completely moral people have no idea something is wrong (and especially why it's wrong), maybe it isn't.
> Just like when the people of the United Stated of America (*gasp, that was long, have to inspire*) wanted [Joe Schmoe] to be president...
Please stop bringing that into it, it only makes you look bitter. Get over it, and go out & vote next time to make sure "That Guy" isn't president next time.
> people are regularly executed for crimes they did not even commit
Way to go: start off a valid point with an outright lie. You don't know how many of the executed people didn't commit their crimes. Even guilty ones will deny it up to the point they stop breathing. After that, there's not much point in lieing: either you're just dead and can't lie, or God knows better.
ANYWAY, I would like you to define what you mean by "regularly," as I don't think you understand what the word truly means. Regularly means something to the effect of "on a regular basis," which doesn't even mean "often." Just that it can be predicted whenabouts (if "whereabouts" is a word, "whenabouts" is a word) it will happen again.
You seem to imply that these "regular" wrong executions happen all the time, which is total B.S.
> until people realize its wrong, they will continue to do it.
And since it isn't wrong, there's no stopping it! Thanks for the justification.
> > "more people share MP3s than voted for the President!" :^)
> Not exactly: 50,456,169 + 50,996,116 = 101,452,285, which is greater than 57 million..
Hey dumbass, 50,996,116 DIDN'T vote for the president, so you can't add them in. If he had said "... than voted in the presidential election," you'd be right.
> And the people are collectively a sta-puft marshmallow man.
WTF does that mean? The populace are giant, fluffy, sugary monsters from the mind of Dan Akroyd, and created by Zuul?
> Wouldn't that be in violation of HIPAA?
It is. The poster was making either a misinformed or manipulated statement. Minnesota is making that information available in a purely anonymous way. The MN state government doesn't even have names or SSNs or any identifying information for each set of information. Just info on the reason the person was at the hospital.
This is perfectly justifiable, and possibly good, since it would help in infection control. If a large trend of people in an area started getting symptoms that point to an unknown/hazardous disease, this information would help pinpoint when & where it started, and that would help in trying to fight it.
The poster is simply being paranoid & trying to make you paranoid as well.
> Is there a decoder ring or something I need to see the Constitution as Congress sees it?
1. Smoke lots & lots of marijuana until you are 100% paranoid and think that everyone is out to screw you
2. Top it off with some crack so you have no idea what's going on
3. Start writing laws based on your paranoid delusions
4. Give yourself a payraise every year
Hey, a "Profit" scheme without the "?????" step.
> the fellow didn't think that windmills or tidal had an effect on their surrounding areas,
Excuse me for jumping before getting your point. My apologies, you are correct.
> Remember the butterly that flapped its wings?
If you start using that sort of argument, you can automatically discount anything that takes up any land. If you believe in evolution, isn't it possible that the "next level" of human evolution would have been born if his grandparents' house hadn't been torn down to put in that nuclear power plant? I understand the feeling behind your point, but to tap ANY energy source we are possibly halting some other natural ocurrence.
Hell, just by landing Anglos on what is currently U.S. soil we changed the world.
> the ones I know are in favor of developing renewable energy sources,
Yes, but when one comes around they automatically find something wrong with it and drive it into the ground with lawsuits. Does that sound like a good way to get things done to you?
> Does this mean if I shoot some punk spray paining my house I killed [an] artist[?]
Yes and no. Who are you to say he isn't an artist? In my mind, everyone is at least part-artist. For you to say he isn't is a form of attempting thought control. Not to mention murder, but I'd want to kill him too for spraypainting my house. But he's not spray-painting your house, is he? No, he's usually spray-painting public space. If you catch him, knock him out in 1 hit & call the police. Tell them he fell down & bumped his head while vandalizing your property. They'd be more than happy to cart him off for you.
> No one said he was in a psych ward.
> He also has not quit school.
Please RTA, it says he had to quit school and that he was undergoing extensive therapy for an "indeterminate amount of time."
> > He doesn't want a movie career,
> How do you know what he wants?
It said in the article that he didn't want any fame or any movie career.
> Clearly no one has asked him
No, but they have suggested it and his parents made clear his lack of desire.
> His parents' complete disregard for his feelings
They disregard his feelings? Is that why they are suing on his behalf? Unless they are completely greedy people (which is just as much speculation as saying "they are suing for fame"), they are suing because their son was hurt.
> he has already shown that he likes acting like a jedi for the camera
For a camera, yes. Not for an audience. It was for a school project that he HAD TO DO, he just chose that because he likes Star Wars, not because he wants to be an actor. Most likely, even if he was going into films, he would probably want to be a director or cinematographer, since he filmed it & did the graphics himself.
> Which makes you out as even more maladjusted than this kid's parents.
Even I can see absolute truth when spoken to me.
> you are going to kill someone because they published a video you made in which you made an ass of yourself out on the 'net?
No, I would kill them because they made a very concerted effort to ruin me, to steal my equipment and work, and to attempt to steal money that was intended to go to me. THEN, they make sure that my name and image is splattered all over the media so that every Joe Shit walking down the street could potentially identify me as "That pudgy kid who thinks he's a Jedi" and laugh & point. Just what he needs, thanks.
> But it is probably the best thing to happen to him
Aaaah, excuse me, I didn't realize having to quit school and spend "an indeterminate amount of time" in a psychiatric ward was a "Good Thing."
He doesn't want a movie career, so the fame part doesn't enter into it at all.
> I think you meant to say that you are not a physicist, did you not?
:)
Eh, I guess I did, but it proves that whatever "IT" is, I am not part of "it."
> I believe that it is safe to say that we do know exactly how electricity works.
Please enlighten me then. How does an electron create heat? On such a small scale it would seem that it is a little ball (or whatever) flying around another mess of little balls, in what would basically amount to a vacuum.
Since there isn't any way to transfer heat through a vacuum, how does the heat move? Yeah, the electron moves from atom to atom, but moving doesn't imply heat without friction being present. Since it's a virtual vacuum, no friction. Where does the heat come from? Is heat simply electrons flying off and hitting our skin, giving us the sensation of heat?
What makes an electron give off usable energy? And if it does, wouldn't it then be said that the electron has changed, somehow, and is no longer an electron? In that case, we better stop using computers before all the world's electrons are used up. Unless, of course, electrons can just be respawned out of nothingness.
I don't think we "understand" electricity completely, as we can't see it. We can make conjecture, and even possibly very accurate models to explain it, but we cannot be 100% sure.
> evolutionists and creationists are equally dependent upon faith
Of course, despite my little nitpicks, you just summed up what I am trying to say. To say we "understand" electricity is to be blindly faithful to an idea that we are only guessing at, even though our model may act the same as reality, it does not make it reality -- it's still just a model.
> This world never learns that vandalism is not art.
Vandalism, art, spaghetti. It's all the same -- it's an expression. Just because you don't "get it" does not mean it's not valid. It portrays the "artist's" feelings, which is what art is all about.