> because it is imposible to 'steal' copyrighted material, only copy it without permision.
Blah, blah, we all should know that whether we accept it or not, repeating it doesn't help, and has no bearing on this dciscussion anyway. The problem is the courts don't know it, so we have to argue from a judge's POV, not our own. If you want it spelled out competely: "In the context of this hypothetical situation..." I.e., if her kids did something (presumably) illegal in her house with her computer -- regardless of what it actually was -- it's still her responsibility. I don't like that, but that's how I understand the legal responsibilities of a parent/guardian.
His very first sentence... > > > verything about the human body is needed in order for us to survive
contains its own counterargument!!! Need me to draw you a fucking picture??? > > > except for the appendix
> forgetting entirely that your audience does not necessarily share your belief
It is not a belief that the appendix does nothing, IT IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC FACT!!! If you are going to try arguing stuff like that, you have no business using phrases you don't understand, like "a priori."
> I don't know about everyone else but I've read this three times and can't identify [...] the logic you are using
Because there is no logic. His first sentence points out that the crux of his argument is false. The second sentence is false and shows that he doesn't understand the theory he is trying to rebut. Nothing new to see here, move along.
> Don't be mistaken this is about right and wrong. It's about American insecurity and jealousy of Sony and Japans success.
Yeah, that's why only Americans are complaining. Hint: they aren't the only ones. And no, it couldn't have anything to do with them doing something that's actually wrong, it's American greed -- because reality wouldn't fit into the world you see through your bullshit-tinted glasses.
> without the physics, the need for math wouldn't exist
Well, things like Calculus maybe, but math was a very natural starting point for cultures that created a concept of trading/bartering (leading to money).
> Many countries have started or are considering blocking Voice-over-IP (VOIP) traffic in order to protect the phone companies from competition
I live in the U.S. and can't insightfully comment on laws everywhere, but don't most 1st-world countries have laws making things like that illegal? Doing things that are in the interests of companies at the cost of consumer choice sounds downright wrong. If the phone companies are so worried about VoIP, why don't they just get into the VoIP business? How about changing with the times instead of trying to hold back technology just because you don't feel like joining the 21st century?
Well, compared to using Dialup, I know I use the web a WHOLE lot more. Of course, it may be that there are a lot more interesting things on the 'net since I used a modem, but most were there before.
However, when comparing cable modem vs. an even faster connection, no, it does not induce me to "surf" any more. I like having my torrents download faster, but I usually do that while I'm asleep so it wouldn't matter much.
OTOH, if I was inclined to use VoIP, I would certainly want the fastest connection I could get.
> > One encyclopedia explains how to make wine, the other merely defines it. > Could it be because of alcohol related age restrictions that, by a fleeting loophole, affect print but not online?
That is completely asinine. It is not illegal for a minor to know how to make alcoholic beverages, and it's even legal for them to actually make it. They just can't buy any from a store.
> In order to win they need a 51% probability that SHE put the files there, not that some blood relative did it.
While I don't claim to know much about civil law, possession of stolen material is illegal, AFAIK. Does that apply to possessing it unknowingly? Strictly, I don't so, but in this context... What if you are the legal guardian of someone found to be in possession of stolen material?
I can only assume that's because you live in a small town like me, where break-ins are virtually unheard of. Unfortunately, on the Internet, everyone lives "next door."
> How is it that without a lawyer there is no way you can possibly win a case?
This is purely theoretical: Almost all judges were previously lawyers, and if someone could actually win a case without a lawyer, it would mean their work before being judges was a waste.
It's like asking your local geek to secure your Cisco device. He may be many times more qualified than a "professional," yet a CSNE would assume he has no qualifications simply because he doesn't have certification, and would judge him accordingly. It is not fair, but humans are not perfect -- nor are we completely rational and unbiased.
Slashdot Mirror
> "The only interesting answers are those that destroy the questions."
> I don't know for certain who said it [...] but odds are it was Susan Sontag.
Google suggests your attribution is correct.
> It's still called the buoyant force when the object is more dense than the fluid. See a physics text instead of the dictionary.
He said just "buoyant," which is a quality (of an object within a fluid): either yes or no. Buoyant force, however, can be measured.
> because it is imposible to 'steal' copyrighted material, only copy it without permision.
Blah, blah, we all should know that whether we accept it or not, repeating it doesn't help, and has no bearing on this dciscussion anyway. The problem is the courts don't know it, so we have to argue from a judge's POV, not our own. If you want it spelled out competely: "In the context of this hypothetical situation..." I.e., if her kids did something (presumably) illegal in her house with her computer -- regardless of what it actually was -- it's still her responsibility. I don't like that, but that's how I understand the legal responsibilities of a parent/guardian.
Come on, when you're trolling, at least TRY!
His very first sentence...
> > > verything about the human body is needed in order for us to survive
contains its own counterargument!!! Need me to draw you a fucking picture???
> > > except for the appendix
> forgetting entirely that your audience does not necessarily share your belief
It is not a belief that the appendix does nothing, IT IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC FACT!!! If you are going to try arguing stuff like that, you have no business using phrases you don't understand, like "a priori."
> I don't know about everyone else but I've read this three times and can't identify [...] the logic you are using
Because there is no logic. His first sentence points out that the crux of his argument is false. The second sentence is false and shows that he doesn't understand the theory he is trying to rebut. Nothing new to see here, move along.
> Don't be mistaken this is about right and wrong. It's about American insecurity and jealousy of Sony and Japans success.
Yeah, that's why only Americans are complaining. Hint: they aren't the only ones.
And no, it couldn't have anything to do with them doing something that's actually wrong, it's American greed -- because reality wouldn't fit into the world you see through your bullshit-tinted glasses.
> without the physics, the need for math wouldn't exist
Well, things like Calculus maybe, but math was a very natural starting point for cultures that created a concept of trading/bartering (leading to money).
> gravity might equal clustering of processors with similar tasks
Leading us back to the HHGttG explanation of earth...
It might be more "convenient" if you spoke the language...
> I just make sure my servers don't have any vulnerable services running
Depending on what OS you ARE running, that doesn't leave much left. Using *BSD?
> Pick up a newspaper and look for the words "tariff"
Charging for/taxing something is a bit different, IMO, than outright banning it.
> Many countries have started or are considering blocking Voice-over-IP (VOIP) traffic in order to protect the phone companies from competition
I live in the U.S. and can't insightfully comment on laws everywhere, but don't most 1st-world countries have laws making things like that illegal? Doing things that are in the interests of companies at the cost of consumer choice sounds downright wrong. If the phone companies are so worried about VoIP, why don't they just get into the VoIP business? How about changing with the times instead of trying to hold back technology just because you don't feel like joining the 21st century?
Well, compared to using Dialup, I know I use the web a WHOLE lot more. Of course, it may be that there are a lot more interesting things on the 'net since I used a modem, but most were there before.
However, when comparing cable modem vs. an even faster connection, no, it does not induce me to "surf" any more. I like having my torrents download faster, but I usually do that while I'm asleep so it wouldn't matter much.
OTOH, if I was inclined to use VoIP, I would certainly want the fastest connection I could get.
> > One encyclopedia explains how to make wine, the other merely defines it.
> Could it be because of alcohol related age restrictions that, by a fleeting loophole, affect print but not online?
That is completely asinine. It is not illegal for a minor to know how to make alcoholic beverages, and it's even legal for them to actually make it. They just can't buy any from a store.
> I just figure if someone wants to get into my house a door lock isn't going to stop them
So do you not use a firewall or antivirus either? After all, someone who wants to get into your computer will just break those...
> Do we now prosecute parents for their children's actions?
Now? I'm pretty sure it's been that way for a while. Which is NOT to say I agree with it...
> The judge has made a number of resposes in which he displays an obvious favor for Santangelo.
While I agree with the sentiment, make sure you don't confuse favor for sympathy. However, I cannot say which it is in this case.
> Is this 51% (or is it > 50%) rule is real? That means that almost half the time the court may get it wrong
That would imply that juries (judges? Are juries for civil cases?) are wrong 50% of the time. I would hope that is not the case.
> they're going to cut em off. I personally like twist ties or zipties
Making the whole idea of securing your baggage in any way worthless.
> In order to win they need a 51% probability that SHE put the files there, not that some blood relative did it.
While I don't claim to know much about civil law, possession of stolen material is illegal, AFAIK. Does that apply to possessing it unknowingly? Strictly, I don't so, but in this context... What if you are the legal guardian of someone found to be in possession of stolen material?
Err, surreptitiously. Should have just said "through subterfuge" or something else I could have spelled correctly.
> that might be a good way if you chose to lie about it, but [...]
Absolutely! Why be right serreptitiously when you can be right rightly?
> i don't lock my doors when i leave
I can only assume that's because you live in a small town like me, where break-ins are virtually unheard of. Unfortunately, on the Internet, everyone lives "next door."
> How is it that without a lawyer there is no way you can possibly win a case?
This is purely theoretical: Almost all judges were previously lawyers, and if someone could actually win a case without a lawyer, it would mean their work before being judges was a waste.
It's like asking your local geek to secure your Cisco device. He may be many times more qualified than a "professional," yet a CSNE would assume he has no qualifications simply because he doesn't have certification, and would judge him accordingly. It is not fair, but humans are not perfect -- nor are we completely rational and unbiased.
Excuse me, I later understood what you were saying...