> I'm a student at a fast paced school > WE PIRATE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO!!
You might want to start looking at GOOD schools instead of fast-paced ones. That way, they'll have a CS lab with the software you need so you don't have to download it.
That said, I don't care if you do download software, I do it all the time. But making excuses (I don't know if you are, doesn't matter to the point) doesn't help.
> Why can't Americans ever seem to see the difference?
Because most of the people make insults to cover ALL Americans. When someone says "You stupid yanks," I don't assume they mean "The stupid yanks in charge of the US," I assume they mean what they say. Many of them actually hate Americans because they can't disassociate Americans with the government that controls them.
> the fact that every known civilization has had it in one form or another supports that.
Almost every known civilization did not charge for the right to listen to its music, though. That's precedent.
> what arts would you say are useful?
Art as in the art itself, none. They do, as you point out, have useful attributes though. They can make you think about other things, etc.
> music can make me think, it can challenge me, it can inspire me, it can communicate nearly anything. > pretty useful, i'd say.
What about the music that DOESN'T make you think? The stuff I have on only for background noise. You could argue that that is "useful," but it could be static as well. Music just sounds better than static. Is that less useful stuff freely copyable then?
> We can't have subversives spreading their "poison" all over the world
One problem with this line is that "their poison" doesn't belong to them. They are spreading ??AA's poison. I'm just happy that I got all the movies & TV shows I really wanted before the torrent sites went down. Unfortunately, I don't know of any good ones left to use when the next TV season starts (other than TVTorrents.something).
Yeah, I was put on that. Funny thing is, that kind of "censorship" (I know it isn't, really) is the same as CyberSitter & stuff like that. What I mean is, when I was put on that list I hadn't been swearing. I was talking about politics at the time, closer to the "Right" side. So, evidently, backing a Republican is profane. Hmm, maybe it wasn't an incorrect assessment.
Something doesn't seem right with that thing. It throws up multiple errors for each line that references FRAMES. Unless frames are no longer part of any W3C HTML standard, the validator is broken.
Tell her "sure, as long as you realize I won't help you a bit when the whole thing disappears because you didn't want to be inconvenienced with security."
> Group-think censorship is every bit as evil as any other kind.
Which is why it's so great that slashdot doesn't practice censorship, YOU FUCKING MORON. There's plenty of shit to complain about in the world, but attaching a value number to a post is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM CENSORSHIP. It's hard to resist the urge to start shouting endless profanities at you, because you have no idea what censorship means.
Here's a hint: censorship would be removing posts altogether. If you browse at -5, you will see everything. If you can see it, it wasn't fucking censored!
> When one person or one group can systematically supress the output of others they disagree with
Except for the editors*, THERE ISN'T ONE PERSON OR GROUP WHO SYSTEMATICALLY HAS MOD POINTS, so your argument is full of shit. Get a goddamned clue, luser.
* It's their site and can do whatever the hell they want, they don't have to answer to you. Don't like it? Get the fuck out. The Internet is NOT a democracy, it's anarchy (except when some Government-whored business loses a dollar over something and wants to send you to jail for it).
> isn't it somewhat silly to think that it's going to suddenly swing to Candidate B if they count the other 60% of the ballots?
No, it isn't silly. As another pointed out, those voting later usually have jobs, whereas those without jobs (and more likely to vote Democrat, not that the "side" matters too much) would vote earlier. What if the first 5000 votes were missed? The result would have probably favored Republicans slightly. However, you are right in that I don't think it would usually affect the outcome enough to change the winner.
Oops, one left out word made a big difference in my original post. Just went back to look at it and I had written:
> Yes, a pension fund is the property, or at least future property, of more than one person.
I meant "except a pension fund is the property [...] of more than one person."
This was to imply that stealing the milk is the same as stealing one person's portion of that fund. Because the pension fund actually "belongs to" a few hundred people, it would be the equivalent of stealing a bottle of milk from each of 200 people. This means that I don't automatically attach monetary value to everything. In some circumstances (eg, starving), a bottle of milk can be more valuable than any amount of money. Unfortunately, that's not what I actually said at the time.
Guess I'm not very good at expressing myself.:)
As to points 1 & 2, is something worse because you thought longer about it? I understand your point and agree that it may make it more malicious, but should the reason for the crime make any difference in the sentencing of that criminal (ignoring self-defense)?
The asperger's thing is interesting though, thanks for the info.
> You may not agree with this, but I do and that's how things work.
That is NOT how things work. Sentencing is an arbitrary practice that does not accurately reflect the damage done OR the chances of getting caught. Some are, but in general I do not agree.
These guys installed a program to collect CC#s. They weren't building a dirty bomb.
My point is that there was no physical damage, and no monetary damage at the point they were arrested. Money can be replaced, lives cannot. They didn't threaten lives. People who DO threaten lives get shorter sentences (unless they threaten someone famous). What is your point?
Slashdot Mirror
When someone dies, is their family now legally able to open & read postal mail that comes for the deceased? EMail should fall under the same category.
> I'm a student at a fast paced school
> WE PIRATE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO!!
You might want to start looking at GOOD schools instead of fast-paced ones. That way, they'll have a CS lab with the software you need so you don't have to download it.
That said, I don't care if you do download software, I do it all the time. But making excuses (I don't know if you are, doesn't matter to the point) doesn't help.
Most torrents linked to on /. are "legitimate," AFAIK.
> Why can't Americans ever seem to see the difference?
Because most of the people make insults to cover ALL Americans. When someone says "You stupid yanks," I don't assume they mean "The stupid yanks in charge of the US," I assume they mean what they say. Many of them actually hate Americans because they can't disassociate Americans with the government that controls them.
FYI, a "few" people live in Canada too.
> an anonymizer proxy can slow down some of your downloads, but this might be the solution
Now, if you can just find a solution on where to GET the torrent files after all the site owners have been wrongfully imprisoned, we'd be happy.
> the fact that every known civilization has had it in one form or another supports that.
Almost every known civilization did not charge for the right to listen to its music, though. That's precedent.
> what arts would you say are useful?
Art as in the art itself, none. They do, as you point out, have useful attributes though. They can make you think about other things, etc.
> music can make me think, it can challenge me, it can inspire me, it can communicate nearly anything.
> pretty useful, i'd say.
What about the music that DOESN'T make you think? The stuff I have on only for background noise. You could argue that that is "useful," but it could be static as well. Music just sounds better than static. Is that less useful stuff freely copyable then?
> We can't have subversives spreading their "poison" all over the world
One problem with this line is that "their poison" doesn't belong to them. They are spreading ??AA's poison. I'm just happy that I got all the movies & TV shows I really wanted before the torrent sites went down. Unfortunately, I don't know of any good ones left to use when the next TV season starts (other than TVTorrents.something).
> something called the Profanity Blacklist
Yeah, I was put on that. Funny thing is, that kind of "censorship" (I know it isn't, really) is the same as CyberSitter & stuff like that. What I mean is, when I was put on that list I hadn't been swearing. I was talking about politics at the time, closer to the "Right" side. So, evidently, backing a Republican is profane. Hmm, maybe it wasn't an incorrect assessment.
If you DO go to Princeton, you are just as worthless (being rich doesn't change your "worth," only your income).
> there is/might be some family history in those letters.
There also might be some personal secrets that the deceased doesn't WANT his family to know.
Something doesn't seem right with that thing. It throws up multiple errors for each line that references FRAMES. Unless frames are no longer part of any W3C HTML standard, the validator is broken.
Tell her "sure, as long as you realize I won't help you a bit when the whole thing disappears because you didn't want to be inconvenienced with security."
Then delete it.
"id'iot"
> Group-think censorship is every bit as evil as any other kind.
Which is why it's so great that slashdot doesn't practice censorship, YOU FUCKING MORON.
There's plenty of shit to complain about in the world, but attaching a value number to a post is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM CENSORSHIP. It's hard to resist the urge to start shouting endless profanities at you, because you have no idea what censorship means.
Here's a hint: censorship would be removing posts altogether. If you browse at -5, you will see everything. If you can see it, it wasn't fucking censored!
> When one person or one group can systematically supress the output of others they disagree with
Except for the editors*, THERE ISN'T ONE PERSON OR GROUP WHO SYSTEMATICALLY HAS MOD POINTS, so your argument is full of shit. Get a goddamned clue, luser.
* It's their site and can do whatever the hell they want, they don't have to answer to you. Don't like it? Get the fuck out. The Internet is NOT a democracy, it's anarchy (except when some Government-whored business loses a dollar over something and wants to send you to jail for it).
"Your" an ass.
> yet the two lawyers who ran for president this year would have everyone believe that lawsuits are just some miniscule cost
Tell me, how many court cases has Bush argued?
> isn't it somewhat silly to think that it's going to suddenly swing to Candidate B if they count the other 60% of the ballots?
No, it isn't silly. As another pointed out, those voting later usually have jobs, whereas those without jobs (and more likely to vote Democrat, not that the "side" matters too much) would vote earlier. What if the first 5000 votes were missed? The result would have probably favored Republicans slightly. However, you are right in that I don't think it would usually affect the outcome enough to change the winner.
> I don't think anyone would suggest that we should be putting bolders in prison.
:)
But please, think of the children! We must enact legislation making boulders implements of terrorism!
(If I don't have anything meaningful to say, I make a joke)
> duh, we throw icann execs into the harbor
Nah, too close to shore. Sharks and eels can swim.
Air drop them in the middle of the Pacific.
Oops, one left out word made a big difference in my original post. Just went back to look at it and I had written:
:)
> Yes, a pension fund is the property, or at least future property, of more than one person.
I meant "except a pension fund is the property [...] of more than one person."
This was to imply that stealing the milk is the same as stealing one person's portion of that fund. Because the pension fund actually "belongs to" a few hundred people, it would be the equivalent of stealing a bottle of milk from each of 200 people. This means that I don't automatically attach monetary value to everything. In some circumstances (eg, starving), a bottle of milk can be more valuable than any amount of money. Unfortunately, that's not what I actually said at the time.
Guess I'm not very good at expressing myself.
As to points 1 & 2, is something worse because you thought longer about it? I understand your point and agree that it may make it more malicious, but should the reason for the crime make any difference in the sentencing of that criminal (ignoring self-defense)?
The asperger's thing is interesting though, thanks for the info.
I got a 33, so what.
> You may not agree with this, but I do and that's how things work.
That is NOT how things work. Sentencing is an arbitrary practice that does not accurately reflect the damage done OR the chances of getting caught. Some are, but in general I do not agree.
These guys installed a program to collect CC#s. They weren't building a dirty bomb.
My point is that there was no physical damage, and no monetary damage at the point they were arrested. Money can be replaced, lives cannot. They didn't threaten lives. People who DO threaten lives get shorter sentences (unless they threaten someone famous). What is your point?
Since I wear glasses, not a chance in hell.