No, the people they're going to sue aren't customers. The customers are the ones who pay money to them in exchange for CDs. The people they're considering suing are mp3z d00dz who don't pay. See the difference?
They're not necessarily suing the guys who never pay. They're suing the guys who take their large CD libraries, rip them, and put them all up for download.
Even with a vast array of MP3 sites, the number of people donwloading versus buying is quite small. Napster at it's peak was about 10 million users. In 1990, there was a billion [oneoffcd.com] CD's sold worldwide.
You're not really comparing the same thing, though. How many albums on average did those 10 million users download? Find the answer to that, and you'll have something to compare to the billion CD sales.
"Why should I pay $12 for something I can get for free?"
Except $12 is rare, usually it's $16 or $17+ instead. That's why I've cut back greatly on my purchase of new CDs, and a number of my friends have as well -- we absolutely refuse to pay $17 for a CD. I don't get anything off of the filesharing networks, I just browse the used CD shops (and fortunately for me, there are several good quality used stores around here).
Think of the collapsing towers of the WTC, you say? Okay. Which INDEPENDENT jury has prooved his guilt? On what evidence? Sorry guys, but I think you're overinfluenced by CNN. They (CNN) are very good disciples of Dr. Goebbels whose propaganda machine has turned a highly civilized nation (the Germans) into mass-murderers or supporters thereof. Right now America is heading in the exact same direction.
I guess Bin Laden's admitting it on a celebratory video tape wasn't good enough evidence?
You're also totally wrong about the whole environmental thing, but that's a different subject.:)
I'm not entirely sure he is. This is getting a little offtopic, but the amount of land required to feed one person with meat is something like 10 times the amount of land required to feed one person with vegetables or grains. Meat is simply a much less efficient use of land in terms of food supply.
The reason the dividing line between the government and Microsoft is growing fainter is that George W. Bush is at the helm. Why else do you think the DoJ dropped their case against MS shortly after he took office? It follows that, once he is removed, Microsoft will be in for another ass-kicking
I'm not so sure. I don't think the reason MS got into trouble during the Clinton era was because Clinton was a democrat and Bush was a republican. The reason MS got into trouble in the first place was that they disdained lobbying and campaign contributions.. and their compeditors didn't. There were bigger monopolists around during that time, but they didn't get hammered. They paid protection money.
Both UC schools. I used to go to UC Davis, and they had an incredible anime/asian rental place called "Alternative Universe," and I figured I might be able to find something like that when I moved to Berkeley, but surprise surprise. Despite this being a large university town, there are no good anime rental places. There's one small store which shares an insignificant amount of space with a travel agency, but the selection isn't very good. Even blockbuster seems better at time. Then again, there are many surprising things about Berkeley. You wouldn't think they'd have a piss-poor recycling system, but they do. It's a bizarre town that never seems to be what people think of it.
As for the other crap the parent poster was throwing out, it's tragic - he (she? it?) could at least have done some research before creating a terribly broken argument like that. And unfortunately I'm too tired to pull it apart more . . .
He sounds like one of Jack T. Chick's brood. Chick published a track with a similar theme and similar lame arguements.
"We have information indicating that you or someone using your Road Runner account..."
So basically TW is admitting that their security is so poor that they let someone else exploit his account?
More likely they're referring to anyone living with the person receiving that email. After all, if you have broadband and live with someone else, that broadband access is usually shared, yes?
I looked up this little statement and notoiced that the same ratio of reglius people inside of jail is the same as the ratio of people out side of jail!! Expect for muslins which were higher in jail then outside of jail. Wow. Shocking.
You would think that there would be a lower ratio of Christians in jail. With them being moral and all.
Really, so were do you draw the line? The president is I believe Baptist I have heard him and many other members of our government use the term god on many occasions. Should they to be removed from government?
No, again, I mentioned I was fine with personal beliefs in God. When the President invokes God or thanks God, etc, I know that is a personal statement. But that is much different from sliding that into an official national pledge.
How about the teachings of roman or Greek gods in school should that to be removed from the curriculum?
Nope, because it has to do with history. I also believe that the history of Christianity should be taught in history classes as well from a historical perspective, due to its great importance in history.
Should we remove science and the teaching of evolotution because it goes against the Christian beliefs of creation?
No, because it's what science currently believes to be the best explanation of what occurs. Some teachers will absolutely set that in stone, but they shouldn't. That's bad science.
The whole term is generic enough anyway that it should not offend anyone who is not looking to be offended.
Personally, I think the whole has been blown way out of proportion on both sides. Sure it's unconstitional, but there are a huge number of unconstitional things the government does that are a hell of a lot more important.
What I'm refuting is not the notion that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge. I am refuting the notion that the words of the constitution clearly dictate it that it should be removed.
What others have refered to so far is that the first amendment bars Congress entirely from passing any law establishing religion. Putting the Judeo-Christian "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance (especially for the express purpose of advancing that religion) clearly goes against that amendment.
Something I really find strange in all this is that, as a child, I never even thought of that "under God" as being a religious reference. I always thought it was a figurative way of saying that no other nation or governing body has control over the United States.
That's what happens when children are required to pledge oaths, but no one explains to them what they mean. You have an interesting interpretation, but the lawmakers of the 50's certainly disagree with you. The intention was to reinforce the Judeo-Christian belief and attack atheism. Those are actions that are clearly banned by the Constitution. The government has absolutely no say in which religion is valid or 'true.'
Congress approved it in the 1950's, when everyone was finger-pointing at "known communists". Communism is an atheistic form of government, and so by affirming the "under god" part you are reaffirming your lack of atheism, thus Communism loses in the elementary schools.
Actually communism more defines economic systems. Totalitarian regimes, neither necessary nor exclusive to communism, found religion to be bothersome since it was a competing center of power to a completely authoritarian government.
That's ludicrous. (1) Using your logic, why don't they come back confused as to whether they should be Jewish OR Christian? (2) I would personally love to see a kid come back with such an opinion, because I would assume that they would also get out of school thinking "Gee, it wouldn't be good to grow up into a 24-year-old Californian and help Al Queda attack the country, since I'm supposed to give my allegiance to the US".
Correct, instead you'd see a kid coming back saying "God wants me to bomb abortion clinics!" Rediculous yes, but no more so than your assertion that children who don't have Christianity drilled into them at school (isn't that more a domain of the parents?) grow up to be terrorists.
Well heck, let's all just choose to do what we feel like. "The government set up laws telling me that I'll be punished for raping some guy's wife and murdering his daughter. I'm getting the sense that the government doesn't want me harming that guy's family, which is obviously some sort of attack on my freedom." NO! While I respect your viewpoint, I heartily disagree with your subjective logic.
The government should not be sponsoring religions, with the possible exception of tax-purposes.
How is this not exactly what is happening? By removing the phrase under god aren't you effectively removing god from this equation giving atheists what they want at the expense of the rest of the nations beliefs and values.
It is not removing God from society, it is removing God and religion from government.
If we must respect the fact that people out there don't believe in god then they damb well better respect that a great many Americans do.
I have no problems with people believing in God. Both my mom and dad have grown increasingly religious in the last decade or two, and I'm just fine with that. But the government has absolutely no place defining what theology we should believe in. In other words, the government has no place inserting Christian (or other western theologies) affirmations into, say, the Pledge of Allegiance like they did in the 50's.
The constitution does not afford us the right not to hear religion in schools or government
The Constitution very specifically disallows the government from affirming any religion: "Congress may not..." etc. It's very blatent. Don't try to interpret it as "it just lets you practice any religion," for that is NOT what it says.
Morality as in "set of rules on how to behave so that the maximum number of people can have the maximum level of hapiness"
This isn't morality though. Under that system, a minority (homosexuals, jews, irish, whatever) could be persecuted, and as long as the majority were happy with it, it would then be "moral" under that system. I seem to remember writing about these sorts of systems being proposed and shot down in my philosophy classes years back.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not necessarily suing the guys who never pay. They're suing the guys who take their large CD libraries, rip them, and put them all up for download.
When 99% of the content transfered over a filesharing network is illegal, then it doesn't really matter if 1% is legal or not.
You're not really comparing the same thing, though. How many albums on average did those 10 million users download? Find the answer to that, and you'll have something to compare to the billion CD sales.
Except $12 is rare, usually it's $16 or $17+ instead. That's why I've cut back greatly on my purchase of new CDs, and a number of my friends have as well -- we absolutely refuse to pay $17 for a CD. I don't get anything off of the filesharing networks, I just browse the used CD shops (and fortunately for me, there are several good quality used stores around here).
You reckon 15.7% of the Slashdot community would like to see Dick Cheney as President of the United States?
You mean he isn't already?
I guess Bin Laden's admitting it on a celebratory video tape wasn't good enough evidence?
I'm not entirely sure he is. This is getting a little offtopic, but the amount of land required to feed one person with meat is something like 10 times the amount of land required to feed one person with vegetables or grains. Meat is simply a much less efficient use of land in terms of food supply.
I'm not so sure. I don't think the reason MS got into trouble during the Clinton era was because Clinton was a democrat and Bush was a republican. The reason MS got into trouble in the first place was that they disdained lobbying and campaign contributions.. and their compeditors didn't. There were bigger monopolists around during that time, but they didn't get hammered. They paid protection money.
Both UC schools. I used to go to UC Davis, and they had an incredible anime/asian rental place called "Alternative Universe," and I figured I might be able to find something like that when I moved to Berkeley, but surprise surprise. Despite this being a large university town, there are no good anime rental places. There's one small store which shares an insignificant amount of space with a travel agency, but the selection isn't very good. Even blockbuster seems better at time. Then again, there are many surprising things about Berkeley. You wouldn't think they'd have a piss-poor recycling system, but they do. It's a bizarre town that never seems to be what people think of it.
He sounds like one of Jack T. Chick's brood. Chick published a track with a similar theme and similar lame arguements.
So basically TW is admitting that their security is so poor that they let someone else exploit his account?
More likely they're referring to anyone living with the person receiving that email. After all, if you have broadband and live with someone else, that broadband access is usually shared, yes?
You would think that there would be a lower ratio of Christians in jail. With them being moral and all.
There are very few true Christians. Very few.
On the other hand, if I had mod points, I'd probably moderate up as being funny.
No, again, I mentioned I was fine with personal beliefs in God. When the President invokes God or thanks God, etc, I know that is a personal statement. But that is much different from sliding that into an official national pledge.
How about the teachings of roman or Greek gods in school should that to be removed from the curriculum?
Nope, because it has to do with history. I also believe that the history of Christianity should be taught in history classes as well from a historical perspective, due to its great importance in history.
Should we remove science and the teaching of evolotution because it goes against the Christian beliefs of creation?
No, because it's what science currently believes to be the best explanation of what occurs. Some teachers will absolutely set that in stone, but they shouldn't. That's bad science.
The whole term is generic enough anyway that it should not offend anyone who is not looking to be offended.
Personally, I think the whole has been blown way out of proportion on both sides. Sure it's unconstitional, but there are a huge number of unconstitional things the government does that are a hell of a lot more important.
What others have refered to so far is that the first amendment bars Congress entirely from passing any law establishing religion. Putting the Judeo-Christian "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance (especially for the express purpose of advancing that religion) clearly goes against that amendment.
Something I really find strange in all this is that, as a child, I never even thought of that "under God" as being a religious reference. I always thought it was a figurative way of saying that no other nation or governing body has control over the United States.
That's what happens when children are required to pledge oaths, but no one explains to them what they mean. You have an interesting interpretation, but the lawmakers of the 50's certainly disagree with you. The intention was to reinforce the Judeo-Christian belief and attack atheism. Those are actions that are clearly banned by the Constitution. The government has absolutely no say in which religion is valid or 'true.'
Actually communism more defines economic systems. Totalitarian regimes, neither necessary nor exclusive to communism, found religion to be bothersome since it was a competing center of power to a completely authoritarian government.
Correct, instead you'd see a kid coming back saying "God wants me to bomb abortion clinics!" Rediculous yes, but no more so than your assertion that children who don't have Christianity drilled into them at school (isn't that more a domain of the parents?) grow up to be terrorists.
Well heck, let's all just choose to do what we feel like. "The government set up laws telling me that I'll be punished for raping some guy's wife and murdering his daughter. I'm getting the sense that the government doesn't want me harming that guy's family, which is obviously some sort of attack on my freedom." NO! While I respect your viewpoint, I heartily disagree with your subjective logic.
The government should not be sponsoring religions, with the possible exception of tax-purposes.
It is not removing God from society, it is removing God and religion from government.
If we must respect the fact that people out there don't believe in god then they damb well better respect that a great many Americans do.
I have no problems with people believing in God. Both my mom and dad have grown increasingly religious in the last decade or two, and I'm just fine with that. But the government has absolutely no place defining what theology we should believe in. In other words, the government has no place inserting Christian (or other western theologies) affirmations into, say, the Pledge of Allegiance like they did in the 50's.
The constitution does not afford us the right not to hear religion in schools or government
The Constitution very specifically disallows the government from affirming any religion: "Congress may not..." etc. It's very blatent. Don't try to interpret it as "it just lets you practice any religion," for that is NOT what it says.
It doesn't really. Thus the SC's recent ruling that school vouchers are not unconstitutional.
This isn't morality though. Under that system, a minority (homosexuals, jews, irish, whatever) could be persecuted, and as long as the majority were happy with it, it would then be "moral" under that system. I seem to remember writing about these sorts of systems being proposed and shot down in my philosophy classes years back.