...said about my first computer. Complaining that I only seemed to play games on it. Which was true at first. Too bad she never lived to see where it would eventually take me professionally.
"It was kind of like using a chilled chrome buttplug. Tip: do not try this after being fisted! Fuck that may have been the most painful night in my life!"
Thanks for the tip. I'll try to keep that in mind.
I didn't say otherwise. I'm attempting to explain the situation as I've read it.
He attempted to. He put the files up for everyone to grab. Subsequent to that, he had to do absolutely nothing to actually break the law except wait for someone to download one of those files.
Even attempting to break the law is not a crime. You have not committed a crime until you've broken the law. That's how it works.
It just seems ridiculous to me that this man admits doing everything he needed to do to commit copyright infringement, but the EFF claims that since the RIAA doesn't know what other people did or didn't do (downloading the files), he's not at fault.
That's not what's happening here. You say he admits to doing everything he needed to do to have commit copyright infringement... if that's the case, then he did commit and he's guilty. But that's not what's being argued here. What's being argued here is that he did not cross the neccesary threshold for having broke the law.
I'm not sure what your opinion is on the concept of "the burden of proof lies with the accuser", but I don't find that concept ridiculous at all. If he attempted to break the law, but did not in fact break the law, then he should not be punished. Have you committed copyright infringement by just putting digital copies on your computer? Have you committed it by putting them into a directory shared by file sharing software(something that can be inadvertently done due to user carelessness)? Or have you broken it once you have actually transfered a copyrighted work to another person?
I always fall back to the simple reasoning, no harm no foul. If no copy was disseminated, then the RIAA can not show they've been victimized, then he should not be punished. In my opinion, anything beyond that is unreasonable control over individual liberty. That's my take.
Planning on breaking the law is not a crime. Actually breaking the law is what defines a crime. Granted, if you've planned on breaking some law and your planning constitutes conspiracy to commit a crime by definition of a law against conspiracy to commit a crime, then you've broken the law in so far as conspiracy is concerned, not as far as the actual crime you conspired to commit(unless you actually committed it).
Well, I was raised in several different sects, including pentecostal, catholic, non-denom protestant, and baptist. My father was an assistant pastor at a pentecostal church.
Sure what I said doesn't apply to every christian, but let's be honest here... I've been in the churches, I've seen first hand for myself, the militant attitude that is encouraged from the pulpits of these churches(caveat being, I did not see it in the Catholic church) towards science and evolution. I've been there. I was on the other side of the fence. I was a part of it.
If you can't sit down and have a civil conversation with someone about their beliefs (scientific, religious, or otherwise), then you will never see an end to debates such as these.
Here's the problem... you can't reason with someone who thinks they've been handed God's own truth and who likely thinks you are going to hell, are in league with the devil, have demons, etc... These beliefs are real. Christians entertain them about people who don't believe as they do. You can soft peddle it all you want, go turn on Christian television programs and you can hear it for yourself. You can't expect to reason with people who believe you are under satanic influence because of the very beliefs you would like to sit down and and have a civil conversation with them about. It simply does not work.
To those who don't harbor such beliefs, you can do it, and they're not the problem. But these beliefs are widespread and they've more and more dominated the mainstream of US christian sub-culture.
I mean, this argument over evolution has religious roots, but I can't help but stare in disbelief at believers who waste their energy over this argument. What difference does it make if every school in the country teaches God created the earth when you look at most religious people and the only way you can tell they have religion is their loud harping on evolution and abortion and hatred of homosexuals, atheists, and people who don't share their faith? There's no compassion or any of the other virtues you occasionally hear touted as being part of religion coming from the people behind these movements. No love of truth. No love of others as they love themselves. Just know it all venom and a desperate need to defend dogmas no matter how silly they sound defending them or what new lows of deception they have to sink to in their defense.
I have to ask those believers, is this what Jesus would do and be about? I'm working my ass off to make sure my kids can go to the finest private non-religious schools available. They can raise their kids in 3rd world ignorance, but I can make sure my kids aren't.
"When peoples safety and lives are at risk there needs to be some intelligent oversight of these issues but you can't have a blanket privacy enforcement. It just doesn't work."
Where's an example of it not working? You want to keep drunk drivers in jail, here's a freaking genius idea that doesn't involve loss of privacy to people who haven't driven drunk... increase the mandatory minimum time for drunk driving offenses. Look at that, all without compromising the privacy of the majority.
As for "factual information in divorce cases", why stop there? If providing factual information in civil cases is a good reason to intrude on privacy, then everything you do ought to be recorded on the grounds that it could provide factual information for any given civil/criminal case you might find yourself in. It's the *exact* same reasoning and just as valid.
... the keyboard/pad controller thing for the Atari 2600 BASIC cartridge. While it was a game console, with the BASIC cartridge it became something of a horribly painful to use and program computer. And the controller/keypad thing was the most atrocious thing in history, making all those keyboards on the list seem like outstanding examples of quality keyboards. http://www.atariage.com/controller_page.html?ControllerID=4&SystemID=2600
I still had a blast playing with it though. Someone gave it to me after getting a computer so I got my fix while waiting for my grandfather(HAM) to get off the Vic.;)
Have you been watching the media on him? Last night, for example, I had to dig through googlenews to find his percentage of votes. The first 5 stories operated by mainstream outlets did not mention him in the writeups, though they mentioned that 4th place guy in the democratic primary that like 3 people in the country know about.
Change isn't going to come through a single candidate in a single election year. We didn't get to where we are through a single candidate in a single election year after all. Change is going to come when we stick to our guns, year after year, and vote for the candidate we think would be the best as opposed to voting for the one we think would suck least. Steadfast and true, never deviating from the conviction that we must vote for who we think would be best.
Our system is so corrupted with stupid homer simpsion ideas like "voting for who you think would be the best is throwing your vote away if he loses" and "we need to vote for this guy to stop that guy and worry about a good candidate in the next election"(which of course, never happens). That's really what we're fighting at this point. I have a friend who thinks Ron Paul is great, but he's voting for someone else because he doesn't believe Ron Paul can win against the democrat candidates. This thinking, year after year, election after election, is an extremely huge reason why we never have substantial change for the better in this country. Because we do the same things, engage in the same broken thinking, time and again, expecting a different outcome.
So what if it doesn't look like he can win(after the first two primaries in which no clear front runner has emerged I might add)... Do you think he's the best candidate for the job? If you do, stand by him till the end. Besides, what real choice do you have? I guess Huckabee is kind of appealing, he's got chuck norris and he can jam with rock bands.:P
Slashdot Mirror
I was trying to be polite.
...said about my first computer. Complaining that I only seemed to play games on it. Which was true at first. Too bad she never lived to see where it would eventually take me professionally.
"It was kind of like using a chilled chrome buttplug. Tip: do not try this after being fisted! Fuck that may have been the most painful night in my life!"
Thanks for the tip. I'll try to keep that in mind.
...and think "Damn, an assload of booze" again.
He did more than just plan to break the law.
I didn't say otherwise. I'm attempting to explain the situation as I've read it.
He attempted to. He put the files up for everyone to grab. Subsequent to that, he had to do absolutely nothing to actually break the law except wait for someone to download one of those files.
Even attempting to break the law is not a crime. You have not committed a crime until you've broken the law. That's how it works.
It just seems ridiculous to me that this man admits doing everything he needed to do to commit copyright infringement, but the EFF claims that since the RIAA doesn't know what other people did or didn't do (downloading the files), he's not at fault.
That's not what's happening here. You say he admits to doing everything he needed to do to have commit copyright infringement... if that's the case, then he did commit and he's guilty. But that's not what's being argued here. What's being argued here is that he did not cross the neccesary threshold for having broke the law.
I'm not sure what your opinion is on the concept of "the burden of proof lies with the accuser", but I don't find that concept ridiculous at all. If he attempted to break the law, but did not in fact break the law, then he should not be punished. Have you committed copyright infringement by just putting digital copies on your computer? Have you committed it by putting them into a directory shared by file sharing software(something that can be inadvertently done due to user carelessness)? Or have you broken it once you have actually transfered a copyrighted work to another person?
I always fall back to the simple reasoning, no harm no foul. If no copy was disseminated, then the RIAA can not show they've been victimized, then he should not be punished. In my opinion, anything beyond that is unreasonable control over individual liberty. That's my take.
Planning on breaking the law is not a crime. Actually breaking the law is what defines a crime. Granted, if you've planned on breaking some law and your planning constitutes conspiracy to commit a crime by definition of a law against conspiracy to commit a crime, then you've broken the law in so far as conspiracy is concerned, not as far as the actual crime you conspired to commit(unless you actually committed it).
Isn't the ! a not operator? As in !vegan = NOT Vegan, thus !vegan != vegan.
That's what I thought anyway. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of the exclamation mark in the beginning?
Well, I was raised in several different sects, including pentecostal, catholic, non-denom protestant, and baptist. My father was an assistant pastor at a pentecostal church.
Sure what I said doesn't apply to every christian, but let's be honest here... I've been in the churches, I've seen first hand for myself, the militant attitude that is encouraged from the pulpits of these churches(caveat being, I did not see it in the Catholic church) towards science and evolution. I've been there. I was on the other side of the fence. I was a part of it.
If you can't sit down and have a civil conversation with someone about their beliefs (scientific, religious, or otherwise), then you will never see an end to debates such as these.
Here's the problem... you can't reason with someone who thinks they've been handed God's own truth and who likely thinks you are going to hell, are in league with the devil, have demons, etc... These beliefs are real. Christians entertain them about people who don't believe as they do. You can soft peddle it all you want, go turn on Christian television programs and you can hear it for yourself. You can't expect to reason with people who believe you are under satanic influence because of the very beliefs you would like to sit down and and have a civil conversation with them about. It simply does not work.
To those who don't harbor such beliefs, you can do it, and they're not the problem. But these beliefs are widespread and they've more and more dominated the mainstream of US christian sub-culture.
I mean, this argument over evolution has religious roots, but I can't help but stare in disbelief at believers who waste their energy over this argument. What difference does it make if every school in the country teaches God created the earth when you look at most religious people and the only way you can tell they have religion is their loud harping on evolution and abortion and hatred of homosexuals, atheists, and people who don't share their faith? There's no compassion or any of the other virtues you occasionally hear touted as being part of religion coming from the people behind these movements. No love of truth. No love of others as they love themselves. Just know it all venom and a desperate need to defend dogmas no matter how silly they sound defending them or what new lows of deception they have to sink to in their defense.
I have to ask those believers, is this what Jesus would do and be about? I'm working my ass off to make sure my kids can go to the finest private non-religious schools available. They can raise their kids in 3rd world ignorance, but I can make sure my kids aren't.
"When peoples safety and lives are at risk there needs to be some intelligent oversight of these issues but you can't have a blanket privacy enforcement. It just doesn't work."
Where's an example of it not working? You want to keep drunk drivers in jail, here's a freaking genius idea that doesn't involve loss of privacy to people who haven't driven drunk... increase the mandatory minimum time for drunk driving offenses. Look at that, all without compromising the privacy of the majority.
As for "factual information in divorce cases", why stop there? If providing factual information in civil cases is a good reason to intrude on privacy, then everything you do ought to be recorded on the grounds that it could provide factual information for any given civil/criminal case you might find yourself in. It's the *exact* same reasoning and just as valid.
The ends doesn't justify the means.
http://www.buy.com/prod/iomega-320gb-home-network-nas-external-hard-drive/q/loc/101/205120567.html
Only 320gb but that was plenty for my needs. Low cost, easy as pie to setup, low power consumption, no hassles/headaches(and no MS tax).
... the keyboard/pad controller thing for the Atari 2600 BASIC cartridge. While it was a game console, with the BASIC cartridge it became something of a horribly painful to use and program computer. And the controller/keypad thing was the most atrocious thing in history, making all those keyboards on the list seem like outstanding examples of quality keyboards.
;)
http://www.atariage.com/controller_page.html?ControllerID=4&SystemID=2600
I still had a blast playing with it though. Someone gave it to me after getting a computer so I got my fix while waiting for my grandfather(HAM) to get off the Vic.
Have you been watching the media on him? Last night, for example, I had to dig through googlenews to find his percentage of votes. The first 5 stories operated by mainstream outlets did not mention him in the writeups, though they mentioned that 4th place guy in the democratic primary that like 3 people in the country know about.
:P
Change isn't going to come through a single candidate in a single election year. We didn't get to where we are through a single candidate in a single election year after all. Change is going to come when we stick to our guns, year after year, and vote for the candidate we think would be the best as opposed to voting for the one we think would suck least. Steadfast and true, never deviating from the conviction that we must vote for who we think would be best.
Our system is so corrupted with stupid homer simpsion ideas like "voting for who you think would be the best is throwing your vote away if he loses" and "we need to vote for this guy to stop that guy and worry about a good candidate in the next election"(which of course, never happens). That's really what we're fighting at this point. I have a friend who thinks Ron Paul is great, but he's voting for someone else because he doesn't believe Ron Paul can win against the democrat candidates. This thinking, year after year, election after election, is an extremely huge reason why we never have substantial change for the better in this country. Because we do the same things, engage in the same broken thinking, time and again, expecting a different outcome.
So what if it doesn't look like he can win(after the first two primaries in which no clear front runner has emerged I might add)... Do you think he's the best candidate for the job? If you do, stand by him till the end. Besides, what real choice do you have? I guess Huckabee is kind of appealing, he's got chuck norris and he can jam with rock bands.