Actually, my genes tried to naturally select out when I was 7. Before I could possibly have passed on my genes, I had an allergic reaction, and only through medical intervention I survived. If nature were allowed it's natural course, I have would never passed on my genes, thereby weakening the gene pool.
No, they got her name off the computer they caught, which is my point. They found reason to investigate her involvement, not sue her and make her prove her innocence. I would hate to be responsible for every violation that came from a computer for which I'm a registered user.
Furthermore, I know teenagers who share accounts on all kinds of services to avoid paying multiple access fees or dodge a parent's restrictions, even though this usually violates the ToS. But violating the ToS isn't anything the RIAA can sue over, unless it's their ToS the kid violates.
Which is why I have a problem with the parent's statement that because she was 19 and has internet access, she is probably guilty. Whether or not she did it is beside the point. The cause they based their suit on wasn't specific enough to sue her. Had they sent a goon to the hospital to question her about it, I would not feel it was an exploitation of my tax dollars to make her do their job for them and figure out who downloaded music illegally.
Common violations of law are exactly that- common, and your probablies are completely immaterial to the RIAA suit. This is like police giving speeding tickets because someone is 19 year old and has a driver's license, so they probably speed.
The fact is, they caught a computer and not a person, but a judgment was still entered against a person whose health made it difficult to defend herself. This is obnoxious and bullying behavior.
As a teacher and former foster parent, I have been thoroughly background-checked with multiple levels of law enforcement, both my home and person inspected for fitness, and my fingerprints taken and cataloged, twice. But no DNA was taken.
Yet.
But maybe Tennessee is behind in that.
As a woman who regularly reads science mags (and slashdot), I can tell you that when science talk makes me yawn, it's the guy, not the subject.
I was raised by a single father who was an engineer, so our dinner conversations were frequently tech-heavy and geek-intensive, giving me a much higher level of tolerance than most people, male or female. But when someone is griping, not speaking about their interests, I glaze over.
Slashdot Mirror
See Discover Magazine, April 2009. It cites an article in Pharmacotherapy from last year.
I knew something was missing from these comments, can't believe it took this long. Much appreciated.
Actually, my genes tried to naturally select out when I was 7. Before I could possibly have passed on my genes, I had an allergic reaction, and only through medical intervention I survived. If nature were allowed it's natural course, I have would never passed on my genes, thereby weakening the gene pool.
No, they got her name off the computer they caught, which is my point. They found reason to investigate her involvement, not sue her and make her prove her innocence. I would hate to be responsible for every violation that came from a computer for which I'm a registered user. Furthermore, I know teenagers who share accounts on all kinds of services to avoid paying multiple access fees or dodge a parent's restrictions, even though this usually violates the ToS. But violating the ToS isn't anything the RIAA can sue over, unless it's their ToS the kid violates. Which is why I have a problem with the parent's statement that because she was 19 and has internet access, she is probably guilty. Whether or not she did it is beside the point. The cause they based their suit on wasn't specific enough to sue her. Had they sent a goon to the hospital to question her about it, I would not feel it was an exploitation of my tax dollars to make her do their job for them and figure out who downloaded music illegally.
Not as much as you think. I pay for my downloads. It's like sex- it only seems like everyone else is doing it, but not really. :)
Common violations of law are exactly that- common, and your probablies are completely immaterial to the RIAA suit. This is like police giving speeding tickets because someone is 19 year old and has a driver's license, so they probably speed. The fact is, they caught a computer and not a person, but a judgment was still entered against a person whose health made it difficult to defend herself. This is obnoxious and bullying behavior.
As a teacher and former foster parent, I have been thoroughly background-checked with multiple levels of law enforcement, both my home and person inspected for fitness, and my fingerprints taken and cataloged, twice. But no DNA was taken. Yet. But maybe Tennessee is behind in that.
Given my tuition hikes and the sad state of technology on my campus, I'm guessing they haven't spent my technology fee money anyway.
As a woman who regularly reads science mags (and slashdot), I can tell you that when science talk makes me yawn, it's the guy, not the subject. I was raised by a single father who was an engineer, so our dinner conversations were frequently tech-heavy and geek-intensive, giving me a much higher level of tolerance than most people, male or female. But when someone is griping, not speaking about their interests, I glaze over.