Tresspassing, like speeding, is a minor crime in the grand scheme of things. But thats what Kevin did and he spent 5 years in jail for it...thats whats "extreme".
Actually that got started as a response to the left-wingers running a revolving-door justice system (so the violent offenders were constantly being dumped back on the streets)
Actually that would be the right wing revolving door, as violent criminals have to be released to make room for non violent drug offenders who got stuck with right-wing minimum sentences. Which will only get worse if the right wing Orrin Hatch gets his way and judges loose even more disgression when sentencing.
as opposed to the lighter style used for the other films. Ghost Rider is what got me into comics in the first place....then Marvel (under Ron "we don't need to spend money on talent, the books will sell themselves" Perelman) got a new, cheaper, less talented author and I stopped reading it withing 3 issues.
I like having instant access to my music collection and I hate swapping cds. I can hear any song I want in a couple of seconds, or play my whole collection constantly for a couple of months without hearing the same song twice. Reaching that capability with a computer is very cheap, but very very costly if you want to be able to do the same thing with cd changers.
Thats all fine and dandy if you take the womans word as involate gospel truth that it was rape. Since its not, the defese find can present some evidence to help refute her claims...such as a purse full of lubricant and condoms.
Of course its relevant! If a woman is accusing a man of rape, he can't make the case, using the purse full of condoms and lubricants as evidence, that she was out looking for sex and had just changed her mind after the fact?
If you want some real life examples of how that kind of evidence would be useful, look at a couple of false accusations from Tailhook. One woman made up a story of how she was gang raped by a group of sailors. Turns out that was consensual sex, and she'd made up the story because she had a finace back hom. Another (the subject of the article) mistakenly picked out 3 guys as the one who raped her.
Or how about the case were two boys were convicted of rape because the girl said "I should be going home now" during sex. The court ruled that that statement was sufficient revocation of consent, and ruled the boys guilty of rape. What a crock.
Or you could just check out this archive of false accusations.
the defense brought forth the fact that the woman was a stripper, as evidence that she lead a dangerous lifestyle and 'put herself in a situation to be raped.' Not saying I agree or disagree with that
Your neutrality is duly noted. But plenty of people do complain about "diryting the victum", which I think is crap. What, the accused isn't allowed to defend himself? The plaintif was walking around around a stip joint without panties and a purse thats filled with condoms and K-Y, and its somehow a traversity when the defense makes the claim that the woman was out looking for sex?
But if they can't prosecute you due to said immunity, then whats the point? That would only be useful in cases where they care more about the information than in sending you to jail.
Oh, maybe they do, I could be wrong about Apple being the only ones to use it (they're still the most visible suppliers anyway). It just annoys me whem some new Mac hardware comes out and people assume its proprietary just because its from Apple.
ADC is just a variation of DVI I thought
I believe so, and I wish more people would use it...so nice having power, usb and digital video all on a single connetor.
No, its just copying. Taking involves removing whatever it is from your posession and placing it in mine. With copying you have the origional and I have a copy. What part of this distinction is not sinking in?
In a digital world where copies can be digitally perfect, what you do when you 'take' an unauthorized copy is you dilute the value of the original, and authorized copies.
Thats why we have a term that describes exactly that to differentiate it from theft. It's called...drum roll...copyright infringement! Thats why we have some 700,000 words in the English language, so we can have different words for things that are, well, different.
Wave your hand around some more.
Too bad I missed out on other fun stuff, like when your teachers must have beaten you over the head with a board to drill in similarly simple concepts, like how 1 + 1 = 2.
intellectal 'property' depends on social constructs. All three are 'property' and all three can be stolen.
Until the human race evolves powers of telepathy and can erase peoples minds, theft of IP will be impossible, because the origional owner will still have their origional copies. Do you get it yet? Copying versus taking. Its really not that difficult.
I swear, all the intellectual handwaving that goes on these days by people who can't grasp the concept of copyright is staggering.
I'll say. Of course, you appear to be one of them.
What "reeks of ignorance" is you totally missing the point. Wether or not the object has value, its only stealing if someone TAKES IT FROM YOU and YOU DON'T HAVE IT ANYMORE. With copyright infringment I'd have a copy of the dogs bone, but he would still have his.
Do you have problems telling differences between pancakes and waffels? Murder and arson? Apples and oranges? No? Then you should have any problems telling the difference between theft and infringment.
No they aren't x dollars worse off, because they never had them to begin with. Thats the difference between copyright infringment and theft. With theft you are losing something *tangible* that you _already have_. Theft is concrete. I took something of yours and you don't have it anymore. Thats not the case with infringment.
And just how would anything be different in an election, Mr. Smart Guy? Bush doens't have to let anyone into a press conference that he doesn't like. Even easier since he's the prez.
How would I go about asking Bush just how long he's planning on holding "material witnesses" without charges or a lawyer? Or why in gods name we are spending billions of dollars invading some country that hasn't attacked us, but hasn't done anything to increase security at a nuclear plant 30 miles away from NYC?
Aaaarggghhhhh, Stealing is a valid pseudonym for copyright infringement, ok?
In the same way that apples are pseudonyms for oranges. They share a few things in common: they both grow on trees, and they both come from flowers, so they must be the same thing, right?
But they aren't the same thing; there are vital charachteristics that make them completely different kinds of fruit.
There are also vital differences between theft and copyright infringment. Just because they are both illegal doesn't mean that they are the same thing, any more than murder and arson are the same thing because they are both crimes.
The key difference being: if I steal something from you, you don't have it any more. If I copy something that you have, you still have the origional item. What I have a hard time understanding is that so many people can't make that distinction.
But its not a town, its a fucking country you dumbass, and the point you are ignoring IS THAT IT WAS MADE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY LIVING THERE. The vast majority of Canada is uninhabited. Does that mean that Canadians should think its just fine and dandy if some group of refugees wants to set up their own nation up in the Northern Territories? Or is that too much of a concept for you little brain to grasp?
And the fact that the Palistinians didn't have their own country prior to the foundation is Isreal is irrelevant. Or I suppose you would say that because they were under the thumb of Britian and the Turks before that, that they should be used to getting fucked over?
Slashdot Mirror
Tresspassing, like speeding, is a minor crime in the grand scheme of things. But thats what Kevin did and he spent 5 years in jail for it...thats whats "extreme".
How is having troops in California gonna help prevent an invasion a couple thousand miles away??
Actually that got started as a response to the left-wingers running a revolving-door justice system (so the violent offenders were constantly being dumped back on the streets)
Actually that would be the right wing revolving door, as violent criminals have to be released to make room for non violent drug offenders who got stuck with right-wing minimum sentences. Which will only get worse if the right wing Orrin Hatch gets his way and judges loose even more disgression when sentencing.
as opposed to the lighter style used for the other films. Ghost Rider is what got me into comics in the first place....then Marvel (under Ron "we don't need to spend money on talent, the books will sell themselves" Perelman) got a new, cheaper, less talented author and I stopped reading it withing 3 issues.
High-end systems don't count
Why not. That and the majoraty of people wouldn't consider $2k (starting price for a dual 1.42 G4) to be "high end".
Yeah yeah, so 60 gigs is nothing to write home about these days. :)
I like having instant access to my music collection and I hate swapping cds. I can hear any song I want in a couple of seconds, or play my whole collection constantly for a couple of months without hearing the same song twice. Reaching that capability with a computer is very cheap, but very very costly if you want to be able to do the same thing with cd changers.
Thats all fine and dandy if you take the womans word as involate gospel truth that it was rape. Since its not, the defese find can present some evidence to help refute her claims...such as a purse full of lubricant and condoms.
Not relevant
Of course its relevant! If a woman is accusing a man of rape, he can't make the case, using the purse full of condoms and lubricants as evidence, that she was out looking for sex and had just changed her mind after the fact?
If you want some real life examples of how that kind of evidence would be useful, look at a couple of false accusations from Tailhook. One woman made up a story of how she was gang raped by a group of sailors. Turns out that was consensual sex, and she'd made up the story because she had a finace back hom. Another (the subject of the article) mistakenly picked out 3 guys as the one who raped her.
Or how about the case were two boys were convicted of rape because the girl said "I should be going home now" during sex. The court ruled that that statement was sufficient revocation of consent, and ruled the boys guilty of rape. What a crock.
Or you could just check out this archive of false accusations.
the defense brought forth the fact that the woman was a stripper, as evidence that she lead a dangerous lifestyle and 'put herself in a situation to be raped.' Not saying I agree or disagree with that
Your neutrality is duly noted. But plenty of people do complain about "diryting the victum", which I think is crap. What, the accused isn't allowed to defend himself? The plaintif was walking around around a stip joint without panties and a purse thats filled with condoms and K-Y, and its somehow a traversity when the defense makes the claim that the woman was out looking for sex?
But if they can't prosecute you due to said immunity, then whats the point? That would only be useful in cases where they care more about the information than in sending you to jail.
I thought Formac also used ADC
Oh, maybe they do, I could be wrong about Apple being the only ones to use it (they're still the most visible suppliers anyway). It just annoys me whem some new Mac hardware comes out and people assume its proprietary just because its from Apple.
ADC is just a variation of DVI I thought
I believe so, and I wish more people would use it...so nice having power, usb and digital video all on a single connetor.
because of the proprietary ADC connector
:)
Actually its not propreitary, Apple just happens to be the only company that uses them.
I give up.
You could just admit that you're wrong. Or maybe you have a severe drug problem that prevents you from seeing reality, and need intervention?
you're a virgin cocksmoker
So wrong from the start! Dude, I'm so not a virgin, in fact as much time as I've spent in your mom you might as well call me Daddy.
Copying isn't taking, its copying, DUH. If I take something from you, you don't have it anymore. But if I copy that something, you still have it.
Its really not that hard. Were you similarly slow to catch on to the radical concepts that 1 + 1 = 2 and that light comes from the sun?
Copying is taking.
No, its just copying. Taking involves removing whatever it is from your posession and placing it in mine. With copying you have the origional and I have a copy. What part of this distinction is not sinking in?
In a digital world where copies can be digitally perfect, what you do when you 'take' an unauthorized copy is you dilute the value of the original, and authorized copies.
Thats why we have a term that describes exactly that to differentiate it from theft. It's called...drum roll...copyright infringement! Thats why we have some 700,000 words in the English language, so we can have different words for things that are, well, different.
Wave your hand around some more.
Too bad I missed out on other fun stuff, like when your teachers must have beaten you over the head with a board to drill in similarly simple concepts, like how 1 + 1 = 2.
intellectal 'property' depends on social constructs. All three are 'property' and all three can be stolen.
Until the human race evolves powers of telepathy and can erase peoples minds, theft of IP will be impossible, because the origional owner will still have their origional copies. Do you get it yet? Copying versus taking. Its really not that difficult.
I swear, all the intellectual handwaving that goes on these days by people who can't grasp the concept of copyright is staggering.
I'll say. Of course, you appear to be one of them.
What "reeks of ignorance" is you totally missing the point. Wether or not the object has value, its only stealing if someone TAKES IT FROM YOU and YOU DON'T HAVE IT ANYMORE. With copyright infringment I'd have a copy of the dogs bone, but he would still have his.
Do you have problems telling differences between pancakes and waffels? Murder and arson? Apples and oranges? No? Then you should have any problems telling the difference between theft and infringment.
Dude, why are you seemingly so depserate to make some tenous connection between theft and copyright infringment?
Do you have problems making distinctions between tea and coffee? Do you sit around rationalizing how pancakes and waffels are the same thing? No?
Then why can't you see the fundamental differences that I've repeatedly explained to you:
Theft = removing something from someones possesion
Copyright infringment = copying that something
No they aren't x dollars worse off, because they never had them to begin with. Thats the difference between copyright infringment and theft. With theft you are losing something *tangible* that you _already have_. Theft is concrete. I took something of yours and you don't have it anymore. Thats not the case with infringment.
Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.
I don't think Gore would be all for holding suspects indefinetly without due process. Or be fighting for about 2 trillion in cumaltive tax cuts.
And just how would anything be different in an election, Mr. Smart Guy? Bush doens't have to let anyone into a press conference that he doesn't like. Even easier since he's the prez.
How would I go about asking Bush just how long he's planning on holding "material witnesses" without charges or a lawyer? Or why in gods name we are spending billions of dollars invading some country that hasn't attacked us, but hasn't done anything to increase security at a nuclear plant 30 miles away from NYC?
Aaaarggghhhhh, Stealing is a valid pseudonym for copyright infringement, ok?
In the same way that apples are pseudonyms for oranges. They share a few things in common: they both grow on trees, and they both come from flowers, so they must be the same thing, right?
But they aren't the same thing; there are vital charachteristics that make them completely different kinds of fruit.
There are also vital differences between theft and copyright infringment. Just because they are both illegal doesn't mean that they are the same thing, any more than murder and arson are the same thing because they are both crimes.
The key difference being: if I steal something from you, you don't have it any more. If I copy something that you have, you still have the origional item. What I have a hard time understanding is that so many people can't make that distinction.
But its not a town, its a fucking country you dumbass, and the point you are ignoring IS THAT IT WAS MADE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ALREADY LIVING THERE. The vast majority of Canada is uninhabited. Does that mean that Canadians should think its just fine and dandy if some group of refugees wants to set up their own nation up in the Northern Territories? Or is that too much of a concept for you little brain to grasp?
And the fact that the Palistinians didn't have their own country prior to the foundation is Isreal is irrelevant. Or I suppose you would say that because they were under the thumb of Britian and the Turks before that, that they should be used to getting fucked over?
People want to steal
That would be copyright infringment, not stealing.