"Your points are completely invalid. The crimes are as close as your perspective makes them. 'Hacking' into a computer can often be a trivial task involving not much more skill than being able to click a button twice. Robbery can be a practiced skill, and those who posess those skills can be of great value, often at a much lower risk."
I could argue that one involves the potential of physical danger and the other involves someone in front of a computer, but I will not.
"Should a delivery person not lose their job if they lose their drivers licesce? What if it is for to many speeding tickets? Even if You speed every day and never get caught? "
I could also argue that if someone loses their job due to having too many traffic (or speeding) tickets, that after a duration of time they could continue their chosen vocation. But I will not.
"Many of the best learned a great deal through their 'stunts', but were never caught. Why wern't they caught? In some cases they better then everyone else, in others they did less damage, but they did not get caught."
I could say that everyone is clumsy and awkward to begin with and that they improve eventually, but I will not.
If someone is caught doing something illegal, then, according to our own laws, they are to repay their debt to society. I have no argument in this, after all, I am no lawyer.
But the point I tried to make, one that you glossed completely over, is that one mistake does not define a person. We, as a species not just a nation, learn from our mistakes.
If you were caught for, let us use your example, speeding and were told that you could never drive for a living again, even if you believed you were justified. How would you react?
I will make no arguments about the feasibility of my examples; after all, everyone views everything a little bit differently. What some consider as an "invalid" point, others see as very valid. I will not begrudge you your opinion.
And as for any legal discussion, I would advise you to talk to a REAL lawyer before you enter any court room anywhere with that as your defense.
And before you retort, READ what I said. Think about it. That is all I ask.
Tell me, you say it is your right to dislike someone, right? Well, as a "law-abiding person", I cannot make you feel or believe anything. Just like I could not have told Hitler not to hate the Jews, if I were alive at the time. The fact of the matter is that yes, you do have the right to be a close-minded bigot, just as you have the right to think anything you wish. But I also have the right to think that you really need to wake up and smell the coffee brewing. How similar are the crimes you give as examples? One requires a computer, skill, and thought; the other requires timing, a vehicle (and a weapon of some kind in most cases). As stated in the original article, most of the industry admits to these "stunts". So you are telling me that you would like to have most of the talented individuals in the industry out of work? You would rather force these people to continue their criminal activities because YOU think that they cannot be trusted? Most people would agree with, sadly enough.
I do have my faults, but giving anyone the benefit of the doubt is not one of them.
And no, I am not telling you what to do; I'm simply requesting that you think about the situation a little more.
Well I donh't know about perjury (after all they didn't testify in court), but I know that the ARE open to a lawsuit for slander. The game has become just a little more intresting. Well, as it stands, this will change the face of the music, regardless of win or lose on the lawsuit.
he who doesn't change and adapt, will soon fade from this world we known so well.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
"Your points are completely invalid. The crimes are as close as your perspective makes them. 'Hacking' into a computer can often be a trivial task involving not much more skill than being able to click a button twice. Robbery can be a practiced skill, and those who posess those skills can be of great value, often at a much lower risk."
I could argue that one involves the potential of physical danger and the other involves someone in front of a computer, but I will not.
"Should a delivery person not lose their job if they lose their drivers licesce? What if it is for to many speeding tickets? Even if You speed every day and never get caught? "
I could also argue that if someone loses their job due to having too many traffic (or speeding) tickets, that after a duration of time they could continue their chosen vocation. But I will not.
"Many of the best learned a great deal through their 'stunts', but were never caught. Why wern't they caught? In some cases they better then everyone else, in others they did less damage, but they did not get caught."
I could say that everyone is clumsy and awkward to begin with and that they improve eventually, but I will not.
If someone is caught doing something illegal, then, according to our own laws, they are to repay their debt to society. I have no argument in this, after all, I am no lawyer.
But the point I tried to make, one that you glossed completely over, is that one mistake does not define a person. We, as a species not just a nation, learn from our mistakes.
If you were caught for, let us use your example, speeding and were told that you could never drive for a living again, even if you believed you were justified. How would you react?
I will make no arguments about the feasibility of my examples; after all, everyone views everything a little bit differently. What some consider as an "invalid" point, others see as very valid. I will not begrudge you your opinion.
And as for any legal discussion, I would advise you to talk to a REAL lawyer before you enter any court room anywhere with that as your defense.
And before you retort, READ what I said. Think about it. That is all I ask.
Tell me, you say it is your right to dislike someone, right? Well, as a "law-abiding person", I cannot make you feel or believe anything. Just like I could not have told Hitler not to hate the Jews, if I were alive at the time. The fact of the matter is that yes, you do have the right to be a close-minded bigot, just as you have the right to think anything you wish. But I also have the right to think that you really need to wake up and smell the coffee brewing. How similar are the crimes you give as examples? One requires a computer, skill, and thought; the other requires timing, a vehicle (and a weapon of some kind in most cases). As stated in the original article, most of the industry admits to these "stunts". So you are telling me that you would like to have most of the talented individuals in the industry out of work? You would rather force these people to continue their criminal activities because YOU think that they cannot be trusted? Most people would agree with, sadly enough. I do have my faults, but giving anyone the benefit of the doubt is not one of them. And no, I am not telling you what to do; I'm simply requesting that you think about the situation a little more.
Well I donh't know about perjury (after all they didn't testify in court), but I know that the ARE open to a lawsuit for slander. The game has become just a little more intresting. Well, as it stands, this will change the face of the music, regardless of win or lose on the lawsuit.
he who doesn't change and adapt, will soon fade from this world we known so well.