So some California broad purchased software without knowing what she was getting herself into...and now she refuses to accept responsibility. If you don't like that you can't review a software license before purchasing software, then simply don't purchase the software.
The RIAA (or, more precisely, the companies that make up the RIAA) are having their stuff stolen. Because of this, they are mad. To try and keep their stuff from being stolen, they are trying to recoup their losses from those who facilitate this theft.
Has anyone ever considered that maybe the reason there are few women in CS (or any other occupation or field of endeavor, for that matter) are because, for whatever reason, they simply don't WANT to?
Let me make sure I understand this. Microsoft decides it wants to make money. Microsoft does this by making products people buy and use. Microsoft's customers all buy Microsoft's products of their own free will. Microsoft becomes very good at what it does. Microsoft gets punished for the crime of competency.
That doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps I'm missing some details?
Hell, yes, that was sarcasm. I fail to see what Microsoft has done to be punished. It simply happens to be very good at what it does. There's no reason to want to punish that unless you're so lazy and incompetent you couldn't achieve their position yourself.
Fucking commie bastards...but what do you expect from California?
There is no valid reason to sue any company, regardless of what it produces or how big it is, simply for trying to make money. By suing several private companies for deciding the terms under which they will distribute what they produce, society is being drawn closer and closer to the moral void of socialism.
OK, you're right. I define "crime" differently than in the legal sense.
Anyway, your argument rests on the fallacious assumption that jaywalking and drug possession should be illegal. If it should not be illegal, then it merits no penalty at all (obviously).
1) Find a recording of the "Bacchanale" from Camille Saint-Saens's "Samson and Delilah". Listen to it. 2) Go to either The Phantom Regiment or Drum Corps International's website and purchase a copy of a recording with either the 1990 or 1991 shows from the Phantom Regiment Drum & Bugle Corps on it. Listen to the whole thing, but especially to the very last piece in the Phantom Regiment shows. 3) You've just been exposed to two amazing genres of music performance. Your life will never be the same.
Is as bad as possessing 0.4 grams of marijuana, with a prescription? That is not a crime; it may be illegal, but it shouldn't be, and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing criminal about it. Is as bad as publicly performing a song written in 1925? Depends--do you have permission from the person or entity who owns the song? If so, then there's nothing criminal about it. If not, then there is everything criminal about it, as you have no right to perform something created by another without the permission of the creator.
Actually, I think he should be executed. All crimes are equally wrong--theft is as bad as murder is as bad as rape is as bad as vandalism is as bad as burglary is as bad as assault is as bad as fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no valid reason to force any private entity to make its private property available to anyone else for whatever reason.
So some California broad purchased software without knowing what she was getting herself into...and now she refuses to accept responsibility. If you don't like that you can't review a software license before purchasing software, then simply don't purchase the software.
The RIAA (or, more precisely, the companies that make up the RIAA) are having their stuff stolen. Because of this, they are mad. To try and keep their stuff from being stolen, they are trying to recoup their losses from those who facilitate this theft.
That sound about right?
Has anyone ever considered that maybe the reason there are few women in CS (or any other occupation or field of endeavor, for that matter) are because, for whatever reason, they simply don't WANT to?
Which, of course, is why I said that if it cannot be proven false, then it should be protected.
Did you even read what I said? I highly doubt it...go back and read the last thing in my OP.
But a corporation is made up of individuals, is it not?
The thing is, you fail to realize that a corporation is comprised of individuals.
You fail to realize that corporations are comprised of individuals.
Reread what I said... as long as it cannot be proven false, all types of speech should receive the same protection.
In, of course, California.
Let me make sure I understand this. Microsoft decides it wants to make money. Microsoft does this by making products people buy and use. Microsoft's customers all buy Microsoft's products of their own free will. Microsoft becomes very good at what it does. Microsoft gets punished for the crime of competency.
That doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps I'm missing some details?
Hell, yes, that was sarcasm. I fail to see what Microsoft has done to be punished. It simply happens to be very good at what it does. There's no reason to want to punish that unless you're so lazy and incompetent you couldn't achieve their position yourself.
Fucking commie bastards...but what do you expect from California?
One question--why does commercial speech get less protection under the law than other types? Is there something inherently bad about making money?
Speech is speech...as long as it cannot be proven false, all types of speech should receive the same protection.
Yee-haw!
The difference is that a mugger is causing direct physical harm to you.
And there is no god; therefore, there is no such thing as a "god-given right". Rights exist because man has free will.
There is no valid reason to sue any company, regardless of what it produces or how big it is, simply for trying to make money. By suing several private companies for deciding the terms under which they will distribute what they produce, society is being drawn closer and closer to the moral void of socialism.
Let the buyer beware.
In answer to the question in your sig:
The contras (as well as the baris, euphs, sops, mellos, drummers, DM's, and guard members) are all fed by the drum corps's support staff.
I wonder if he's related to Douglas Adams...their names are awfully similar.
OK, you're right. I define "crime" differently than in the legal sense.
Anyway, your argument rests on the fallacious assumption that jaywalking and drug possession should be illegal. If it should not be illegal, then it merits no penalty at all (obviously).
1) Find a recording of the "Bacchanale" from Camille Saint-Saens's "Samson and Delilah". Listen to it.
2) Go to either The Phantom Regiment or Drum Corps International's website and purchase a copy of a recording with either the 1990 or 1991 shows from the Phantom Regiment Drum & Bugle Corps on it. Listen to the whole thing, but especially to the very last piece in the Phantom Regiment shows.
3) You've just been exposed to two amazing genres of music performance. Your life will never be the same.
Is as bad as possessing 0.4 grams of marijuana, with a prescription?
That is not a crime; it may be illegal, but it shouldn't be, and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing criminal about it.
Is as bad as publicly performing a song written in 1925?
Depends--do you have permission from the person or entity who owns the song? If so, then there's nothing criminal about it. If not, then there is everything criminal about it, as you have no right to perform something created by another without the permission of the creator.
Actually, I think he should be executed. All crimes are equally wrong--theft is as bad as murder is as bad as rape is as bad as vandalism is as bad as burglary is as bad as assault is as bad as fraud.
Some people don't believe in absolute morality.
Then obviously, those people are wrong.
Woo-hoo!
That's what surprises me, too. This is too funny to keep to myself, that's for sure.
(yeah, I'm the OP).