The "stealing" concept probably derives from the loss of income a IP holder sustains due to the fact that no one is going to BUY from them what they can download for free. Their property hasn't exactly been stolen as we all know digital content is non-exhaustible. But their INCOME has been STOLEN.
Of course for people who don't want to acknowledge that things in this world cost money thats an extremely difficult concept to grasp.
I can honestly say I've never done any of those things and of course you can honestly choose not to believe me. But I would caution you not to want to group everyone in unlawful behaviour so that you feel better about your own lawbreaking history.
Why not the internet? Because it is not yet legal for you to do so. Why is that not good enough for you?
So basically you are saying that a man has a right to watch television, but the companies that make it happen don't have a right to the profits their labor produces?
What you forgot to point out is that most folks would be better off by simply avoiding Linux in the first place. Its the operating system for autistic asperger syndrome self punishing losers, and not regular folk who need something that "just works".
I can't even find anything on IBM's Thinkpad site with a card better than a 32MB ATI Mobility RADEON 7500. Oh wait a minute there's one model that has 64MB NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200 cards. Woweee...
Its like trying to point out that hackers aren't bad hackers, that instead its the crackers who are the bad hackers. The media doesn't care, never have never will. Bad computer guys will always be called "hackers".
As for Linux, RMS's feelings aside, it is not GNU/Linux and Linux is not just a kernel. Its an operating system and sometimes even more than that because at times it represents the entire Open Software movement on its own.
Nope its the Treos that were built like crap. They've gone thru several revisions on the T600 hardware. I was lucky enough to get a Rev C device which is relatively solid.
Yeah but then the Union techies would be seen as those slow to adopt the latest and greatest new technologies and no one would be forced to hire union techs in the first place.
Without the financial incentives for the lawyers most of the bad things brought to light perpetrated by companies and industries would still remain unknown.
But I have noticed that IBM only puts very old or very sucky video cards in them. And then they want to charge a premium for the laptop. I just can't buy that kind of a product.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Having kids is ONE purpose of sex. Who says it isn't also supposed to be pleasureable? Many types of animals have sex without intending to procreate, primates and other mammals primarily.
"Yeah, the first two million years or so."
Darwinist Theory or Creationist Theory, whichever one you choose humans have been on the planet a lot longer than millions of years. Its either 100,000 or 6,000. Take your pick.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
I don't base my beliefs on the Kinsey reports at all. You're the one who brought them up. There are many sources on sexual behaviour other than what Kinsey found out.
The media doesn't force anyone to have sex. Displaying sex and forcing people to have it are two different things. One is entertainment and the other is rape. It is unfortunate you can't differntiate between the two.
"And yet- go far enough back in history you'll find that having a mistress meant having your head cut off. No tribal society put up with these sorts of sexual problems- because doing so was a threat to the survival of the entire tribe."
After that very short period of time it became fashinonable to have a mistress. If you take the entire history of humanity into account there is more total time given to society prefering a virile male than a chaste one.
So you and your wife only have sex when you want a child? Never for pleasure?
The human immune system can create anti-bodies to many pathogens who are not stopped by them. Tuberculosis and Leporsy bacteria are just two. Same goes for many types of viruses, such as the ones you can never get rid of. Herpes, HPV, HIV, Hepatitis...etc.
The existence of antibodies does not equal immunity. It just means that your body has ammounted an immune response.
Any basic biology class ought to teach you that much at least.
Re:Time to quote the Peace Nobel Prize
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
What is it with people like you who think there is some force out there that keeps populations in check? Populations fall for only few reasons, lack of food, a rapid change in climate or disease. Humans invented a new one with war. But those are just random occurances. There is no yardstick that says when nature has had "enough".
Re:Living with AIDS will cause it to spread?
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Are you saying that the HIV virus does not lead to AIDS?
The reason why more people don't listen to the guy is because he is wrong. AIDS isn't brought about by using anti-AIDS drugs. Its brought about by being infected with the HIV virus. The clearest evidence of this is Africa itself where the overwhelming majority of the people infected with HIV are too poor and or uneducated/ignorant to be able to afford/use these anti-hiv drugs in the first place.
And it is also evident in the very first HIV infections back in the early 80's that killed people before drugs like AZT were even developed.
Re:Hmm, bad news title?
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
It would still work to reduce the risk of infection by makeing infected people much less infectious.
Re:I have mixed feelings about this
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Lets say cures for all STDs were found and both men and women were able to control via drugs when they wanted to concieve.
Then what would be wrong with an increase in promiscuiouty?
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Are you 100% sure you are aware of the sexual mores of all of human history before the invention of the pill? Before the "pill" was invented women didn't have a lot of rights. If they were raped or coereced into having sex no one cared or listened. It was even worse the farther back you go. Men having mistresses is common all throughout history. Its not as if people were chaste beings simply because there was no pill around. And that doesn't even touch on all the child molestation that went on before relatively recent laws and customs came about, not that it has stopped completely now either. So whether Kinsey's study was biased or not, most people do NOT desire or have the capability to live a chaste lifestyle. Advocating an unrealistic solution which is really akin to some BDSM related form of self denial isn't the wisest way to go when talking about preventing STDs.
You should also clarify your definition of chastity. To most folks it means not having any sex at all but since you are married what it means is you only have sex with your wife.
I am glad you brought up the issue of morality in regards to homosexuality. You say it is being forced on others as moral. The only way homosexuality could be FORCED on someone would be if someone of the same sex raped them or coerced them into some kind of sexual activity. Allowing gay people to get married doesn't force homosexuality on anyone. It just means that people who are different from you can live their lives the same way you can.
As for morality being derived from religion the problem is we aren't all of the same religion. I would prefer if morality was derived from a national voting consensus where everyone's input is taken into consideration and the bible thumping is left in the church/temple/mosque whatever.
There is a definite hypocrisy from those who consider themselves religiously moral trying to deny basic rights to whole groups of people or funding for anti-aids programs because the programs also mention condom usage and abortions. These are not the actions of true caring Jesus following people. They're the actions of self-righteous holier than thou losers who seek to play a never ending game of "who can be the most holy" or "who can have the most literal translation of the bible".
What has making drug use illegal achieved other than providing a start for organized crime and making criminals out of non-violent citizens? And where should the government derive its standards for acceptable behaviour? From religion? What if you don't belong to that religion or any religion?
Slashdot Mirror
The "stealing" concept probably derives from the loss of income a IP holder sustains due to the fact that no one is going to BUY from them what they can download for free. Their property hasn't exactly been stolen as we all know digital content is non-exhaustible. But their INCOME has been STOLEN.
Of course for people who don't want to acknowledge that things in this world cost money thats an extremely difficult concept to grasp.
I can honestly say I've never done any of those things and of course you can honestly choose not to believe me. But I would caution you not to want to group everyone in unlawful behaviour so that you feel better about your own lawbreaking history.
Why not the internet? Because it is not yet legal for you to do so. Why is that not good enough for you?
So basically you are saying that a man has a right to watch television, but the companies that make it happen don't have a right to the profits their labor produces?
Because its not convienent for you to get TV legally, that makes it alright to break the law right?
What you forgot to point out is that most folks would be better off by simply avoiding Linux in the first place. Its the operating system for autistic asperger syndrome self punishing losers, and not regular folk who need something that "just works".
How does any of what you just said make up for Linux's shortcomings such as its non-ease of use and lack of common applications?
Oh wait I forgot some folks can't separate advocacy from common sense.
I can't even find anything on IBM's Thinkpad site with a card better than a 32MB ATI Mobility RADEON 7500. Oh wait a minute there's one model that has 64MB NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200 cards. Woweee...
Your pedantic point is well pointless.
Its like trying to point out that hackers aren't bad hackers, that instead its the crackers who are the bad hackers. The media doesn't care, never have never will. Bad computer guys will always be called "hackers".
As for Linux, RMS's feelings aside, it is not GNU/Linux and Linux is not just a kernel. Its an operating system and sometimes even more than that because at times it represents the entire Open Software movement on its own.
Nope its the Treos that were built like crap. They've gone thru several revisions on the T600 hardware. I was lucky enough to get a Rev C device which is relatively solid.
Yeah but then the Union techies would be seen as those slow to adopt the latest and greatest new technologies and no one would be forced to hire union techs in the first place.
Without the financial incentives for the lawyers most of the bad things brought to light perpetrated by companies and industries would still remain unknown.
Right because right now its not like anyone could just got to www.pricewatch.com and click on Notebook No OS for a barebones laptop or anything....
But I have noticed that IBM only puts very old or very sucky video cards in them. And then they want to charge a premium for the laptop. I just can't buy that kind of a product.
Having kids is ONE purpose of sex. Who says it isn't also supposed to be pleasureable? Many types of animals have sex without intending to procreate, primates and other mammals primarily.
"Yeah, the first two million years or so."
Darwinist Theory or Creationist Theory, whichever one you choose humans have been on the planet a lot longer than millions of years. Its either 100,000 or 6,000. Take your pick.
I don't base my beliefs on the Kinsey reports at all. You're the one who brought them up. There are many sources on sexual behaviour other than what Kinsey found out.
The media doesn't force anyone to have sex. Displaying sex and forcing people to have it are two different things. One is entertainment and the other is rape. It is unfortunate you can't differntiate between the two.
"And yet- go far enough back in history you'll find that having a mistress meant having your head cut off. No tribal society put up with these sorts of sexual problems- because doing so was a threat to the survival of the entire tribe."
After that very short period of time it became fashinonable to have a mistress. If you take the entire history of humanity into account there is more total time given to society prefering a virile male than a chaste one.
So you and your wife only have sex when you want a child? Never for pleasure?
The human immune system can create anti-bodies to many pathogens who are not stopped by them. Tuberculosis and Leporsy bacteria are just two. Same goes for many types of viruses, such as the ones you can never get rid of. Herpes, HPV, HIV, Hepatitis...etc.
The existence of antibodies does not equal immunity. It just means that your body has ammounted an immune response.
Any basic biology class ought to teach you that much at least.
What is it with people like you who think there is some force out there that keeps populations in check? Populations fall for only few reasons, lack of food, a rapid change in climate or disease. Humans invented a new one with war. But those are just random occurances. There is no yardstick that says when nature has had "enough".
Are you saying that the HIV virus does not lead to AIDS?
The reason why more people don't listen to the guy is because he is wrong. AIDS isn't brought about by using anti-AIDS drugs. Its brought about by being infected with the HIV virus. The clearest evidence of this is Africa itself where the overwhelming majority of the people infected with HIV are too poor and or uneducated/ignorant to be able to afford/use these anti-hiv drugs in the first place.
And it is also evident in the very first HIV infections back in the early 80's that killed people before drugs like AZT were even developed.
It would still work to reduce the risk of infection by makeing infected people much less infectious.
Lets say cures for all STDs were found and both men and women were able to control via drugs when they wanted to concieve.
Then what would be wrong with an increase in promiscuiouty?
Are you 100% sure you are aware of the sexual mores of all of human history before the invention of the pill? Before the "pill" was invented women didn't have a lot of rights. If they were raped or coereced into having sex no one cared or listened. It was even worse the farther back you go. Men having mistresses is common all throughout history. Its not as if people were chaste beings simply because there was no pill around. And that doesn't even touch on all the child molestation that went on before relatively recent laws and customs came about, not that it has stopped completely now either. So whether Kinsey's study was biased or not, most people do NOT desire or have the capability to live a chaste lifestyle. Advocating an unrealistic solution which is really akin to some BDSM related form of self denial isn't the wisest way to go when talking about preventing STDs.
You should also clarify your definition of chastity. To most folks it means not having any sex at all but since you are married what it means is you only have sex with your wife.
I am glad you brought up the issue of morality in regards to homosexuality. You say it is being forced on others as moral. The only way homosexuality could be FORCED on someone would be if someone of the same sex raped them or coerced them into some kind of sexual activity. Allowing gay people to get married doesn't force homosexuality on anyone. It just means that people who are different from you can live their lives the same way you can.
As for morality being derived from religion the problem is we aren't all of the same religion. I would prefer if morality was derived from a national voting consensus where everyone's input is taken into consideration and the bible thumping is left in the church/temple/mosque whatever.
There is a definite hypocrisy from those who consider themselves religiously moral trying to deny basic rights to whole groups of people or funding for anti-aids programs because the programs also mention condom usage and abortions. These are not the actions of true caring Jesus following people. They're the actions of self-righteous holier than thou losers who seek to play a never ending game of "who can be the most holy" or "who can have the most literal translation of the bible".
The Palm OS 6 operating system which is way past due addresses all of your complaints. It heavily integrates BeOS technology.
What has making drug use illegal achieved other than providing a start for organized crime and making criminals out of non-violent citizens? And where should the government derive its standards for acceptable behaviour? From religion? What if you don't belong to that religion or any religion?