I almost always use my +1... An articulate debate that is off topic will get the +1... A "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" will not.
I think that what it comes down to is my opinion on whether a given comment will interest people not directly involved in the thread.
This one won't... Even if there isn't anything preventing people from using a Score: 3 threshold, as I do when I'm really short of time. (As opposed to Score: 2, expanding the threads that look interesting)
You say that killing trees will do almost nothing. This makes you rather ignorant. If you want to live life wearing an oxygen mask, go ahead, lumber those trees. Not only will Carbon Monoxide (a gas which humans don't take too well to) increase, but oxygen will decrease. To enlighten your ignorance, this is due to the fact that trees breath carbon monoxide and expel oxygen. Without trees and forage, humans are as good as extinct.
Two mistakes:
First, plant life consumes carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide.
Second, recent estimates say that 90% of the world's oxygen is produced by life in the world's oceans. Even if this estimate is extremely high, all the figures put out by environmentalist extremist groups is still inaccurate. Coming down on plastics, I can accept. Cutting down trees is bad, I agree - leave the wildlife habitats alone, and the wildlife won't be wandering through our cities. However, claiming that cutting down the rainforest will suffocate us all to death is a little extreme.
Off topic, I know, but environmentalists like the folks who've been swarming the whale hunts in Washington on jetskis, of all things, are too hypocritical to take.
So, my summary: Environmentalists and their sympathisers blind themselves to the facts too often in the pursuit of saving cute and cudly animals.
I believe that Orson Scott Card said, either in the forward to _Ender's Shadow_ or elsewhere, that the homosexual connotations of the word "bugger" justified changing it for the movie. I disagree, but whatever. Any role his religious beliefs play in this is unknown.
I've only read Ender's Game. I figured that after a book this good, no sequel could ever live up to it, so I didn't take the risk. Are any of the sequels as good as the first?
It depends on what you're looking for.
The later books, _Speaker (of/for) the Dead_, _Xenocide_, and _Children of the Mind_ (is there another one? It's been a while) are more about relationships than action. This seems to turn some people off, somehow. If you can get over the fact that Ender is not attempting to exterminate a species any longer, they're enjoyable reading. There are books I would prefer that I had never read. These are not among them.
Ok, someone must have thought of this before. Are there any plans/work-underway for translation software that would integrate with a browser? A plugin for Mozilla? Commercial? OpenSource?
Mozilla actually has a built in translation feature. Before they put in their new UI, it was really prominent. Now, it's hiding in one of the menus. It also seems to be broken, which is too bad. The translator they were using was much more accurate than Babelfish.
There's that redundancy again. However, one cannot take it for granted that readers grasp the literal meaning. With the combination of the two words, anyone who mistakes frequent as synonymous with visit (as I did), due to common usage, is left with little doubt regarding the intended interpretation.
What do you mean...a perverted english? English has always had plenty of foreign words in it.
"Lingua franca" is easily my favourite english phrase. Conversely, "deja vu all over again" is my least favourite american english phrase. It's just too redundant.
You get that on menus, too. Beef Dip with au jus sauce. Painful.
In related news, it seems that most unilingual English speakers tend not to realise just how many sites exist on the web in other languages.
There's a huge number of sites out there in Spanish, German, French, and Japanese that I frequent at least occasionally, and surely a similarly large number in languages that I can't speak, as well. (Korean, Chinese, Russian, etc)
Simply put, you're really missing out if you think that English is the universal language of the internet (as a couple of people have already commented).
------
Open source this, open source that
on
Ask Gneeves?
·
· Score: 2
Open source makes about as much sense in this context as it does with that ridiculous "Open Source Iridium" thing.
It sounds like a project which could work, perhaps even wind up useful, but where does "open source" fit in? With a normal search engine, this would be instant death as anyone could falsely inflate their rank, though that's not the case with your moderation idea (which would take a lot of design work as well... being open source also makes it easy for people so inclined to detect vulnerabilities, such as how to make yourself more likely to have 20 different moderating accounts, etc)
I don't know that you'd attract enough volunteers to make it a truly comprehensive thing. I've never been terribly impressed with Ask Jeeves, and I think that most people interested in doing such a thing would be better off helping the Open Directory.
However, if someone thinks they can make it work and manages to do so, more power to them.
Nah.. The last story he posted (going from memory) was "Last All Odd Digit Day For Over 1,000 Years"
Problem was, there was another all odd day only 2 days later. Oops. Plus the fact that the 2 in both 27 and 29 is in fact an even number. Oops again. Never mind that the two ones in November's month number are every bit as odd as the 9 for September. That was a pretty funny article, in retrospect.
The search function says he posted something in January too, but let's ignore that.
People seem to be failing to understand that this is good news, and that AMD's stock price is more likely to go up than down on this news. Because the person who submitted the news misinterpreted it, so are the people who read that discription of it.
What does the article say? It says that AMD managed to sell all of their chips to other people, and therefore won't have tens of thousands just sitting in their warehouses doing nothing but depreciating in value.
No, Woodlark, but our (I'm Canadian) Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants us as much.
Section 2: Everyone has the right to the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
If you will recall, there is currently a case which is awaiting trial in the Supreme Court of Canada regarding posession of child pornography. The defendant has been let off by both the BC Supreme Court and the BC Court of Appeal. Both Courts have said that the laws against posessing child pornography are in fact a violation of the Charter right to freedom of expression.
As to which kinds of pornography are stopped by Canada Customs, it's generally homosexual literature... They can't stop it any longer, though, thanks to a recent SCC decision which again referred to Section 2(b).
Also, in answer to the AC who is a parent to the comment you replied to: I was talking about Canada, actually. Once you have given the police reasonable cause to investigate/question you, you are subject to prosecution on evidence found.
Isn't this wired tapping "illegal search and seisure" and the arrest based on "Prior restraint?" This type of arrest is Barbaric.
No. The wiretap was in place because the boy was a suspect. The RCMP would have had a warrant, signed by some judge or another, allowing them to put the wiretap in place.
Any evidence of any crime found in a legitimate investigation is permissable. This is why someone pulled over for speeding can be busted for, say, possession of a narcotic.
Slashdot tells me that I retain all rights to my posts.
Therefore, I post whatever I like. I post, knowing that my words will be archived on this site, possibly quoted in other posts on this site, and so forth. That's a combination of fair use and the caveats of posting a comment on Slashdot.
Because I own the sole copyright to my posts, Andover cannot legally reproduce them anywhere but on Slashdot without permission. If they ask for my permission, I would likely give it, but there is a chance that I will not in some cases. I have no problem with Slashdot publishing a book per say, but I do have a problem with the violation of my copyright, should one take place.
You say "if you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't post here." I'm sorry, but you are basing this upon incorrect beliefs. "Comments are owned by the Poster." That's the way it is. No public domain involvement. I exchanged some email with Hemos, and as mentioned by Rob, they will likely implement an opt-in policy. Good. Everyone's happy. The people who wish to control their posts continue to do so, the rest can be as altruistic as they desire.
If, however, they state that every comment posted here belongs to the public domain, I will indeed go away and not post. I do some freelance writing. I am happy to post my thoughts on Slashdot without compensation, but only because I retain ownership of my words. I'm sure that a fair number of people find themselves in similar situations. Do you understand where I am coming from?
With regards to automobiles... They are brought up when talking about gun control quite regularly, but I don't know that it is really so pandemic a problem.
Deaths related to automobiles are generally referred to as 'accidents'. Even in cases where the driver was drunk, it is called an accident the whole while as the driver is on trial. With guns, the similar incidents are called manslaughter. Allowing those, we still have many cases of murder in both the 1st and 2nd degrees.
That picture is certainly a good one to support that argument, no? The police in England do have access to firearms, but they don't carry them with them while patrolling. It would be silly to not be armed when in a standoff with armed suspects, though. Therefore, they are armed in that picture. Necessity begs it. I did notice that the article said guns could be had for as little as £200. That's a fair price, compared to North America. Of course, the fact that they're illegal helps drive it up somewhat.
The rest of your points are quite reasonable, though you'll usually have more luck outrunning a knife than a bullet. That's just a quibble, though.
The other inevitable problem with restricting guns in any way is that there are more guns per capita squirrelled away in the US than in Ireland. (And may the ceasefire continue, in the very least)
The thing that defines the difference is that, simplified, with a gun you aim and pull the trigger. With a knife, you can certainly stab or slash just as easily, but unless you hit a particularly vulnerable spot, more than one attempt is necessary to kill a target.
True, gunshots aren't always fatal either, but they are more likely to be so. Especially when using larger calibres.
I did not intend for that line to be taken as saying the primary use of guns was illegal, but to suggest that Napster, known to be primarily used for illegal purposes could be argued to be such a product. However, I will respond to your points. Sport is, well, sport. Harmless fun nearly by definition. Quite unobjectionable on its own merits, although other methods to both hunt and fire projectiles at targets exist. A not-really-valid hyperbolic analagy would be the choice to juggle either balls, beanbags, or little baggies filled with cocaine.
In both England and Japan, effective policing takes place without arms, but then, the people are not armed either. Another hyperbolic example: Have we heard of a black man named Amadou who was bonked by a billy club 41 times because he reached for a wallet? (I think that too big a deal was made of this, btw, even as I contribute to it)
And finally, self defense. Does one need a gun to defend oneself when the intruder doesn't have a gun? In some cases, sure. Some people are both bigger and faster than others. Yet it takes a much more conscious effort to kill or maim with bare hands than with a gun; I suppose the end result is the same, though. Rape defense/prevention? Random "in a dark alley" rape is not very common. Orders of magnitude less so than rape by a known individual. I certainly wouldn't want to be shot if I were a big, scruffy guy, tapping a frightened woman on the shoulder to hand her something that fell out of her purse in lower class neighborhood. A simple scream for help can be forgiven much more easily. In other cases, having a gun isn't going to be enough defense. Multiple armed home invaders aren't going to be very amused by resistance. Guns tend to make the stakes escalate. In a confrontation between two armed parties, how often will someone back down in the heat of the moment? At least with knifes, the chances are that they'll only wound one another.
I think it highly unlikely that either one of us can convert the other to the opposite way of thinking, but if you'd like to continue the discussion, I am quite happy to. Now that this article is several hours old and not controversial in any real way, it seems fairly unlikely to blow up into some great flamewar. Excuse the bad hyperbole in place of arguments up above, but I saw your comment just on my way to bed and don't want to put that off for much longer.
That's what I mean when I say it wouldn't work. Such a list wouldn't block the trading of illegal mp3's, but it would certainly make it harder, and show that the company is trying to prevent same.
To this, I must respond, as I see there may be some abiguity about my post.
People are responsible for their own damned actions. Don't try to blame it on society, the media, your parents, peer pressure, or anything else. This does not mean, however, that I should be able to walk away after supplying a friend with a gun, knowing he intends to shoot someone. Mens Rea is present.
Gun manufacturers aren't directly responsible for deaths caused by guns. On the other hand, these guns wouldn't be there without the manufacturers and they are therefore indirectly responsible. The lawsuits against gunmakers on deaths should be thrown out of court. (Likewise with smoking. Can't smokers read warning labels that first said smoking is harmful, later that smoking kills?)
The thing about a revolution is that whichever side the US Army fights for, it will win. Technology, as well as the fact that they are very well equipped with it, means that a single regular is the equivalent of at the very least several irregulars.
A blacklist, and smaller artists who are not on this list. Presumably, any artist who so desired could submit to Napster that they do in fact produce music, and do not want it traded. Add their name to the list. I don't believe that such a list would really work, but it is certainly an example of the measures which were open to them.
The interesting thing is that apparently the RIAA has said that they aren't going to go after users. C'est la vie.
I liked what someone said would be a good deterent to people making DoS attacks on the internet. Make it simple to take out the entire internet. For the first few months, it'll be out almost non-stop. People will realise that this is stupid and stop knocking it out. Later, it'll go every now and then, but with less and less frequency as time goes by. Eventually, it never happens. Analagy: Nukes (the fact that there are enough to kill us all 100 times over not withstanding) Give everyone a nuke. Sure, NYC and Washington DC will be toast in seconds, but after the initial half million years of nuclear winter, people will know better.
If nukes were outlawed, only outlaws would have nukes.
You're sugesting that guns are necessary for suicide? Rather messier than say, too many sleeping pills, no? The government thing - I think it's paranoia, others beg to differ. I'll accept it as valid given current world affairs, although certain Cuban-Americans are being quite undemocratic without the aid of any firearms.
If lawyers were outlawed, only outlaws would have lawyers?
Noting that almost all of this is unrelated to Napster... I strongly agree with the statement that there is a constructive use for virtually everything, adding to it that like its opposite, you can likely get away with an absolute.
Ideally, we would need no laws about anything, let alone keeping items restricted. However, given the realities, it is sometimes necessary. On the other hand, I feel that anti-drug laws hurt society much more than they help. (This idea has gotten a fair bit of press in Canada lately for some reason or another).
The problem with going after individuals using Napster is that the software is designed to make it somewhat complicated to track one down. Was Napster created with the intent that it be used illegally. Probably not outright, but the fact that right from the start they had a disclaimer about this meant they knew it would be. Have they taken action? They've made a token effort, but if they *really* meant for their service to be used legally only, they would have implemented a filter that blocked out any mp3 containing an artist name that belongs to one of the big record companies. That would be considered due dilligence, and not subject to the "filter usenet, you take responsibility for what you let by" story.
Slashdot Mirror
I almost always use my +1... An articulate debate that is off topic will get the +1... A "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" will not.
I think that what it comes down to is my opinion on whether a given comment will interest people not directly involved in the thread.
This one won't... Even if there isn't anything preventing people from using a Score: 3 threshold, as I do when I'm really short of time.
(As opposed to Score: 2, expanding the threads that look interesting)
------
You say that killing trees will do almost nothing. This makes you rather ignorant. If you want to live life wearing an oxygen mask, go ahead, lumber those trees. Not only will Carbon Monoxide (a gas which humans don't take too well to) increase, but oxygen will decrease. To enlighten your ignorance, this is due to the fact that trees breath carbon monoxide and expel oxygen. Without trees and forage, humans are as good as extinct.
Two mistakes:
First, plant life consumes carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide.
Second, recent estimates say that 90% of the world's oxygen is produced by life in the world's oceans. Even if this estimate is extremely high, all the figures put out by environmentalist extremist groups is still inaccurate. Coming down on plastics, I can accept. Cutting down trees is bad, I agree - leave the wildlife habitats alone, and the wildlife won't be wandering through our cities. However, claiming that cutting down the rainforest will suffocate us all to death is a little extreme.
Off topic, I know, but environmentalists like the folks who've been swarming the whale hunts in Washington on jetskis, of all things, are too hypocritical to take.
So, my summary:
Environmentalists and their sympathisers blind themselves to the facts too often in the pursuit of saving cute and cudly animals.
------
Why not Buggers, would the British be offended?
I believe that Orson Scott Card said, either in the forward to _Ender's Shadow_ or elsewhere, that the homosexual connotations of the word "bugger" justified changing it for the movie. I disagree, but whatever. Any role his religious beliefs play in this is unknown.
------
I've only read Ender's Game. I figured that after a book this good, no sequel could ever live up to it, so I didn't take the risk. Are any of the sequels as good as the first?
It depends on what you're looking for.
The later books, _Speaker (of/for) the Dead_, _Xenocide_, and _Children of the Mind_ (is there another one? It's been a while) are more about relationships than action. This seems to turn some people off, somehow. If you can get over the fact that Ender is not attempting to exterminate a species any longer, they're enjoyable reading. There are books I would prefer that I had never read. These are not among them.
------
Black helicopters swarming around the building that holds the servers.
Some guy leaning out of one of them with a megaphone, shouting:
"Shut down the mirror of three thousand Geocities pages or we'll attack!"
------
Ok, someone must have thought of this before. Are there any plans/work-underway for translation software that would integrate with a browser? A plugin for Mozilla? Commercial? OpenSource?
Mozilla actually has a built in translation feature. Before they put in their new UI, it was really prominent. Now, it's hiding in one of the menus. It also seems to be broken, which is too bad. The translator they were using was much more accurate than Babelfish.
------
There's that redundancy again. However, one cannot take it for granted that readers grasp the literal meaning. With the combination of the two words, anyone who mistakes frequent as synonymous with visit (as I did), due to common usage, is left with little doubt regarding the intended interpretation.
------
What do you mean...a perverted english? English has always had plenty of foreign words in it.
"Lingua franca" is easily my favourite english phrase. Conversely, "deja vu all over again" is my least favourite american english phrase. It's just too redundant.
You get that on menus, too. Beef Dip with au jus sauce. Painful.
------
In related news, it seems that most unilingual English speakers tend not to realise just how many sites exist on the web in other languages.
There's a huge number of sites out there in Spanish, German, French, and Japanese that I frequent at least occasionally, and surely a similarly large number in languages that I can't speak, as well. (Korean, Chinese, Russian, etc)
Simply put, you're really missing out if you think that English is the universal language of the internet (as a couple of people have already commented).
------
Open source makes about as much sense in this context as it does with that ridiculous "Open Source Iridium" thing.
It sounds like a project which could work, perhaps even wind up useful, but where does "open source" fit in? With a normal search engine, this would be instant death as anyone could falsely inflate their rank, though that's not the case with your moderation idea (which would take a lot of design work as well... being open source also makes it easy for people so inclined to detect vulnerabilities, such as how to make yourself more likely to have 20 different moderating accounts, etc)
I don't know that you'd attract enough volunteers to make it a truly comprehensive thing. I've never been terribly impressed with Ask Jeeves, and I think that most people interested in doing such a thing would be better off helping the Open Directory.
However, if someone thinks they can make it work and manages to do so, more power to them.
------
Nah.. The last story he posted (going from memory) was "Last All Odd Digit Day For Over 1,000 Years"
Problem was, there was another all odd day only 2 days later. Oops. Plus the fact that the 2 in both 27 and 29 is in fact an even number. Oops again. Never mind that the two ones in November's month number are every bit as odd as the 9 for September. That was a pretty funny article, in retrospect.
The search function says he posted something in January too, but let's ignore that.
------
Yes. It's rather comical.
People seem to be failing to understand that this is good news, and that AMD's stock price is more likely to go up than down on this news. Because the person who submitted the news misinterpreted it, so are the people who read that discription of it.
What does the article say? It says that AMD managed to sell all of their chips to other people, and therefore won't have tens of thousands just sitting in their warehouses doing nothing but depreciating in value.
------
No, Woodlark, but our (I'm Canadian) Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants us as much.
Section 2: Everyone has the right to the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
If you will recall, there is currently a case which is awaiting trial in the Supreme Court of Canada regarding posession of child pornography. The defendant has been let off by both the BC Supreme Court and the BC Court of Appeal. Both Courts have said that the laws against posessing child pornography are in fact a violation of the Charter right to freedom of expression.
As to which kinds of pornography are stopped by Canada Customs, it's generally homosexual literature... They can't stop it any longer, though, thanks to a recent SCC decision which again referred to Section 2(b).
Also, in answer to the AC who is a parent to the comment you replied to: I was talking about Canada, actually. Once you have given the police reasonable cause to investigate/question you, you are subject to prosecution on evidence found.
------
The neck is one of those particularly vulnerable spots. The torso is protected somewhat by ribs, but the the heart and lungs would be another.
------
Isn't this wired tapping "illegal search and seisure" and the arrest based on "Prior restraint?" This type of arrest is Barbaric.
No. The wiretap was in place because the boy was a suspect. The RCMP would have had a warrant, signed by some judge or another, allowing them to put the wiretap in place.
Any evidence of any crime found in a legitimate investigation is permissable. This is why someone pulled over for speeding can be busted for, say, possession of a narcotic.
------
Slashdot tells me that I retain all rights to my posts.
Therefore, I post whatever I like. I post, knowing that my words will be archived on this site, possibly quoted in other posts on this site, and so forth. That's a combination of fair use and the caveats of posting a comment on Slashdot.
Because I own the sole copyright to my posts, Andover cannot legally reproduce them anywhere but on Slashdot without permission. If they ask for my permission, I would likely give it, but there is a chance that I will not in some cases. I have no problem with Slashdot publishing a book per say, but I do have a problem with the violation of my copyright, should one take place.
You say "if you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't post here." I'm sorry, but you are basing this upon incorrect beliefs. "Comments are owned by the Poster." That's the way it is. No public domain involvement. I exchanged some email with Hemos, and as mentioned by Rob, they will likely implement an opt-in policy. Good. Everyone's happy. The people who wish to control their posts continue to do so, the rest can be as altruistic as they desire.
If, however, they state that every comment posted here belongs to the public domain, I will indeed go away and not post. I do some freelance writing. I am happy to post my thoughts on Slashdot without compensation, but only because I retain ownership of my words. I'm sure that a fair number of people find themselves in similar situations. Do you understand where I am coming from?
------
Don't get too excited...
That was Signail 11... :)
------
With regards to automobiles... They are brought up when talking about gun control quite regularly, but I don't know that it is really so pandemic a problem.
Deaths related to automobiles are generally referred to as 'accidents'. Even in cases where the driver was drunk, it is called an accident the whole while as the driver is on trial. With guns, the similar incidents are called manslaughter. Allowing those, we still have many cases of murder in both the 1st and 2nd degrees.
That picture is certainly a good one to support that argument, no? The police in England do have access to firearms, but they don't carry them with them while patrolling. It would be silly to not be armed when in a standoff with armed suspects, though. Therefore, they are armed in that picture. Necessity begs it. I did notice that the article said guns could be had for as little as £200. That's a fair price, compared to North America. Of course, the fact that they're illegal helps drive it up somewhat.
The rest of your points are quite reasonable, though you'll usually have more luck outrunning a knife than a bullet. That's just a quibble, though.
The other inevitable problem with restricting guns in any way is that there are more guns per capita squirrelled away in the US than in Ireland. (And may the ceasefire continue, in the very least)
------
The thing that defines the difference is that, simplified, with a gun you aim and pull the trigger. With a knife, you can certainly stab or slash just as easily, but unless you hit a particularly vulnerable spot, more than one attempt is necessary to kill a target.
True, gunshots aren't always fatal either, but they are more likely to be so. Especially when using larger calibres.
------
I did not intend for that line to be taken as saying the primary use of guns was illegal, but to suggest that Napster, known to be primarily used for illegal purposes could be argued to be such a product. However, I will respond to your points. Sport is, well, sport. Harmless fun nearly by definition. Quite unobjectionable on its own merits, although other methods to both hunt and fire projectiles at targets exist. A not-really-valid hyperbolic analagy would be the choice to juggle either balls, beanbags, or little baggies filled with cocaine.
In both England and Japan, effective policing takes place without arms, but then, the people are not armed either. Another hyperbolic example: Have we heard of a black man named Amadou who was bonked by a billy club 41 times because he reached for a wallet? (I think that too big a deal was made of this, btw, even as I contribute to it)
And finally, self defense. Does one need a gun to defend oneself when the intruder doesn't have a gun? In some cases, sure. Some people are both bigger and faster than others. Yet it takes a much more conscious effort to kill or maim with bare hands than with a gun; I suppose the end result is the same, though. Rape defense/prevention? Random "in a dark alley" rape is not very common. Orders of magnitude less so than rape by a known individual. I certainly wouldn't want to be shot if I were a big, scruffy guy, tapping a frightened woman on the shoulder to hand her something that fell out of her purse in lower class neighborhood. A simple scream for help can be forgiven much more easily. In other cases, having a gun isn't going to be enough defense. Multiple armed home invaders aren't going to be very amused by resistance. Guns tend to make the stakes escalate. In a confrontation between two armed parties, how often will someone back down in the heat of the moment? At least with knifes, the chances are that they'll only wound one another.
I think it highly unlikely that either one of us can convert the other to the opposite way of thinking, but if you'd like to continue the discussion, I am quite happy to. Now that this article is several hours old and not controversial in any real way, it seems fairly unlikely to blow up into some great flamewar. Excuse the bad hyperbole in place of arguments up above, but I saw your comment just on my way to bed and don't want to put that off for much longer.
------
That's what I mean when I say it wouldn't work. Such a list wouldn't block the trading of illegal mp3's, but it would certainly make it harder, and show that the company is trying to prevent same.
------
To this, I must respond, as I see there may be some abiguity about my post.
People are responsible for their own damned actions. Don't try to blame it on society, the media, your parents, peer pressure, or anything else. This does not mean, however, that I should be able to walk away after supplying a friend with a gun, knowing he intends to shoot someone. Mens Rea is present.
Gun manufacturers aren't directly responsible for deaths caused by guns. On the other hand, these guns wouldn't be there without the manufacturers and they are therefore indirectly responsible. The lawsuits against gunmakers on deaths should be thrown out of court. (Likewise with smoking. Can't smokers read warning labels that first said smoking is harmful, later that smoking kills?)
That is the point.
------
The thing about a revolution is that whichever side the US Army fights for, it will win. Technology, as well as the fact that they are very well equipped with it, means that a single regular is the equivalent of at the very least several irregulars.
A blacklist, and smaller artists who are not on this list. Presumably, any artist who so desired could submit to Napster that they do in fact produce music, and do not want it traded. Add their name to the list. I don't believe that such a list would really work, but it is certainly an example of the measures which were open to them.
The interesting thing is that apparently the RIAA has said that they aren't going to go after users. C'est la vie.
------
Re: War
I liked what someone said would be a good deterent to people making DoS attacks on the internet. Make it simple to take out the entire internet. For the first few months, it'll be out almost non-stop. People will realise that this is stupid and stop knocking it out. Later, it'll go every now and then, but with less and less frequency as time goes by. Eventually, it never happens. Analagy: Nukes (the fact that there are enough to kill us all 100 times over not withstanding) Give everyone a nuke. Sure, NYC and Washington DC will be toast in seconds, but after the initial half million years of nuclear winter, people will know better.
If nukes were outlawed, only outlaws would have nukes.
You're sugesting that guns are necessary for suicide? Rather messier than say, too many sleeping pills, no? The government thing - I think it's paranoia, others beg to differ. I'll accept it as valid given current world affairs, although certain Cuban-Americans are being quite undemocratic without the aid of any firearms.
If lawyers were outlawed, only outlaws would have lawyers?
Noting that almost all of this is unrelated to Napster... I strongly agree with the statement that there is a constructive use for virtually everything, adding to it that like its opposite, you can likely get away with an absolute.
Ideally, we would need no laws about anything, let alone keeping items restricted. However, given the realities, it is sometimes necessary. On the other hand, I feel that anti-drug laws hurt society much more than they help. (This idea has gotten a fair bit of press in Canada lately for some reason or another).
The problem with going after individuals using Napster is that the software is designed to make it somewhat complicated to track one down. Was Napster created with the intent that it be used illegally. Probably not outright, but the fact that right from the start they had a disclaimer about this meant they knew it would be. Have they taken action? They've made a token effort, but if they *really* meant for their service to be used legally only, they would have implemented a filter that blocked out any mp3 containing an artist name that belongs to one of the big record companies. That would be considered due dilligence, and not subject to the "filter usenet, you take responsibility for what you let by" story.
------
Your very educated opinion is taken into consideration, and rejected.
Smith & Wesson was an example of a gun manufacturer, not the target of any particular animosity. Try retaking Reading Comp 101.
------