Prohibition was people trying to control things that did not belong to them: beer, and other peoples' bodies.
Because of this, the laws were not moral.
Laws against filesharing are trying to protect against people trying to control things that are not theirs: music.
Because of this, the laws are moral.
"But I want it!" is not sufficient moral reason to alter the laws to allow you to take that which is not yours.
"But they'll earn more money this way!" Let's suppose this is true, but doubtful. It's their decision to make, bad as you might suggest it is.
"But they're ripping people off!" Compared to what? That's how the free market works. You know, the free market that brings you $300 PCs that would kick the ass of a top end PC from 3 years ago?
And it's not like a loaf of bread to a starving man. Music is a luxury in that respect.
The price of 1 1/3 movie tickets gives you a CD you can use, and make copies of for yourself doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me. Some big "ripoff" that is!
> "Vegas casinos, will feature server-based > gaming with games, new features and, most > important, the odds being downloaded from a > central server location, not determined by > internal machine algorithm any more."
The article continues: "An additional optional feature automatically feeds the coins back to a central location, one possibly as small as a pocket."
Doesn't using electrical charges from the wall actually burn more greenhouse gases, due to lossage of power at various steps (lines, during charging, electrical motor) before it is turned into motion? While a power plant could emit less pollutants, reducing CO2, etc. isn't one of them as it is the primary product of the combustion.
I don't want motion blur. Motion blur is an idiotic concept designed to ape the inferior 27fps of movies or 30fps of TV from the Neanderthal days of technology.
In the original Quake, on a fast computer, pre-3dfx, the software renderer, though pixelly, could do faster than 60fps. It ceased to look like a game, and started looking like you were looking through a window at a blocky, but real world.
STOP WITH THE DAMNED MOTION BLUR CRAP, BUFFOONS! God almighty! Stop it. Just stop it.
> then there is a process for producing further > amendments. Until then, the one we have should > stand as it is. The supreme court blew it.
Maybe not. Imagine politicians crafting a law allowing the government to outlaw porn and vulgarity. Constitutional purists whine they don't want words like sex in the Constitution. It is expanded so Congress has the power to outlaw speech that is "offensive".
I'll leave it to your active imaginations to imagine why politicians wouldn't try to run with that whenever anyone said something offensive. Look how it's illegal to tell a dirty joke at work lest a female on the other side of a cube accidentally hear it. [b]And that's with complete, 100% supposed freedom of speech.[/b]
> Information for the rich is something that > should be employed only where absolutely > nessecary.
Oooh! Ooooh! Ooooh! Let's create a government program for that! We can have the government pay for the cable bills of the poor so they, too, can experience Skinimax.
Laughing? Not so fast! Not many years ago Al Gore stood there and was applauded greatly when he suggested the government pay for computers and Internet for the poor. Mercifully, he got stuffed in that endeavor and the free market took care of it before government could "help".
> Radio and Television airwaves (NOT CABLE) is > definitely not the place for this.
There are those who want cable (it all goes through satellite) and satellite TV itself, and phone conversations (again broadcast commonly via satellite or microwave), i.e. modem data transmissions, to be stripped of porn.
Nevermind that the people on both ends are consenting and know what they're getting into. Nevermind that it's encrypted and can't "accidentally" be gotten into. It goes over the airwaves, and thus it's "public", and thus the government has the power to do this just as it does for open-broadcast TV and radio stations.
William F. Buckley, Jr. is one of these, and the moment he stated this in one of his debates, I completely lost respect for him. Had nothing to do with the usual red herring, protecting children. Just the usual conservative irrational hatred of human sexuality, I presume.
> Do you consider someone from the KKK saying > that blacks are nothing but monkeys or that > hispanics are nothing but lazy, job-stealing > wetbacks?* Too bad. Those comments are > protected by the First Amendment.
What about a racist old lady saying, "I'd prefer not to sell to a black person, but the law requires me to" in their advertising?
What about an employer saying, "It's nice that you just got married, Debbie, and you said you plan on having a baby, and statistically you're young and will with 80% chance have a baby in the next two years, so I do not wish to promote you as I'd rather invest the management learning curve, which is costly, in someone who statistically will be around longer, but must because of federal law." It's absolute truth, but truth is also intimidation, and thus outlaw-able?
I'm not pointing to the honor of either position, but you can see how even truthful statements can be made illegal in a nation with supposedly 100% rock solid freedom of (truthful) speech.
Strange how those who decry the "lowest common denominator" aspect of TV and radio, and thus argue why we should still have PBS and NPR, are the first to exclaim from the mountain tops the joys of politicians socializing this or that aspect of life, i.e. politicians pandering to the "lowest common denominator".
I'd like to see one starving person who was in their right mind and not on drugs, or one starving kid who wasn't the child of same. Problem? Yes. Failure of capitalism + government food assistance programs? No.
> the poor with sub-poverty-level food > assistance, if not simply left to starve
The poor in the US are statistically the fattest segment of society. Bzzzt! Thanks for playing...
> In the middle-class sections of US society, > most pay private medical insurances.
As opposed to the accounting gimmicks of the company or the government paying it?
> As for the rich and very rich, they're the ones > taken care of by the government really well, in > the form of huge tax breaks.
The middle class uses most of the social security, why shouldn't they pay for it?
And how is the government letting you keep what you earned "the government taking care of you?" And as a whole, "the rich" pay a gigantic portion of the tax burden, even allowing for these "huge tax breaks" you mention in your class warfare rhetoric.
George Will is quick to point out that something like 95-98% of people testifying before Congressional committees are government employees -- government lobbying itself for its own existence expansion.
Well, let's face it. "Europe" and "Asia" being separate continents was a conceit of Europeans.
"Ociana" is really not a continent -- Australia is a continent, the rest are just islands that may or may not even be on Australia's techtonic plate.
It's really all techtonic plates, and even our concepts of continents are not accurate in the long term. India is part of Asia, but is a different plate that's currently slamming into Asia's sensual, raven-haired underside. Europe thrusts her way horizontally, pressing deeply into the mounds of the Urals. South America continues to disgorge herself of the loins of North America, being a fickle lover long since ceased spooning with the headily organic Africa.
> "Minors should not be allowed to play online > games that have PK content, that allow players > to increase the power of their own online game > characters by killing other players..."
Yes. Children should learn to increase the power of their real-world character by killing other real-world people the good old fashioned, dictatorial way: by being the best at murdering and jailing your political enemies and rising to power, until, eventually, with excellent skills at murdering enemies and, hey, just a little luck, well over one billion people are under your thumbbbbbbbbbb!!!!!
If you are questioning belief in something compared to the hard reality (or lack thereof), i.e. choose to believe or not at your peril, well, then I wouldn't go there, if you choose believe in a god. Every time one looks out the window for him...well he's hiding and wants you to, umm, believe without proof (which, for some strange reason, has vital importance to a god.)
> The idea was something like, high-order > abstract thinking and reasoning about a deity > aren't particularly adaptive, so if you believe > in evolution with no deity guiding it, you have > to admit that your brain probably isn't very > well suited to think about that sort of thing, > i.e. you're probably wrong.
Reasoning ability evolved; it may be applied to things it wasn't intended for, just as the evolved ability for running can be applied to things that have nothing to do with running away from an enemy or after some prey.
The error is in the jump from "not well suited" to "probably wrong". Interesting how reasoning worked through "proving itself wrong", eh hehe.
Slashdot Mirror
Prohibition was people trying to control things that did not belong to them: beer, and other peoples' bodies.
Because of this, the laws were not moral.
Laws against filesharing are trying to protect against people trying to control things that are not theirs: music.
Because of this, the laws are moral.
"But I want it!" is not sufficient moral reason to alter the laws to allow you to take that which is not yours.
"But they'll earn more money this way!" Let's suppose this is true, but doubtful. It's their decision to make, bad as you might suggest it is.
"But they're ripping people off!" Compared to what? That's how the free market works. You know, the free market that brings you $300 PCs that would kick the ass of a top end PC from 3 years ago?
And it's not like a loaf of bread to a starving man. Music is a luxury in that respect.
The price of 1 1/3 movie tickets gives you a CD you can use, and make copies of for yourself doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me. Some big "ripoff" that is!
As if the Coke and automobile ads and $5.00 popcorns and $4.50 actual Cokes aren't irritating enough...
No, this is the United Fucking States doing this, or haven't you been paying attention the past forty years?
Spell it "ton", like the men who went to the moon do. And "aluminum", while you're at it.
> natural byproduct of filming stuff moving around.
Ummmmmm, hence my comment:
And what do those 3.5 million people seem to know that I and my two teenage children, who cancelled after 1 month, don't?
What is the difference? What are we missing?
> "Vegas casinos, will feature server-based
> gaming with games, new features and, most
> important, the odds being downloaded from a
> central server location, not determined by
> internal machine algorithm any more."
The article continues: "An additional optional feature automatically feeds the coins back to a central location, one possibly as small as a pocket."
Doesn't using electrical charges from the wall actually burn more greenhouse gases, due to lossage of power at various steps (lines, during charging, electrical motor) before it is turned into motion? While a power plant could emit less pollutants, reducing CO2, etc. isn't one of them as it is the primary product of the combustion.
I don't want motion blur. Motion blur is an idiotic concept designed to ape the inferior 27fps of movies or 30fps of TV from the Neanderthal days of technology.
In the original Quake, on a fast computer, pre-3dfx, the software renderer, though pixelly, could do faster than 60fps. It ceased to look like a game, and started looking like you were looking through a window at a blocky, but real world.
STOP WITH THE DAMNED MOTION BLUR CRAP, BUFFOONS! God almighty! Stop it. Just stop it.
> According to a spokesperson for SCE, this
> purchase will be in their commercial interest,
> requiring no subsidy in order to compete
Sir, in 20 years, the government will be taxing solar electricity generation.
Microsoft's standard-issue Minesweeper is also speedrunning.
So, too, was the original Lode Runner on the Mac. Sort of.
I can't believe some buffoon modded this as a "Troll".
He was making a joke about "first posts" being the Slashdot speed-running sport! Hell, he even got "psot" down accurately!
Jesus H. Christ some people are stupid.
And no, this psot also is not a troll, as it is also about speedrunning.
> then there is a process for producing further
> amendments. Until then, the one we have should
> stand as it is. The supreme court blew it.
Maybe not. Imagine politicians crafting a law allowing the government to outlaw porn and vulgarity. Constitutional purists whine they don't want words like sex in the Constitution. It is expanded so Congress has the power to outlaw speech that is "offensive".
I'll leave it to your active imaginations to imagine why politicians wouldn't try to run with that whenever anyone said something offensive. Look how it's illegal to tell a dirty joke at work lest a female on the other side of a cube accidentally hear it. [b]And that's with complete, 100% supposed freedom of speech.[/b]
> Information for the rich is something that
> should be employed only where absolutely
> nessecary.
Oooh! Ooooh! Ooooh! Let's create a government program for that! We can have the government pay for the cable bills of the poor so they, too, can experience Skinimax.
Laughing? Not so fast! Not many years ago Al Gore stood there and was applauded greatly when he suggested the government pay for computers and Internet for the poor. Mercifully, he got stuffed in that endeavor and the free market took care of it before government could "help".
What about all those European children who see breasts all over the place on the beaches there?
A whole continent of generation after generation, psychologically ruined! The bastards!
> Radio and Television airwaves (NOT CABLE) is
> definitely not the place for this.
There are those who want cable (it all goes through satellite) and satellite TV itself, and phone conversations (again broadcast commonly via satellite or microwave), i.e. modem data transmissions, to be stripped of porn.
Nevermind that the people on both ends are consenting and know what they're getting into. Nevermind that it's encrypted and can't "accidentally" be gotten into. It goes over the airwaves, and thus it's "public", and thus the government has the power to do this just as it does for open-broadcast TV and radio stations.
William F. Buckley, Jr. is one of these, and the moment he stated this in one of his debates, I completely lost respect for him. Had nothing to do with the usual red herring, protecting children. Just the usual conservative irrational hatred of human sexuality, I presume.
> Do you consider someone from the KKK saying
> that blacks are nothing but monkeys or that
> hispanics are nothing but lazy, job-stealing
> wetbacks?* Too bad. Those comments are
> protected by the First Amendment.
What about a racist old lady saying, "I'd prefer not to sell to a black person, but the law requires me to" in their advertising?
What about an employer saying, "It's nice that you just got married, Debbie, and you said you plan on having a baby, and statistically you're young and will with 80% chance have a baby in the next two years, so I do not wish to promote you as I'd rather invest the management learning curve, which is costly, in someone who statistically will be around longer, but must because of federal law." It's absolute truth, but truth is also intimidation, and thus outlaw-able?
I'm not pointing to the honor of either position, but you can see how even truthful statements can be made illegal in a nation with supposedly 100% rock solid freedom of (truthful) speech.
Strange how those who decry the "lowest common denominator" aspect of TV and radio, and thus argue why we should still have PBS and NPR, are the first to exclaim from the mountain tops the joys of politicians socializing this or that aspect of life, i.e. politicians pandering to the "lowest common denominator".
.sig.
Sorry, read my
It's class warefare rhetoric.
I'd like to see one starving person who was in their right mind and not on drugs, or one starving kid who wasn't the child of same. Problem? Yes. Failure of capitalism + government food assistance programs? No.
> the poor with sub-poverty-level food
> assistance, if not simply left to starve
The poor in the US are statistically the fattest segment of society. Bzzzt! Thanks for playing...
> In the middle-class sections of US society,
> most pay private medical insurances.
As opposed to the accounting gimmicks of the company or the government paying it?
> As for the rich and very rich, they're the ones
> taken care of by the government really well, in
> the form of huge tax breaks.
The middle class uses most of the social security, why shouldn't they pay for it?
And how is the government letting you keep what you earned "the government taking care of you?" And as a whole, "the rich" pay a gigantic portion of the tax burden, even allowing for these "huge tax breaks" you mention in your class warfare rhetoric.
George Will is quick to point out that something like 95-98% of people testifying before Congressional committees are government employees -- government lobbying itself for its own existence expansion.
Didn't Colecovision try this, and lose in court that 3rd party developers could develop?
Well, let's face it. "Europe" and "Asia" being separate continents was a conceit of Europeans.
"Ociana" is really not a continent -- Australia is a continent, the rest are just islands that may or may not even be on Australia's techtonic plate.
It's really all techtonic plates, and even our concepts of continents are not accurate in the long term. India is part of Asia, but is a different plate that's currently slamming into Asia's sensual, raven-haired underside. Europe thrusts her way horizontally, pressing deeply into the mounds of the Urals. South America continues to disgorge herself of the loins of North America, being a fickle lover long since ceased spooning with the headily organic Africa.
> "Minors should not be allowed to play online
> games that have PK content, that allow players
> to increase the power of their own online game
> characters by killing other players..."
Yes. Children should learn to increase the power of their real-world character by killing other real-world people the good old fashioned, dictatorial way: by being the best at murdering and jailing your political enemies and rising to power, until, eventually, with excellent skills at murdering enemies and, hey, just a little luck, well over one billion people are under your thumbbbbbbbbbb!!!!!
If you are questioning belief in something compared to the hard reality (or lack thereof), i.e. choose to believe or not at your peril, well, then I wouldn't go there, if you choose believe in a god. Every time one looks out the window for him...well he's hiding and wants you to, umm, believe without proof (which, for some strange reason, has vital importance to a god.)
> The idea was something like, high-order
> abstract thinking and reasoning about a deity
> aren't particularly adaptive, so if you believe
> in evolution with no deity guiding it, you have
> to admit that your brain probably isn't very
> well suited to think about that sort of thing,
> i.e. you're probably wrong.
Reasoning ability evolved; it may be applied to things it wasn't intended for, just as the evolved ability for running can be applied to things that have nothing to do with running away from an enemy or after some prey.
The error is in the jump from "not well suited" to "probably wrong". Interesting how reasoning worked through "proving itself wrong", eh hehe.