What I see in this thread is a bunch of whiny libertarians moaning about how corporations do so many stupid, wrong things. Well, DUH! You can either have unrestricted corporations and low prices and bad behavior, or you can have relatively restricted corporations and relatively high prices and relatively good behavior. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As much as libertarian philosophy would like to have us believe that corporations will do what is in their long-term self-interest, I think it's pretty clear that that is FAUX.
o Proceed to go out of business because by adopting all these policies you've just made yourself less efficient than all your competitors, and under The Free Market Is God market philosophy, you are an inefficient pig of a company that is run by lazy socialists and might as well be a 501(c)(3) charity for all the free handouts you're giving.
I think it's pretty well agreed upon that e.g. spewing toxic waste everywhere and allowing your customers to die due to your negligence is PROBABLY a pretty unethical thing for a company to do. There aren't really any societies that look DOWN upon a company being well-behaved at the expense of profit. (Except maybe the U.S.) The law doesn't help much when companies can flout it with vast legal dept. funds. and get around it by globalizing and relocating operations to more acquiescent world regions.
Not to conclusively prove or disprove your theory here, but I am one user of Ogg that deffinately breaks that mold. My main workstations are Windows (I do tech support, so I have to use windows a lot and be familiure with it, but god, anything on servers, give me Linux or BSD or death (or maybe cake)),
Isn't it a sad testament as to how closed-minded slashdotters are that many posters here feel so insecure about the computers they use that they feel the need to provide EXCUSES for their choices due to a (justified) fear of being modded down or criticized?
Well, I can't speak for the non-*nix heads out there but the only time I've ever seen people using Windows was when leaving my parents' house for the first time ever after overcoming my agoraphobia.
"As a Christian, as a human being, I just want to have a pleasant, civil conversation with you..." (because you are apparently sub-Christian and subhuman)
"I don't force people to believe what I believe... I don't mock others with different beliefs..." (because I am better than you)
I sure hope you don't mock others with different beliefs. My belief is that you are a hypocritical spaz. Have a pleasant, civil discussion with some of that shit, biiyotch.
You're just fiddling with semantics. If the RIAA wasn't suing children, you'd be on them for suing elderly people. If they weren't suing elderly people, you'd be on them for suing people, period. If they weren't suing people, period, you'd STILL be infringing on their copyright, because of some hazy justification like, "well, they don't pay the artist enough," or, "well, I shouldn't have to buy the same album over and over again when it's released on new media in the future." It's not that you want the RIAA to stop suing people - you want to see the complete destruction of the RIAA. In that case, if I were working at the RIAA, I hope you would understand that I would want to destroy you before you could destroy me. Maybe the solution is to compromise a little, and stop being such a Jew.
12 year olds can't be sued because they are too young, their parents/guardians have to be sued because they are legally responsible for what the 12 year olds do. As a parent, if you don't want to get sued by the RIAA, you should obviously keep your kid away from mass copyright violations, which means teaching your kid that they'll be in loads of trouble if they use Kazaa or whatever. I don't think that requires heaps of intelligence on the child's part. Kids don't have to understand the chemical reactions behind fire to know that they shouldn't touch it.
I think you make a pretty good case against these registries, although I disagree a little with your bunching up sex crimes with all the other types of crimes. They're not the same. We don't want to put e.g. all Muslims on a list, because there is very little statistical correlation between being Muslim and being a criminal (despite what the media or whatever may have you believe). But e.g. child rapists show a high likelihood of repeating their crimes. Still, though, I don't support these registries, out of concern for civil liberties.
What I do support, and this is something no one else seems to have touched on, is castration and surgical removal of the penis for repeat offenders. When a sex offender commits a crime like this, he is breaking his end of the social contract. If he does it repeatedly, simple castration would be all that would be necessary to stop him from ever doing it again. Cheap, easy, painless, instantaneous, foolproof. Some would argue that castration + penis removal would be a horrible violation of the perpetrator's human rights, but in fact, this it's really the only surefire way to prevent much worse future violations of others' human rights by the criminal. They would argue that removing one's penis would be among the worst forms of torture that could ever be devised. But how would that be? No, he would never be able to have sex again, but it doesn't matter -- he wouldn't have a sex drive either and would thus have no desire for sex. He would receive plenty of post-surgery painkillers. Ultimately, life would be pretty much the same for him, except he would have to sit down to pee. Would that really be all that bad?
It's funny because I actually don't generally support x-strikes-you're-out laws for other crimes. I suppose sex offenses are different because of the psychological peculiarities.
So what? All the "SCO/Micro$haft/RIAA/MPAA/software patents sux" posts get modded +5, insightful, why aren't they modded redundant since they're more retarded than any first post or goatse.cx link and have probably been posted more often anyway?
The RIAA isn't a corporation, it's an association of corporations. The RIAA can't "go bankrupt" unless all of its members do. Yes the RIAA could shift its business model, maybe it actually even should. I hope you didn't mean to suggest though that the RIAA's "stupid business model" is adequate moral grounds for mass copyright violation.
I know it's very unfashionable to say a thing like this in a place like this, but here goes: The music industry DOES publish a LOT of product that's worth paying for. Like the back catalogs of scads of legendary musical acts of all genres from the Beatles to Bob Marley to Run DMC to whatever else. Now maybe one will be too trendy and hip to admit liking any of this music - "pfft, I only listen to independent underground electronic music" or whatever. Fine. That's great. So, you do that, and simply don't take what isn't yours (RIAA music). How hard can this be to fathom. If you don't like the RIAA's music, and you think the RIAA is going to go down in flames any day now because of it's horrible, archaic, stupid, contemptuous business model, fine - let it. But no matter what you think of the RIAA's business model, or its product, that doesn't give you a right to illegally, immorally infringe upon its copyright.
"But," you protest, "when I buy something from the RIAA, I'm not supporting the artist anyway because the RIAA takes all the money for itself and screws the artist over and when I steal music, er uh share music, I'm helping to rescue the innocent virtuous artist from the grasp of the oppressive corporate overlords." Well, I'm sorry, but the artist should not have signed such a shitty contract. When you sign with the RIAA, you will be granting the RIAA rights over your work. It's as simple as that. Don't want that, don't sign. Nobody is putting a gun to your head. "But I can't play the Staples Center if I don't sign because Clearchannel won't let me!" Boo hoo. Don't support stupid artists!!!
(By the way. There is a sentiment in the slashdot community that "copyright is only copyright. It's not anywhere near as serious as theft, because the RIAA doesn't actually LOSE anything when I 'steal' a song." Well, actually, under the law, copyright infringement is typically treated more harshly than theft, and rightly so, especially in a digital medium where a single person's copyright violation can lead to mass flawless duplication of product.)
What a failure of a son you are, to be giving your parents a WEBSITE for christmas. "Oh, son, it's............ wonderful! Thank you so much............." What's the matter, would it be too man-like of you to knit them scarves or something?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you spit or do you swallow? Nice +5 moderator blowjob you fucking sycophant.
Today, we will have made a CPU to compete with the 486...
Tomorrow, we will have made a CPU to compete with the... 486DX2!
If only we could send the linux weenies up to float in space along with it.
What I see in this thread is a bunch of whiny libertarians moaning about how corporations do so many stupid, wrong things. Well, DUH! You can either have unrestricted corporations and low prices and bad behavior, or you can have relatively restricted corporations and relatively high prices and relatively good behavior. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As much as libertarian philosophy would like to have us believe that corporations will do what is in their long-term self-interest, I think it's pretty clear that that is FAUX.
o Proceed to go out of business because by adopting all these policies you've just made yourself less efficient than all your competitors, and under The Free Market Is God market philosophy, you are an inefficient pig of a company that is run by lazy socialists and might as well be a 501(c)(3) charity for all the free handouts you're giving.
I think it's pretty well agreed upon that e.g. spewing toxic waste everywhere and allowing your customers to die due to your negligence is PROBABLY a pretty unethical thing for a company to do. There aren't really any societies that look DOWN upon a company being well-behaved at the expense of profit. (Except maybe the U.S.) The law doesn't help much when companies can flout it with vast legal dept. funds. and get around it by globalizing and relocating operations to more acquiescent world regions.
.... no....
Not to conclusively prove or disprove your theory here, but I am one user of Ogg that deffinately breaks that mold. My main workstations are Windows (I do tech support, so I have to use windows a lot and be familiure with it, but god, anything on servers, give me Linux or BSD or death (or maybe cake)),
Isn't it a sad testament as to how closed-minded slashdotters are that many posters here feel so insecure about the computers they use that they feel the need to provide EXCUSES for their choices due to a (justified) fear of being modded down or criticized?
Well, I can't speak for the non-*nix heads out there but the only time I've ever seen people using Windows was when leaving my parents' house for the first time ever after overcoming my agoraphobia.
I think one of two things happened here. Either 1, you got trolled, or... yup, I think that's what happened
"As a Christian, as a human being, I just want to have a pleasant, civil conversation with you..." (because you are apparently sub-Christian and subhuman)
"I don't force people to believe what I believe... I don't mock others with different beliefs..." (because I am better than you)
I sure hope you don't mock others with different beliefs. My belief is that you are a hypocritical spaz. Have a pleasant, civil discussion with some of that shit, biiyotch.
Forget ATMs coming under attack by worms, MSNBC has this article about Dateline NBC's investigative report into fake ATMs and other ATM related scams.
Two sentences spliced together with a comma --> one incorrect sentence. Also, "ATM related" should be hyphenated
The 'ATM gang' profiled managed to purchase and setup 50+ machines and steal over $4 million from over 21,000 customers.
I can't believe people pay for this shite.
I see, anyone who calls you on your bullshit is an offtopic troll. Enjoy that cognitive dissonance......
You're just fiddling with semantics. If the RIAA wasn't suing children, you'd be on them for suing elderly people. If they weren't suing elderly people, you'd be on them for suing people, period. If they weren't suing people, period, you'd STILL be infringing on their copyright, because of some hazy justification like, "well, they don't pay the artist enough," or, "well, I shouldn't have to buy the same album over and over again when it's released on new media in the future." It's not that you want the RIAA to stop suing people - you want to see the complete destruction of the RIAA. In that case, if I were working at the RIAA, I hope you would understand that I would want to destroy you before you could destroy me. Maybe the solution is to compromise a little, and stop being such a Jew.
12 year olds can't be sued because they are too young, their parents/guardians have to be sued because they are legally responsible for what the 12 year olds do. As a parent, if you don't want to get sued by the RIAA, you should obviously keep your kid away from mass copyright violations, which means teaching your kid that they'll be in loads of trouble if they use Kazaa or whatever. I don't think that requires heaps of intelligence on the child's part. Kids don't have to understand the chemical reactions behind fire to know that they shouldn't touch it.
There are already lots of vegans right here on earth.
Oh god, if only I could think up a good joke about "gallium assenide" right now.
I think you make a pretty good case against these registries, although I disagree a little with your bunching up sex crimes with all the other types of crimes. They're not the same. We don't want to put e.g. all Muslims on a list, because there is very little statistical correlation between being Muslim and being a criminal (despite what the media or whatever may have you believe). But e.g. child rapists show a high likelihood of repeating their crimes. Still, though, I don't support these registries, out of concern for civil liberties.
What I do support, and this is something no one else seems to have touched on, is castration and surgical removal of the penis for repeat offenders. When a sex offender commits a crime like this, he is breaking his end of the social contract. If he does it repeatedly, simple castration would be all that would be necessary to stop him from ever doing it again. Cheap, easy, painless, instantaneous, foolproof. Some would argue that castration + penis removal would be a horrible violation of the perpetrator's human rights, but in fact, this it's really the only surefire way to prevent much worse future violations of others' human rights by the criminal. They would argue that removing one's penis would be among the worst forms of torture that could ever be devised. But how would that be? No, he would never be able to have sex again, but it doesn't matter -- he wouldn't have a sex drive either and would thus have no desire for sex. He would receive plenty of post-surgery painkillers. Ultimately, life would be pretty much the same for him, except he would have to sit down to pee. Would that really be all that bad?
It's funny because I actually don't generally support x-strikes-you're-out laws for other crimes. I suppose sex offenses are different because of the psychological peculiarities.
So what? All the "SCO/Micro$haft/RIAA/MPAA/software patents sux" posts get modded +5, insightful, why aren't they modded redundant since they're more retarded than any first post or goatse.cx link and have probably been posted more often anyway?
(-1, "Hitherto")
I'm telling you: we're going to vote the moron out in 2004.
Hahahah not if Diebold has anything to say about it. t|-|3 d3|\|\5 r 0\|\|n3d
The RIAA isn't a corporation, it's an association of corporations. The RIAA can't "go bankrupt" unless all of its members do. Yes the RIAA could shift its business model, maybe it actually even should. I hope you didn't mean to suggest though that the RIAA's "stupid business model" is adequate moral grounds for mass copyright violation.
I know it's very unfashionable to say a thing like this in a place like this, but here goes: The music industry DOES publish a LOT of product that's worth paying for. Like the back catalogs of scads of legendary musical acts of all genres from the Beatles to Bob Marley to Run DMC to whatever else. Now maybe one will be too trendy and hip to admit liking any of this music - "pfft, I only listen to independent underground electronic music" or whatever. Fine. That's great. So, you do that, and simply don't take what isn't yours (RIAA music). How hard can this be to fathom. If you don't like the RIAA's music, and you think the RIAA is going to go down in flames any day now because of it's horrible, archaic, stupid, contemptuous business model, fine - let it. But no matter what you think of the RIAA's business model, or its product, that doesn't give you a right to illegally, immorally infringe upon its copyright.
"But," you protest, "when I buy something from the RIAA, I'm not supporting the artist anyway because the RIAA takes all the money for itself and screws the artist over and when I steal music, er uh share music, I'm helping to rescue the innocent virtuous artist from the grasp of the oppressive corporate overlords." Well, I'm sorry, but the artist should not have signed such a shitty contract. When you sign with the RIAA, you will be granting the RIAA rights over your work. It's as simple as that. Don't want that, don't sign. Nobody is putting a gun to your head. "But I can't play the Staples Center if I don't sign because Clearchannel won't let me!" Boo hoo. Don't support stupid artists!!!
(By the way. There is a sentiment in the slashdot community that "copyright is only copyright. It's not anywhere near as serious as theft, because the RIAA doesn't actually LOSE anything when I 'steal' a song." Well, actually, under the law, copyright infringement is typically treated more harshly than theft, and rightly so, especially in a digital medium where a single person's copyright violation can lead to mass flawless duplication of product.)
It's only the odd ones!!
What a failure of a son you are, to be giving your parents a WEBSITE for christmas. "Oh, son, it's... ... ...... wonderful! Thank you so much. ............" What's the matter, would it be too man-like of you to knit them scarves or something?