Given that playing a DVD on Linux is a felony, what justification do you have for denying someone the right to vote? For that matter, who's business is it that you're a convicted felon? I mean, sure, if you want to ensure that a felon's only real choice is crime or McDonalds, go right ahead, but think about it first.
You're joking, right? Crack was created because it was cheaper than cocaine (same base product). Meth is easily produced from ephedrine, so expect it to cost about as much as allergy meds. Heroin is absurdly cheap to make, and pot is a damn weed. Of all the drugs, I would expect pot to be more expensive, depending on where it's grown.
We prohibit certain chemicals because having them around is bad for society
No, we prohibit certain chemicals by appealing to racism and corporate interests. Don't delude youself: there was no reasonable debate involved in banning cocaine, heroin, or MJ. More recently, Crack has been punished more severely than cocaine. Oddly enough, most crack users are black, while most cocaine users are white.
It's not any different from disallowing possession of machine guns
Sure it is. It's illegal to possess MJ in the US without a specific waiver from the feds, while possession of a machinegun is perfectly legal. It is the same in that both things are unreasonably restrictive - there's no reason to ban MJ, and restricting the ownership of machineguns more than any other firearm runs counter to the 2nd ammendment.
Overuse of many illicit drugs can lead to long lasting personality changes (effectively a drug induced mental disorder) - and how do you propose that society handle that?
As a mental disorder.
You're also completely ignoring the problems with addiction.
As well he should. Addiction rates are fairly flat regardless of what is and is not legal. If you legalize everything tomorrow, about 7% of the population will be addicted to something, same as now.
The simple fact that copyright was introduced for the reason you stated proves that people were of the opinion that people should be allowed to control the distribution of their work.
No, they believed that it would induce people to publish more. Also, there's the whole limited time thing - IP isn't really property, so you shouldn't treat it that way.
Personally, as an artist and software developer, I don't like the idea of other people being able to profit from something that I worked hard to create when I have no say in the matter.
That's probably because of how you were raised. Before copyright, there was no expectation that you'd be able to control something once published. Copyright was established to encourage people like you to publish in exchange for a legal monopoly on distribution for a limited time. There's no inherent moral right to prevent others from profitting off your work.
most of the average-joe consumption of public domain material would be in the form of dodgy chinese pirate copies sold from the back of a van,
If a DVD is public domain, why not just sell copies of it? No reason to pirate something that's available for free. Hell, you can even sell them for $5.
Maybe it's a bit easier when all the surrounding buildings are damaged anyway and WTC7 is in imminent risk of collapse. It's not that hard to knock a building down. The hard part is not damaging other buildings when you do it.
And, after all, he is my boss -- if the code is commit-ready in his opinion, I should be committing it (possibly having expressed my reservations in the commit message and/or elsewhere).
No, the better analogy would be a technical PM - he hasn't got the authority to tell you to check anything in. Likewise, the Senator hasn't got the authority to make you investigate a candidate, and telling you to do it before election day would tend to affect the election - looks like interference to me.
Being banned for 1-5 years from using a computer isn't the end of your life and would definitely serve as a punishment for the crime.
It interferes with my right to pursue my profession, so yes, it is the end of my life for 1-5 years. I may as well be in jail, except that that'd cost them more money. Either way, i'd just ignore prohibitions like that.
In this case you aren't being punished for the action, but for the motivation behind the action.
Um, you're already punished for that. Hit someone with a car: did you not see him? Did you see him with your girlfriend? Do you hate his dad?
ame situation but with a difference in sexual orientation or race and you could very well find yourself charged with a hate crime.
My main beef with the law is that it's applied unevenly - that whole hatecrime/rap video thing from the sibling post. If you beat someone down for being a honky, that's a racially motivated attack, same as dressing up in a sheet and burning a cross on someone's lawn. Only one gets the label.
Reminds me of something from thehighroad: some guy with a CCW held a guy at gunpoint and called the cops. When they got there, he explained that the other guy was asian and obviously knew karate, so he feared for his safety. Oops, guess who got arrested.
What sense do you mean the word "right" in, legal, ethical, philosophical, religious? That right is not present in the thinking of (say) some Native American cultures.
Property owners have broad latitude in how they make use of their property. Watching your own front lawn falls under that. No Indians that I know of ever really disputed that sort of thing either.
The woman that won against mcdonalds suffered severe burns (more than you'd get from normal coffee) and sued for medical costs (they'd settled hundreds of times for the same issue). The jury fined them one day's coffee sales, as a symbolic way of punishing mcdonalds. This about was later reduced by the judge. All told, this isn't a frivolous suit.
Are you being sarcastic? What sort of moron thinks Colt is responsible for some guy coming home early, finding his wife balling the plumber, and shooting them?
Slashdot Mirror
Given that playing a DVD on Linux is a felony, what justification do you have for denying someone the right to vote? For that matter, who's business is it that you're a convicted felon? I mean, sure, if you want to ensure that a felon's only real choice is crime or McDonalds, go right ahead, but think about it first.
You're joking, right? Crack was created because it was cheaper than cocaine (same base product). Meth is easily produced from ephedrine, so expect it to cost about as much as allergy meds. Heroin is absurdly cheap to make, and pot is a damn weed. Of all the drugs, I would expect pot to be more expensive, depending on where it's grown.
I agree that meth is addictive and harmful.
Legalize pot and you'll see the meth epidemic vanish in a purple haze.
We prohibit certain chemicals because having them around is bad for society
No, we prohibit certain chemicals by appealing to racism and corporate interests. Don't delude youself: there was no reasonable debate involved in banning cocaine, heroin, or MJ. More recently, Crack has been punished more severely than cocaine. Oddly enough, most crack users are black, while most cocaine users are white.
It's not any different from disallowing possession of machine guns
Sure it is. It's illegal to possess MJ in the US without a specific waiver from the feds, while possession of a machinegun is perfectly legal. It is the same in that both things are unreasonably restrictive - there's no reason to ban MJ, and restricting the ownership of machineguns more than any other firearm runs counter to the 2nd ammendment.
Overuse of many illicit drugs can lead to long lasting personality changes (effectively a drug induced mental disorder) - and how do you propose that society handle that?
As a mental disorder.
You're also completely ignoring the problems with addiction.
As well he should. Addiction rates are fairly flat regardless of what is and is not legal. If you legalize everything tomorrow, about 7% of the population will be addicted to something, same as now.
The simple fact that copyright was introduced for the reason you stated proves that people were of the opinion that people should be allowed to control the distribution of their work.
No, they believed that it would induce people to publish more. Also, there's the whole limited time thing - IP isn't really property, so you shouldn't treat it that way.
Personally, as an artist and software developer, I don't like the idea of other people being able to profit from something that I worked hard to create when I have no say in the matter.
That's probably because of how you were raised. Before copyright, there was no expectation that you'd be able to control something once published. Copyright was established to encourage people like you to publish in exchange for a legal monopoly on distribution for a limited time. There's no inherent moral right to prevent others from profitting off your work.
most of the average-joe consumption of public domain material would be in the form of dodgy chinese pirate copies sold from the back of a van,
If a DVD is public domain, why not just sell copies of it? No reason to pirate something that's available for free. Hell, you can even sell them for $5.
Wild conspiracy theories? This was on the news on 9/11. Don't you remember?
Maybe it's a bit easier when all the surrounding buildings are damaged anyway and WTC7 is in imminent risk of collapse. It's not that hard to knock a building down. The hard part is not damaging other buildings when you do it.
BBC reported "collapse" of WTC7 when it was still standing minutes too early. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lylHrpLOpzg
WTC7 was demolished because it had been rendered structurtally unsound. Sorry, thanks for playing.
And, after all, he is my boss -- if the code is commit-ready in his opinion, I should be committing it (possibly having expressed my reservations in the commit message and/or elsewhere).
No, the better analogy would be a technical PM - he hasn't got the authority to tell you to check anything in. Likewise, the Senator hasn't got the authority to make you investigate a candidate, and telling you to do it before election day would tend to affect the election - looks like interference to me.
Given the choice between the BBC and US media, I trust the BBC. The US stuff is pretty much steeped in Bullshit.
Being banned for 1-5 years from using a computer isn't the end of your life and would definitely serve as a punishment for the crime.
It interferes with my right to pursue my profession, so yes, it is the end of my life for 1-5 years. I may as well be in jail, except that that'd cost them more money. Either way, i'd just ignore prohibitions like that.
Dude, he didn't sponsor the legislation, it was named after him because he happened to get himself killed acting like a moron at the right time.
Oh and doesn't that Lazarus Long say the most profound things.
Since when was he ever held up as a role model? He's a scoundrel and a lech whose main advantage is the ability to survive 2200 years.
In this case you aren't being punished for the action, but for the motivation behind the action.
Um, you're already punished for that. Hit someone with a car: did you not see him? Did you see him with your girlfriend? Do you hate his dad?
ame situation but with a difference in sexual orientation or race and you could very well find yourself charged with a hate crime.
My main beef with the law is that it's applied unevenly - that whole hatecrime/rap video thing from the sibling post. If you beat someone down for being a honky, that's a racially motivated attack, same as dressing up in a sheet and burning a cross on someone's lawn. Only one gets the label.
Reminds me of something from thehighroad: some guy with a CCW held a guy at gunpoint and called the cops. When they got there, he explained that the other guy was asian and obviously knew karate, so he feared for his safety. Oops, guess who got arrested.
What sense do you mean the word "right" in, legal, ethical, philosophical, religious? That right is not present in the thinking of (say) some Native American cultures.
Property owners have broad latitude in how they make use of their property. Watching your own front lawn falls under that. No Indians that I know of ever really disputed that sort of thing either.
No, people adopt the napoleonic code because it's simple - fits in two volumes.
It seems to me that if you server coffee in a container prone to disintegration, that there's going to be some liability coming your way.
The woman that won against mcdonalds suffered severe burns (more than you'd get from normal coffee) and sued for medical costs (they'd settled hundreds of times for the same issue). The jury fined them one day's coffee sales, as a symbolic way of punishing mcdonalds. This about was later reduced by the judge. All told, this isn't a frivolous suit.
Are you being sarcastic? What sort of moron thinks Colt is responsible for some guy coming home early, finding his wife balling the plumber, and shooting them?
Bullshit. 33% deductions is about normal for income in the 75k-100k range. You've got income tax, social security and fica for the big ones.
Um, insurance on old cars is really cheap - like $40/yr for old beaters.