They would not have been able to just waltz through screening and kill people like they did. Since the 9/11 hijackers all had valid ID, were here legally, had legal tickets, etc... and passed all of the screening procedures... with THIS in place, they would have had to WAIT 72 hours before killing 3000 people. See the difference?
"No. What is affecting the peace of the entire world at the moment is war."
Yeah, this is true... but they can't give out the peace prize to anyone for anything involving the Iraq war, can they? The war is far from solved, and anyone with any power to do anything about it not only isn't trying to stop it, they LIKE it and want a sequel in Iran. Now, if they had a Nobel WAR prize, there would be plenty of candidates.
True. All they would have to do is send a few people into the crowd with camcorders, what's to stop them?
It might be a good idea for people to carry butterfly nets to protests from now on though. Imagine what a great blog post that would make if you caught one! You last blog post maybe, but still, a great one...
Damn, and I used up all my mods points... else you would get modded up. Nobody seems to know or care that the 9/11 hijackers all were here legally, all had valid ID, all had valid tickets, none were carrying prohibited items. Nobody seems to care that we're reducing the civil rights of Americans in response to 9/11, when 9/11 ITSELF was proof that the very things we're doing would not have stopped the attacks. It's like being afraid of strangers because you keep getting mugged at family reunions. Nonsensical.
Depends on on your level in the organization. If you do this and you're just a peon, you get fired. If you do this and you're the CEO, then a department gets axed and bunch of peons get fired, you retire with a several million dollar golden parachute and stock options.
I'm sorry, but steal=crime=legal issue. When bandying about legal terms, when making accusations of crime, I'm kind of a stickler in making sure that I use the legal term for the legal fucking term. Like, if I were raped, I wouldn't say I was murdered.
It's true that some people think of it as stealing - but that's a very recent development, and is a direct result of a deliberate propaganda and marketing campaign. The RIAA and MPAA routinely lie, make false accusations, and claim legal rights that they just don't have. They flat out LIE. They claim that there's no such thing as fair use when the law says that there is.
They deliberately misinform, and some people buy it. Gullible people.
Thing is, if you're arrested, they don;t use a dictionary in court to define your crime. They use these things called laws.
Under the law, it is NOT stealing. It's copyright infringement. VERY different.
Who says it's not stealing? The Supreme Court says its not stealing. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207: "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.""
Docs removed my perfectly good appendix while rummaging around in me for other reasons. Like a TV repairman who closes up your set but still has "extra parts" laying out.
I have all kinds of digestive problems 20 years later, can I sue?
Or how about this... during your younger years you are a little stupid and commit a felony. "Borrowed" your uncle's car without asking and he was a prick about it, or something. Nothing really horrible, but you are convicted, and you live in a more fascistic state than some, where all felons must give DNA samples for a database.
Fast forward 20 years - you have long since outgrown your reckless youth, are a responsible, caring member of society and as part of that you give blood and registered in the bone marrow database. You're called - there's someone in another state that needs marrow, and you're a match! You're actually thrilled at the idea of being a part of saving a life. A young teenager needs your help. You know what it's like to be a teen who needs help.
Another 10 years pass and someone is murdered. Blood samples show not only the victim's blood, but the attacker's - she got in a few scratches before succumbing. They test the DNA, search the database, and BINGO - YOU'RE the match. You were on vacation in Barcelona, your wife swears its true. But hey, the expert says you have to be the guy, and so you get the death penalty for the vicious murder.
You could have gotten off with life in prison, but since you are so cold, so uncaring, so unwilling to show remorse for your crime, protesting your innocence all along, they show no mercy.
Its interesting that you equate someone having something with rape. If someone makes a copy of something you own, without taking it from you - in fact without ever having come within a thousand miles of you or your home, you equate that with rape. A violation of you.
How can that be? You have lost nothing, you have felt nothing, you have experienced nothing. The only thing that has happened is that someone now has something that you also have. If you consider THAT to be a violation, then essentially what you assert is NOT the right to ownership, but rather the right to deny OTHERS ownership.
That's a very special kind of greed... an interesting and deep pathology. It's not good enough for you to have something, you have to make sure nobody else has one too, or you're violated.
"MoveOn gets to refer to the commander on the ground in Iraq as betraying his country..."
Actually, they did more than that - many dems voted to condemn MoveOn for it - to their eternal shame... because yes, MoveOn "gets to" say that, it's this funny free speech thing we've got for the moment. Same way Rush Limbaugh gets to say the stuff he does. Odd that you chose not to mention the resolution condemning MoveOn (which should never have happened) and that you don't mention Republicans not pushing for a resolution condemning Rush (which also should not happen) and how that might be pandering.
All politicians pander, but of late Republicans have made it an art form.
I spent tens of thousands of dollars collecting music in the 80s and early 90s. The RIAA members declared war on me by illegally colluding to fix prices. They were found guilty of this, and got a slap on the wrist. They targeted me, ripped me off and broke the law doing it. They declared war on me, a loyal customer who had poured money into their coffers. That was before all of this P2P stuff even existed.
Realizing that war had been declared on me, I decided on my response. I would never again buy one of their products as long as I live. NEVER. That was years ago, I still haven't, and I never will.
I won. Their war against me is over, I won.
There's a larger war they're waging, of course, and it's important that we fight that one too... but each individual has had their own war declared against them, and each individual can win in the same way I did.
Incidentally, I just bought a new piano and am composing some of the best stuff I've ever done. I'm not doing without music.
"So if I steal your computer or your cannabis, and then "share" them with my friends, would you still object?
Sharing is caring, right?"
If you could "take" my computer, pot, food, books, or anything I own by easily making your own copy at essentially no cost to you in money or time - meanwhile leaving me still in possession of the things you copied, I'd not only be ok with you doing it, I'd encourage you.
As a matter of fact, cannabis, like all plants has its own cool built-in sharing mechanism. Seeds.
actually we're annoyed that NONE of the candidates (or currently elected congressdroids) are pandering to moveon.org's positions. Impeachment is off the table, we can't deny Bush his war funding, etc.
Well, it's true that the violent language in the story could have been toned down and the point could still have gotten across, but avid, hardcore newsreaders find that the realism of the more violent mental imagery in the article lends itself to a more thoroughly immersive and enjoyable reading experience. People like you who decry the violent language in the article are just trying to suppress the free speech rights of its author. If you don't like the paper, you don;t have to buy it!
Slashdot Mirror
practical jokes don't count.
They would not have been able to just waltz through screening and kill people like they did.
Since the 9/11 hijackers all had valid ID, were here legally, had legal tickets, etc... and passed all of the screening procedures... with THIS in place, they would have had to WAIT 72 hours before killing 3000 people. See the difference?
Yeah, this is true... but they can't give out the peace prize to anyone for anything involving the Iraq war, can they? The war is far from solved, and anyone with any power to do anything about it not only isn't trying to stop it, they LIKE it and want a sequel in Iran. Now, if they had a Nobel WAR prize, there would be plenty of candidates.
He got modded up and you got modded troll. Looks like Limbaugh listeners got the mod points today.
He used the word creating, as in to bring about the internet as we know it now, by pushing for funding. He did NOT use the word inventing.
It might be a good idea for people to carry butterfly nets to protests from now on though. Imagine what a great blog post that would make if you caught one! You last blog post maybe, but still, a great one...
Why, that's just anti-American, pointing out history like that!
Damn, and I used up all my mods points... else you would get modded up. Nobody seems to know or care that the 9/11 hijackers all were here legally, all had valid ID, all had valid tickets, none were carrying prohibited items. Nobody seems to care that we're reducing the civil rights of Americans in response to 9/11, when 9/11 ITSELF was proof that the very things we're doing would not have stopped the attacks. It's like being afraid of strangers because you keep getting mugged at family reunions. Nonsensical.
Depends on on your level in the organization. If you do this and you're just a peon, you get fired. If you do this and you're the CEO, then a department gets axed and bunch of peons get fired, you retire with a several million dollar golden parachute and stock options.
It's true that some people think of it as stealing - but that's a very recent development, and is a direct result of a deliberate propaganda and marketing campaign. The RIAA and MPAA routinely lie, make false accusations, and claim legal rights that they just don't have. They flat out LIE. They claim that there's no such thing as fair use when the law says that there is.
They deliberately misinform, and some people buy it. Gullible people.
Under the law, it is NOT stealing. It's copyright infringement. VERY different.
Who says it's not stealing? The Supreme Court says its not stealing. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207: "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.""
In other words, you're wrong.
The RIAA isn't ethical in its business practices, why should they be in their litigation?
I have all kinds of digestive problems 20 years later, can I sue?
They have proved it - they have DNA evidence, which as every CSI viewer knows, is infallible!
Fast forward 20 years - you have long since outgrown your reckless youth, are a responsible, caring member of society and as part of that you give blood and registered in the bone marrow database.
You're called - there's someone in another state that needs marrow, and you're a match! You're actually thrilled at the idea of being a part of saving a life. A young teenager needs your help. You know what it's like to be a teen who needs help.
Another 10 years pass and someone is murdered. Blood samples show not only the victim's blood, but the attacker's - she got in a few scratches before succumbing. They test the DNA, search the database, and BINGO - YOU'RE the match. You were on vacation in Barcelona, your wife swears its true. But hey, the expert says you have to be the guy, and so you get the death penalty for the vicious murder.
You could have gotten off with life in prison, but since you are so cold, so uncaring, so unwilling to show remorse for your crime, protesting your innocence all along, they show no mercy.
so... burning DVDs isn't tool use unless you do it with a handheld laser that you flicker on and off yourself while spinning the disk on your finger?
How can that be? You have lost nothing, you have felt nothing, you have experienced nothing. The only thing that has happened is that someone now has something that you also have. If you consider THAT to be a violation, then essentially what you assert is NOT the right to ownership, but rather the right to deny OTHERS ownership.
That's a very special kind of greed... an interesting and deep pathology. It's not good enough for you to have something, you have to make sure nobody else has one too, or you're violated.
Actually, they did more than that - many dems voted to condemn MoveOn for it - to their eternal shame... because yes, MoveOn "gets to" say that, it's this funny free speech thing we've got for the moment. Same way Rush Limbaugh gets to say the stuff he does. Odd that you chose not to mention the resolution condemning MoveOn (which should never have happened) and that you don't mention Republicans not pushing for a resolution condemning Rush (which also should not happen) and how that might be pandering.
All politicians pander, but of late Republicans have made it an art form.
No, but I do encourage idiotic trolls who post completely irrelevant things. Hence this reply.
Realizing that war had been declared on me, I decided on my response. I would never again buy one of their products as long as I live. NEVER. That was years ago, I still haven't, and I never will.
I won. Their war against me is over, I won.
There's a larger war they're waging, of course, and it's important that we fight that one too... but each individual has had their own war declared against them, and each individual can win in the same way I did.
Incidentally, I just bought a new piano and am composing some of the best stuff I've ever done. I'm not doing without music.
If you could "take" my computer, pot, food, books, or anything I own by easily making your own copy at essentially no cost to you in money or time - meanwhile leaving me still in possession of the things you copied, I'd not only be ok with you doing it, I'd encourage you.
As a matter of fact, cannabis, like all plants has its own cool built-in sharing mechanism. Seeds.
actually we're annoyed that NONE of the candidates (or currently elected congressdroids) are pandering to moveon.org's positions. Impeachment is off the table, we can't deny Bush his war funding, etc.
Well, it's true that the violent language in the story could have been toned down and the point could still have gotten across, but avid, hardcore newsreaders find that the realism of the more violent mental imagery in the article lends itself to a more thoroughly immersive and enjoyable reading experience. People like you who decry the violent language in the article are just trying to suppress the free speech rights of its author. If you don't like the paper, you don;t have to buy it!
thank you.