Even if the shoplifter should be prosecuted (i.e. even if your physical-vs-virtual analogy held), should the store holder be entitled to compensation? If so, why?
I thought I had spelled it out enough for you, but evidently not.
When you are a slave, no matter what you do, you cannot gain your freedom. When you face potential damages for downloading copyrighted songs that you don't want to pay for, you have the choice of not downloading them.
Do you understand the difference between the two situations? Then you understand that your forefathers would be horrified at your cheapening their experience by likening it to your own position.
The straw man is yours: I never said that you said anything about your black brothers being inferior. You said that the position you would find yourself in if you downloaded music illegally (facing damages) is like slavery (i.e., unavoidable). The implication is clear: you have no choice but to download music without the permission of the copyright holder. The law says that this is stealing, so you imply that you have no choice but to steal.
The reality remains, that some sales are lost due to illegal downloading, and that the victims are entitled to compensation.
The reality remains that some sales are gained due to illegal downloading. If those sales outweigh the sales lost, how are punitive measures justified?
Clearly, the effects of changing the past take time to ripple through, um, time... hence the "fading" of people from photographs (not sure why certain body parts fade before others though). So Biff made it back to unaltered 1985 because he came back really quickly and sped past the ripple.
There's a bootstrapping problem, but there's no logic error, as long as there's a closed loop (e.g. parts from the Terminator being used to create the technology that leads to the Terminator being created).
It's quite a bit harder to kill somebody (especially two people) by stabbing or bashing than by shooting. emphasis is mine.
I still say this is incorrect, and I showed you why.
I didn't say that, but I agree with the person that did, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever in support of your claim. Whereas it's plain to anyone who's even tried to bring a sledgehammer'd head down at full swing on a human-head-sized piece of rock, that shooting such a rock point blank with a gun would be considerably easier.
Either God went through a pretty radical transformation at some point
Well, the God of the New Testament is markedly different -- I suppose if you're going to try to make your new religion stick, you have to make some concessions to the old way of thinking, but to my mind it's the same mistake as Stroustrup made by making functions non-virtual by default in C++...
(Two religious debates in a single sentence, not bad eh?!)
I'm not debating gun control. I'm debating whether or not it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or a sledgehammer. Clearly you don't understand reductio ad absurdem -- for an elaboration of the (I thought rather obvious) point I was making, see my replies to Shakrai in the other part of the thread.
I don't think most (sane) gun owners would deny that it's easy to kill someone with a gun.
I don't know whether he owns a gun, but OneSmartFellow [sic] was doing just that.
What we would deny is that providing justification for taking those guns away from law-abiding citizens that don't kill people over video games.
Though I live in the UK and don't particularly see how your right to bear arms helps you avoid a corrupt government, I do agree that the argument is fallacious (e.g. it leads to taking away pens because they're easier to kill with than teddy bears).
My point is that knowing what to do and being able to do it are not the same thing.
(And yes, I am aware that killing someone with a sledgehammer is easier than beating Usain Bolt in a footrace, but it's even easier still to kill someone with a gun, which the poster to which I replied DENIED.)
Slashdot Mirror
So throw me in jail. But if I could prove that I'd benefitted the copyright holder, how could their claim for financial compensation hold water?
Even if the shoplifter should be prosecuted (i.e. even if your physical-vs-virtual analogy held), should the store holder be entitled to compensation? If so, why?
I thought I had spelled it out enough for you, but evidently not.
When you are a slave, no matter what you do, you cannot gain your freedom.
When you face potential damages for downloading copyrighted songs that you don't want to pay for, you have the choice of not downloading them.
Do you understand the difference between the two situations? Then you understand that your forefathers would be horrified at your cheapening their experience by likening it to your own position.
The straw man is yours: I never said that you said anything about your black brothers being inferior. You said that the position you would find yourself in if you downloaded music illegally (facing damages) is like slavery (i.e., unavoidable). The implication is clear: you have no choice but to download music without the permission of the copyright holder. The law says that this is stealing, so you imply that you have no choice but to steal.
The reality remains, that some sales are lost due to illegal downloading, and that the victims are entitled to compensation.
The reality remains that some sales are gained due to illegal downloading. If those sales outweigh the sales lost, how are punitive measures justified?
Are you one of those trolls trying to imply that black people cannot help themselves but steal?
Or are you simply mistaken that something which comes to pass as a result of your decision to download stuff for free is the same as being a slave?
Your forefathers are turning in their graves.
Am I dreaming, or do I actually agree with every word of one of circletimessquare's posts?
Don't fret it -- see http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1097189&cid=26527959
Clearly, the effects of changing the past take time to ripple through, um, time... hence the "fading" of people from photographs (not sure why certain body parts fade before others though). So Biff made it back to unaltered 1985 because he came back really quickly and sped past the ripple.
There's a bootstrapping problem, but there's no logic error, as long as there's a closed loop (e.g. parts from the Terminator being used to create the technology that leads to the Terminator being created).
Dildos can be vibrating or non-vibrating, just as vibrators can be dildo-shaped or otherwise (e.g. egg-shaped).
Given the amount of dark matter in the universe, there must be a lot of time travellers.
I feel for that customer: there's nothing I hate more than sitting my waiting.
You can't be serious. Moses is a revered religious leader for Christians, Jews, and Muslims -- in other words, the majority of the religious world.
But for atheists, he's just another of those many names.
Wiki entries are not deleted -- they're still there in the history.
I see! I've never heard "the clown" before, so I presumed he was talking about McDonalds. I mean, their food is shit, but not literally.
I may be misremembering -- he had a partner in crime, and maybe 7 whole nutmegs was what they shared between them.
But yes, he said, he later looked up the LD50 and counted himself pretty lucky.
Second-hand: my friend ate about 7 nutmegs (quite close to the LD50, he thinks) and tripped for 4 days. Says it wasn't a whole barrel-load of fun.
My typical day started with a visit to the clown for a #2 with a large coke.
I presume this has some other meaning than my immediate interpretation :)
You said:
It's quite a bit harder to kill somebody (especially two people) by stabbing or bashing than by shooting. emphasis is mine.
I still say this is incorrect, and I showed you why.
I didn't say that, but I agree with the person that did, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever in support of your claim. Whereas it's plain to anyone who's even tried to bring a sledgehammer'd head down at full swing on a human-head-sized piece of rock, that shooting such a rock point blank with a gun would be considerably easier.
At last! Qt has gone LGPL! The final obstacle to our creating a front-end for MySQL has been removed!
What on earth are you talking about?
Either God went through a pretty radical transformation at some point
Well, the God of the New Testament is markedly different -- I suppose if you're going to try to make your new religion stick, you have to make some concessions to the old way of thinking, but to my mind it's the same mistake as Stroustrup made by making functions non-virtual by default in C++...
(Two religious debates in a single sentence, not bad eh?!)
I'm not debating gun control. I'm debating whether or not it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or a sledgehammer. Clearly you don't understand reductio ad absurdem -- for an elaboration of the (I thought rather obvious) point I was making, see my replies to Shakrai in the other part of the thread.
I don't think most (sane) gun owners would deny that it's easy to kill someone with a gun.
I don't know whether he owns a gun, but OneSmartFellow [sic] was doing just that.
What we would deny is that providing justification for taking those guns away from law-abiding citizens that don't kill people over video games.
Though I live in the UK and don't particularly see how your right to bear arms helps you avoid a corrupt government, I do agree that the argument is fallacious (e.g. it leads to taking away pens because they're easier to kill with than teddy bears).
My point is that knowing what to do and being able to do it are not the same thing.
(And yes, I am aware that killing someone with a sledgehammer is easier than beating Usain Bolt in a footrace, but it's even easier still to kill someone with a gun, which the poster to which I replied DENIED.)
It's just obvious that it's simpler.
That'll be why there are so many automatic flying cars on the market!