Monkey see, monkey do. If the corporations see the government standing in the way of corporate profits, they just usurp the power of the people and buy off our elected representatives to get their way. The sword cuts both ways. The corporations are breaking the copyright agreement just as surely as the infringers by not releasing the material into the public domain. If they are not bound by the terms, then neither is the public, and the contract is null and void. I shed not a tear for these bastards, they asked for it.
Incidentally, before you mouth off to me, I don't pirate jack shit. I pay for every book, film, cd I own.
Why do you suppose the software is outdated? Are you suggesting that all the programmers of a decade ago were incompetent? Not everyone needs to update their software with new bells and whistles. Sometimes, things just work.
As somebody else pointed out, even primary sources sometimes have errors. Such great luminaries as Isaac Newton fudged some of his data --- I won't provide any links since the web is not research. Do you recommend that people shun his work?
Good point. Ever since those old Bugs Bunny cartoons, all terrorists and criminal masterminds head off through the woods to a special location with a sign proclaiming "Gangster Hideout" to conduct their affairs.
It's compulsory education not compulsory attendance...
Actually, it's compulsory baby-sitting, preferably at a public school where the student can be indoctrinated and turned into a consumer. As a college instructor who has worked at several community colleges and universities, I can tell you that very little education happens in public schools with the exception of those few who are interested, motivated, and can learn despite the distractions from the rest of the class.
eBay specifically states that any "new" service without a track record of privacy protection and customer service will be scrutinized and most likely prohibited until it has some history.
What a surprise, a pot-smoking libertarian. Just because you want to smoke marijuana does not mean that it should be made legal.
And just because a few greedy, racist, fascists wanted to make marijuana illegal does not mean that it should have been made illegal. You really don't know why it was made illegal, do you? Hint: It wasn't because a majority of voters put it on a referendum.
Sometimes I just want to kill people who tick me off (figuratively speaking), should that be made legal as well, just because I want to?
Changing the topic doesn't support your position.
Until a MAJORITY of voters are able to change the law, the MINORITY of libertarians will not be able to smoke pot legally.
How nice. A MINORITY is able to pass a law that requires a MAJORITY to overturn. That's exactly what's wrong with this country. Thank you.
1937: Marijuana Tax Stamp Act effectively outlaws marijuana.
1970: NORML is formed, and does manage to effect some change.
2006: marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
With the stroke of a pen, a handful of assholes can inact a law that takes a lifetime to repeal. I'll smoke my joint now, thank you very much.
It's not even a new use of this chemical. The people who currently manufacture it are using it to achieve the same effect for which it will be marketed. What's new?
As a currently active college instructor, I think Excel or (insert your favorite spreadsheet) is an excellent tool for education. Any discipline requiring data collection and massaging (such as chemistry or physics) will benefit from a spreadsheet. Initially I used one for recording/calculating grades. Now I use it for a variety of applications.
You forgot drugs. Remember the Drug Omnibus Bill allowing the cops to confiscate all your property, say that it was used to receive, store, transport drugs, without actually charging you with anything. Then to regain your property, you have to prove its innocence... good luck with that.
I knew at least one. About a decade ago, a 15-year-old was listening to a conversation I was having with his mother. I mentioned that I had several 45's, to which he said that he didn't know I was a gun collector.
Scott Cleland: Amazingly, the proponents of this radical change in policy don't even have any real evidence of a problem, only unsubstantiated assertions about hypothetical problems.
It's called a concern. If I hand some firecrackers and some matches to my 6-year-old and turn him loose, I don't have any real evidence of a problem, only unsubstatiated assertions about hypothetical problems.
Ahh, I see. However, the discriminating ear has to put up with the same thing. I myself prefer Roger Norrington's interpretation of Beethoven's 9th (on EMI) over Leonard Bernstein's (on Deutsche Grammophon). You just can't win.
Note 1: anyone is free to make recordings of classical music which has entered the public domain.
That's a tautology. I can also freely make recordings of rock'n'roll music which has entered the public domain. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
It's called "due process". Or maybe you prefer the cops play judge/jury/executioner and shoot anyone who has checked out that library book just to be on the safe side.
The burden is that it mandates that others take responsibility for your child. That's your job. If other people want to volunteer to help you, great! Should they be forced to? Hell no.
Sure you are. If you cannot raise your child without government intervention, you shouldn't be having children.
What I am admitting, however, is that I am incapable of raising a child who always makes good decisions, which is exactly why we don't let minors buy beer or watch R rated movies.
Because if we disallow beer, video games, and R rated movies, all children will make good decisions, right? Just like they did in the days before any of those things existed.
And yes, I view violent videogames as harmful for small children the same way I view violent movies as harmful, and would therefore appreciate some help from society at large with helping to keep my children from making obviously bad choices.
Maybe society doesn't want to help you --- I certainly don't. How about you take responsibility for raising your own children. Maybe you are afraid of taking responsibility. The Columbine duo didn't kill because of poor parenting. Marilyn Manson was to blame. It sounds better that way, especially for the parents.
I love how everything comes down to "be a better parent," especially from people who are obviously childless.
I have two children, thanks.
You'd think more people would want to help me raise a good kid, especially when it costs them nothing. I can't watch him 24 hours a day, and he's not being raised in a vaccuum. You want more roaming gangs of uncontrollable children in the future?
Oh, where do I begin? First, show me how access to violent videogames produces "roaming gangs of uncontrollable children". How do you account for gang violence before the advent of video games, hmmm? Gun control advocates make the same error. Violence has been, is, and always will be regardless of whether people play violent video games or read the Bible, whether they use a gun or a knife.
In the second place, even if your thesis is correct, you are admitting that you are incapable of instilling morals and ethics into your children, enabling them to make informed decisions about their entertainment and lifestyle; and therefore need the government to intervene. Ergo, you are admitting that you are a bad parent. Furthermore, this law won't prevent other bad parents from purchasing the games for their children, thereby leading them to "roaming uncontrollably".
In conclusion, the law does not accomplish your objective. Talk straight to your kids. Voice your concerns to them. Don't burden society with it.
And I told you that your authority as a parent is going to be injured anyway. That is not the problem of the state and federal governments. That is your problem. Be a better parent, and discuss things with your children instead of whining to the government whenever you stub your toe.
And I refer you to my reply. Murder, rape, arson, burglary are crimes against the public and have real victims who suffer real losses. It is in the interest of society to capture, reprimand, jail these individuals so that they do not claim more victims. Someone selling a videogame injures no one.
Taking your logic to the extreme, I don't want my children to spray grafitti on bridges or buildings. Is the answer to petition Congress to forbid Wal-Mart from selling paint to minors? Where do you stop with this absurdity? I'll answer that for you: You stop legislating at the point where people do not lose life, limb, or property. That is, when there are no victims.
If your children don't get it from the game merchant, and they want it, they will get it from a friend --- you are naive to think otherwise. So the net result of these laws is to further stress the overburdened legal system, fine businesses, and inculcate disrespect for the law --- your parental authority will still be usurped. Get over it.
Nice straw man. I hope you are capable of distinguishing between crimes with victims, and victimless crimes. Who is the victim when a child plays a violent video game?
Right. And ratings are designed to help you with this, so your kid can't sneak off and buy Blood Drinking Hell Guys 4 without your knowledge and play it at his friends house.
Right. And we all know that as long as the stores cannot sell violent video games, pornography, alcohol, and tobacco to minors, they will have zero access to it through people that the stores do sell it to.
Slashdot Mirror
Monkey see, monkey do. If the corporations see the government standing in the way of corporate profits, they just usurp the power of the people and buy off our elected representatives to get their way. The sword cuts both ways. The corporations are breaking the copyright agreement just as surely as the infringers by not releasing the material into the public domain. If they are not bound by the terms, then neither is the public, and the contract is null and void. I shed not a tear for these bastards, they asked for it.
Incidentally, before you mouth off to me, I don't pirate jack shit. I pay for every book, film, cd I own.
Why do you suppose the software is outdated? Are you suggesting that all the programmers of a decade ago were incompetent? Not everyone needs to update their software with new bells and whistles. Sometimes, things just work.
As somebody else pointed out, even primary sources sometimes have errors. Such great luminaries as Isaac Newton fudged some of his data --- I won't provide any links since the web is not research. Do you recommend that people shun his work?
Good point. Ever since those old Bugs Bunny cartoons, all terrorists and criminal masterminds head off through the woods to a special location with a sign proclaiming "Gangster Hideout" to conduct their affairs.
Consumption drives the economy, which is why the school system was set up in the first place.
It's compulsory education not compulsory attendance ...
Actually, it's compulsory baby-sitting, preferably at a public school where the student can be indoctrinated and turned into a consumer. As a college instructor who has worked at several community colleges and universities, I can tell you that very little education happens in public schools with the exception of those few who are interested, motivated, and can learn despite the distractions from the rest of the class.
eBay specifically states that any "new" service without a track record of privacy protection and customer service will be scrutinized and most likely prohibited until it has some history.
Paypal has some history
What a surprise, a pot-smoking libertarian. Just because you want to smoke marijuana does not mean that it should be made legal.
And just because a few greedy, racist, fascists wanted to make marijuana illegal does not mean that it should have been made illegal. You really don't know why it was made illegal, do you? Hint: It wasn't because a majority of voters put it on a referendum.
Sometimes I just want to kill people who tick me off (figuratively speaking), should that be made legal as well, just because I want to?
Changing the topic doesn't support your position.
Until a MAJORITY of voters are able to change the law, the MINORITY of libertarians will not be able to smoke pot legally.
How nice. A MINORITY is able to pass a law that requires a MAJORITY to overturn. That's exactly what's wrong with this country. Thank you.
Yeah, whatever.
1937: Marijuana Tax Stamp Act effectively outlaws marijuana.
1970: NORML is formed, and does manage to effect some change.
2006: marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
With the stroke of a pen, a handful of assholes can inact a law that takes a lifetime to repeal. I'll smoke my joint now, thank you very much.
It's not even a new use of this chemical. The people who currently manufacture it are using it to achieve the same effect for which it will be marketed. What's new?
As a currently active college instructor, I think Excel or (insert your favorite spreadsheet) is an excellent tool for education. Any discipline requiring data collection and massaging (such as chemistry or physics) will benefit from a spreadsheet. Initially I used one for recording/calculating grades. Now I use it for a variety of applications.
You forgot drugs. Remember the Drug Omnibus Bill allowing the cops to confiscate all your property, say that it was used to receive, store, transport drugs, without actually charging you with anything. Then to regain your property, you have to prove its innocence ... good luck with that.
I knew at least one. About a decade ago, a 15-year-old was listening to a conversation I was having with his mother. I mentioned that I had several 45's, to which he said that he didn't know I was a gun collector.
Scott Cleland: Amazingly, the proponents of this radical change in policy don't even have any real evidence of a problem, only unsubstantiated assertions about hypothetical problems.
It's called a concern. If I hand some firecrackers and some matches to my 6-year-old and turn him loose, I don't have any real evidence of a problem, only unsubstatiated assertions about hypothetical problems.
Ahh, I see. However, the discriminating ear has to put up with the same thing. I myself prefer Roger Norrington's interpretation of Beethoven's 9th (on EMI) over Leonard Bernstein's (on Deutsche Grammophon). You just can't win.
Note 1: anyone is free to make recordings of classical music which has entered the public domain.
That's a tautology. I can also freely make recordings of rock'n'roll music which has entered the public domain. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
It's called "due process". Or maybe you prefer the cops play judge/jury/executioner and shoot anyone who has checked out that library book just to be on the safe side.
The burden is that it mandates that others take responsibility for your child. That's your job. If other people want to volunteer to help you, great! Should they be forced to? Hell no.
I am admitting no such thing.
Sure you are. If you cannot raise your child without government intervention, you shouldn't be having children.
What I am admitting, however, is that I am incapable of raising a child who always makes good decisions, which is exactly why we don't let minors buy beer or watch R rated movies.
Because if we disallow beer, video games, and R rated movies, all children will make good decisions, right? Just like they did in the days before any of those things existed.
And yes, I view violent videogames as harmful for small children the same way I view violent movies as harmful, and would therefore appreciate some help from society at large with helping to keep my children from making obviously bad choices.
Maybe society doesn't want to help you --- I certainly don't. How about you take responsibility for raising your own children. Maybe you are afraid of taking responsibility. The Columbine duo didn't kill because of poor parenting. Marilyn Manson was to blame. It sounds better that way, especially for the parents.
I love how everything comes down to "be a better parent," especially from people who are obviously childless.
I have two children, thanks.
You'd think more people would want to help me raise a good kid, especially when it costs them nothing. I can't watch him 24 hours a day, and he's not being raised in a vaccuum. You want more roaming gangs of uncontrollable children in the future?
Oh, where do I begin? First, show me how access to violent videogames produces "roaming gangs of uncontrollable children". How do you account for gang violence before the advent of video games, hmmm? Gun control advocates make the same error. Violence has been, is, and always will be regardless of whether people play violent video games or read the Bible, whether they use a gun or a knife.
In the second place, even if your thesis is correct, you are admitting that you are incapable of instilling morals and ethics into your children, enabling them to make informed decisions about their entertainment and lifestyle; and therefore need the government to intervene. Ergo, you are admitting that you are a bad parent. Furthermore, this law won't prevent other bad parents from purchasing the games for their children, thereby leading them to "roaming uncontrollably".
In conclusion, the law does not accomplish your objective. Talk straight to your kids. Voice your concerns to them. Don't burden society with it.
And I told you that your authority as a parent is going to be injured anyway. That is not the problem of the state and federal governments. That is your problem. Be a better parent, and discuss things with your children instead of whining to the government whenever you stub your toe.
And I refer you to my reply. Murder, rape, arson, burglary are crimes against the public and have real victims who suffer real losses. It is in the interest of society to capture, reprimand, jail these individuals so that they do not claim more victims. Someone selling a videogame injures no one.
Taking your logic to the extreme, I don't want my children to spray grafitti on bridges or buildings. Is the answer to petition Congress to forbid Wal-Mart from selling paint to minors? Where do you stop with this absurdity? I'll answer that for you: You stop legislating at the point where people do not lose life, limb, or property. That is, when there are no victims.
If your children don't get it from the game merchant, and they want it, they will get it from a friend --- you are naive to think otherwise. So the net result of these laws is to further stress the overburdened legal system, fine businesses, and inculcate disrespect for the law --- your parental authority will still be usurped. Get over it.
Nice straw man. I hope you are capable of distinguishing between crimes with victims, and victimless crimes. Who is the victim when a child plays a violent video game?
Right. And ratings are designed to help you with this, so your kid can't sneak off and buy Blood Drinking Hell Guys 4 without your knowledge and play it at his friends house.
Right. And we all know that as long as the stores cannot sell violent video games, pornography, alcohol, and tobacco to minors, they will have zero access to it through people that the stores do sell it to.