"Litigation never solved anything in this world, it only creates more hatred for one another. It goes against the very purpose of law by promoting and supporting inequality, which is directly detrimental to the health and safety of everyone."
There's nothing quite so ignorant as making a sweeping generalization about *anything* to *everyone.*
I very much doubt you think the Jim crow laws should have stood in place, or that the Nuremberg trials didn't serve any purpose, or that the Exxon Valdez didn't represent a problem that needed to be addressed in one of the few ways that corporations care about: their pocketbooks.
The list goes on and on.
My point is, not all litigation is bad, even that of copyright infringement (http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Vanilla/Vanilla.aspx)
Is litigation abused, yes it is. Should alternatives be explored? Of course. But sweeping generalizations like "Litigation never solved anything," only make things worse.
"Look at how many politicians take money from anti-abortion groups in full knowledge that they can rant and rave about abortion, but the law is unlikely to change."
I'm not sure you've looked at the makeup of SCOTUS, and their decisions, recently. They've moved in significant ways to the Right. Don't take my word for it - read for yourself:
Many people seem to think laws are immutable. Often this is not the case, and if you think the abstract concept of "abortion rights" is set in stone, you may be in store for some surprises over the next 20 years.
Laws typically have punishments as means of enforcement. I highly doubt "Life" was the sole "punishment" that Washington state lawmakers had in mind when their legislation was crafted, unless they meant to be tongue-in-cheek, which I highly doubt.
How does one "punish" one who wants to die or has tried? Clearly one implication meant by your answer is: to not let them. But your juvenile response does nothing to answer the question of "how?" Instead, it could lend to or imply the following type of exchange (please excuse my Reductio Ad Absurdum):
Washington State: Don't kill yourself! Dejected Person: Why not? (my) Life is hopless! Washington State: It's Illegal! Dejected Person: So! That's the least of my worries! Washington State: If you try to kill yourself, we'll arrest you! Dejected Person: (thinks a moment and applies his/her morbid logic to the problem) ***BANG!!*** State of Washington: Arrest that corpse!
I think the telcos have already demonstrated they don't have any problems screwing their p2p customers in particular, as they often make continuous use of bandwidth they pay for, but are expected to rarely use, as Jane and Joe Websurfer do.
To the extent that big telcos can cooperate to allow the impact of p2p traffic to be reduced, I think that's a reasonable expectation (as long as they aren't potentially liable for it), but don't hope for more cooperation unless something in the equation changes to somehow give them an opportunity for more profit.
I think the major telcos have demonstrated that they don't care if they screw p2p customers in particular in the pursuit of profits. This is especially true since p2p users have habit of actually using the bandwidth they're entitled use (constantly), but are expected in practice not to, like Jane and Joe Websurfer.
OK, I know this is off topic, but if suicide is illegal in the state of Washington, can someone please tell me what the "punishment" for attempted suicide is (since successful suicide would appear to be too late)?
I'm genuinely curious; this is not meant to be a troll. Hopefully some meaningful intervention is mandated to help the victim.
"If doing harm is profitable, corporations are programmed to do harm. They are programmed to do anything they can get away with. It is up to the government which created these extraordinary creatures to limit what they can get away with."
As the president of a small "C" corporation, I found the arguments asserted in the movie more or less persuasive, particularly with regard to multi-nationals. To me, it seems like, in many cases, the larger and older the corporation, the more it focuses solely on income regardless of the activity required to get there, as long as it is legal or can be done without net loss financially (even if it is or may be illegal).
I'll admit I didn't use citations to support my argument but yours were not at all strengthened by your lack of the same.
Your rebuttals have some problems in that they also seem to come from your favorite pundits:
1) "your use of the word 'illegal' in reference to surveillance on overseas communications is just pure spin."
FISA clearly states it's illegal to wiretap on US citizens who are on US soil communicating with other US citizens on US soil without a warrant. Bush has admitted this was done under his orders. That was (and still is) illegal. Your erroneous attempts to state it was in reference to overseas communication is a red herring.
2) on WMDs "Leadership in the senate and the congress digested the same information."
This was a major point of contention by Bush vs Kerry during the 2004 re-election campaign. It was proven later on that Bush did, in fact, know that his statement during his state of the union address, where he stated the Iraqi Gov't was attempting to obtain tubes for uranium enrichment, was very much in doubt by the CIA.
Yet Bush stated it was fact, not mere suspicion. Dick Cheney himself was known to have leaned on the CIA to only produce official data that supported the administrations assertions in this regard.
3) re: Valerie Plame "her husband repeatedly lied about the nature of the little trip he went on and on the conclusions that could be drawn from it."
Those are interesting assertions I haven't heard before. You have proof?
"You really should come up with better examples of "crime," since you've got that one pretty much exactly backwards."
This one's pretty important, so I did some digging:
On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four felony counts for obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to federal investigators. That sounds pretty ugly to me. ["Cheney's top aide indicted; CIA leak probe continues", CNN, 2005-10-29. Retrieved on 2008-01-02.]
Libby resigned from his positions as Cheney's chief of staff and assistant on national security affairs after his indictment in 2005. The National Journal reported that Libby had stated before a grand jury that his superiors, including Vice President Cheney, had authorized him to disclose classified information to the press regarding Iraq's weapons intelligence on February 9, 2006. [Waas, Murray. "Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information", The National Journal, 2006-02-09. Retrieved on 2007-12-13.]
Armitage later said he was the source of the leak. What did Congress do after he said this? Nothing.
"Saying you can't trust Congress to do the right thing with sensitive information is basically a repudiation of democracy."
Unfortunately, this has already been shown to be the case with respect to the allegations of illegal wiretapping by President Bush. It was the responsibility, and duty, of Congress to demand and conduct an (at least partially public) investigation into the activities of the president and his minions.
Congress also let him off the hook on WMD misrepresentation (Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?), Illegal Torture authorization (which he admitted to by the way) and Guantanamo detainees (Geneva Convention). Other potential crimes (e.g. Valerie Plame) could not be directly linked to him but dirty his name, and that of his administration, nonetheless.
Congress abdicated their duties with regard to the separation of powers, international law, the constitution, and public trust - over and over again, because its members were (and still are) afraid of even being *accused* of being soft on terrorism.
So please don't tell me we can trust Congress to do the right thing. They've already proven they can't and won't, even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
"However if you don't pay the fines *nothing* happens."
This is also true in Cleveland, Ohio, since red-light camera violations are civil, not criminal violations (in the state of Ohio, anyway).
Until, of course, you want to renew your drivers license. Then you not only have to pay the fine but a substantial penalty as well. Unlike criminal vehicular violations, which have a statute of limitations, civil infractions/verdicts have no such limits. This is how the city gets away with nailing you at the bureau of motor vehicles; the same way they do with parking tickets.
I'm very curious if this is the same in your state, too. And if so, if you've tried to renew *your* license.
I personally like the idea of splitting the first Dune book into 2 or three really well made movies (probably three, in a similar vein to the Matrix Trilogy) with a budget to back up the special effects in a way that shows it wasn't made for the sci-fi channel (no offense intended to you SF channel fans out there). Also, to do them to well and true to every line in the book, what kind of an audience would it appeal to, outside of/.ers?
Those are the words that millions of Americans could hear if Congress passes the SAVE Act.
The SAVE Act would require every employer in the U.S. to use so-called "electronic employment verification," cross-checking all current and potential employees' citizenship status against databases that the government itself knows are filled with errors and inaccuracies.
And what if the Social Security Administration (SSA) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) get it wrong and can't verify a person's citizenship or right to work using their buggy database? Tough luck. That person is out of a job, with no right to appeal. And you don't even need to have your identity stolen to be so unlucky.
(IANAL). If the lawyers disregarded the judge's instructions, shouldn't the judge have found them in contempt of court and declared a mistrial? It seems like waiting until the jury came to a decision and then overturning it doesn't result in a fair verdict.
He *could* have chosen to hold their hands (like small children), but he did not. More importantly, he DID NOT HAVE TO. These were experienced trial lawyers. They should have known better than to ignore Matsch's instructions, which were well within the realm of judicial authority & precedent.
They *were* warned. They *chose* to ignore the Judge's instructions (over and over again). They paid the price. Finally, the Appeals court agreed with the judge's reasoning.
I had a NRFB MSOffice product posted on eBay and it was yanked by the Microsoft police because it was an "educational version." Their argument was, since I couldn't guarantee it would be sold to a qualified educational beneficiary as per their license distribution agreement, it was illegal.
"Will this set a precedent for other companies that want to stop the aftermarket resale of their products?"
It's already been happening. eBay is huge. It has slowly evolved/mutated over time, partially as a result of being pwned by entities with big money. This is just another example of why people do use other on-line auction houses (and should use them more).
I, personally, agree with what you said, but please do not underestimate:
* the spin-doctors in Washington abilities to take a vote or a law and have people believe it's something completely different * People's oftentimes unjustified faith in the Bush admin's efforts to keep us safe or uphold the constitution * the gullibility of the general electorate.
I remind you to look at the 2004 general election as an example of these principles in action. Please don't make the mistake of assuming everyone is as enlightened/informed/well-read as you; in the slashdot crowd you are (largely) preaching to the choir.
That's an interesting idea. Another idea could be something like what is used here on/.
Buyers and sellers could "opt-in" to a moderated rating system. Under such a system, meta-moderators could rate buyer or seller feedback as "fair" or "unfair" depending on the justification for the rating by the buyer/seller. Buyer or seller could leave the the moderated user-rating system at any time, but could not re-enter once they leave. "Fair" ratings would remain, while "unfair" ratings would not, and enough "unfair" rating would be noted in the respective accounts.
That would still leave the question of who watches the watchers, or how one could get to meta-moderate, but it's a place to start.
I've had cable outages with TWC and crummy internet from time to time. When that has happened, I just called and asked for a service credit, which I received.
That has got to be one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard.
Google's referencing of copyrighted.torrent files is a small, arguably incidental, part of what it does; the Pirate Bay uses advertising for the *almost* exclusive purpose of facilitating file-sharing of copyrighted materials.
True, there's probably some.torrent files on the site that allow the sharing of files without copyrights, but that's not the reason for the vast majority of traffic on the The Pirate Bay.
I haven't said a thank you like that with such heartfelt gratitude to a politician in a long time.
A ray of light in an era where the "threat of terrorism" is the darkness where our rights and freedoms are taken away one law, one amendment at a time.
(Yes, I did call my Senator today - not him. Yes I belong to the ACLU, the EFF and MoveOn.org)
Senator Chris Dodd's (D-CN) effort to filibuster the Telcomm immunity provision in the U.S. Senate failed by a Cloture vote of 76 to 10. The (amended) bill will now be considered on the full Senate floor.
I contacted one of my Senators, Sherrod Brown (D-OH). For the record, he is supporting Chris Dodd's (D-CONN) Filibuster of the telecomm immunity provision. I am unsure of Voinovich's (R-OH) position, but suspect he's for the immunity.
Slashdot Mirror
"Litigation never solved anything in this world, it only creates more hatred for one another. It goes against the very purpose of law by promoting and supporting inequality, which is directly detrimental to the health and safety of everyone."
There's nothing quite so ignorant as making a sweeping generalization about *anything* to *everyone.*
I very much doubt you think the Jim crow laws should have stood in place, or that the Nuremberg trials didn't serve any purpose, or that the Exxon Valdez didn't represent a problem that needed to be addressed in one of the few ways that corporations care about: their pocketbooks.
The list goes on and on.
My point is, not all litigation is bad, even that of copyright infringement (http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Vanilla/Vanilla.aspx)
Is litigation abused, yes it is. Should alternatives be explored? Of course. But sweeping generalizations like "Litigation never solved anything," only make things worse.
"Look at how many politicians take money from anti-abortion groups in full knowledge that they can rant and rave about abortion, but the law is unlikely to change."
I'm not sure you've looked at the makeup of SCOTUS, and their decisions, recently. They've moved in significant ways to the Right. Don't take my word for it - read for yourself:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Political_leanings
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42160
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court
Many people seem to think laws are immutable. Often this is not the case, and if you think the abstract concept of "abortion rights" is set in stone, you may be in store for some surprises over the next 20 years.
Laws typically have punishments as means of enforcement. I highly doubt "Life" was the sole "punishment" that Washington state lawmakers had in mind when their legislation was crafted, unless they meant to be tongue-in-cheek, which I highly doubt.
How does one "punish" one who wants to die or has tried? Clearly one implication meant by your answer is: to not let them. But your juvenile response does nothing to answer the question of "how?" Instead, it could lend to or imply the following type of exchange (please excuse my Reductio Ad Absurdum):
Washington State: Don't kill yourself!
Dejected Person: Why not? (my) Life is hopless!
Washington State: It's Illegal!
Dejected Person: So! That's the least of my worries!
Washington State: If you try to kill yourself, we'll arrest you!
Dejected Person: (thinks a moment and applies his/her morbid logic to the problem)
***BANG!!***
State of Washington: Arrest that corpse!
I think the telcos have already demonstrated they don't have any problems screwing their p2p customers in particular, as they often make continuous use of bandwidth they pay for, but are expected to rarely use, as Jane and Joe Websurfer do.
To the extent that big telcos can cooperate to allow the impact of p2p traffic to be reduced, I think that's a reasonable expectation (as long as they aren't potentially liable for it), but don't hope for more cooperation unless something in the equation changes to somehow give them an opportunity for more profit.
I think the major telcos have demonstrated that they don't care if they screw p2p customers in particular in the pursuit of profits. This is especially true since p2p users have habit of actually using the bandwidth they're entitled use (constantly), but are expected in practice not to, like Jane and Joe Websurfer.
OK, I know this is off topic, but if suicide is illegal in the state of Washington, can someone please tell me what the "punishment" for attempted suicide is (since successful suicide would appear to be too late)?
I'm genuinely curious; this is not meant to be a troll. Hopefully some meaningful intervention is mandated to help the victim.
"If doing harm is profitable, corporations are programmed to do harm. They are programmed to do anything they can get away with. It is up to the government which created these extraordinary creatures to limit what they can get away with."
That sounds like something straight out of the documentary "The Corporation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation
Have you seen it? (I have).
As the president of a small "C" corporation, I found the arguments asserted in the movie more or less persuasive, particularly with regard to multi-nationals. To me, it seems like, in many cases, the larger and older the corporation, the more it focuses solely on income regardless of the activity required to get there, as long as it is legal or can be done without net loss financially (even if it is or may be illegal).
The RIAA is a perfect example of this.
I'll admit I didn't use citations to support my argument but yours were not at all strengthened by your lack of the same.
Your rebuttals have some problems in that they also seem to come from your favorite pundits:
1) "your use of the word 'illegal' in reference to surveillance on overseas communications is just pure spin."
FISA clearly states it's illegal to wiretap on US citizens who are on US soil communicating with other US citizens on US soil without a warrant. Bush has admitted this was done under his orders. That was (and still is) illegal. Your erroneous attempts to state it was in reference to overseas communication is a red herring.
2) on WMDs "Leadership in the senate and the congress digested the same information."
This was a major point of contention by Bush vs Kerry during the 2004 re-election campaign. It was proven later on that Bush did, in fact, know that his statement during his state of the union address, where he stated the Iraqi Gov't was attempting to obtain tubes for uranium enrichment, was very much in doubt by the CIA.
Yet Bush stated it was fact, not mere suspicion. Dick Cheney himself was known to have leaned on the CIA to only produce official data that supported the administrations assertions in this regard.
3) re: Valerie Plame "her husband repeatedly lied about the nature of the little trip he went on and on the conclusions that could be drawn from it."
Those are interesting assertions I haven't heard before. You have proof?
"You really should come up with better examples of "crime," since you've got that one pretty much exactly backwards."
This one's pretty important, so I did some digging:
On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four felony counts for obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to federal investigators. That sounds pretty ugly to me.
["Cheney's top aide indicted; CIA leak probe continues", CNN, 2005-10-29. Retrieved on 2008-01-02.]
Libby resigned from his positions as Cheney's chief of staff and assistant on national security affairs after his indictment in 2005. The National Journal reported that Libby had stated before a grand jury that his superiors, including Vice President Cheney, had authorized him to disclose classified information to the press regarding Iraq's weapons intelligence on February 9, 2006.
[Waas, Murray. "Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information", The National Journal, 2006-02-09. Retrieved on 2007-12-13.]
Armitage later said he was the source of the leak. What did Congress do after he said this? Nothing.
"Saying you can't trust Congress to do the right thing with sensitive information is basically a repudiation of democracy."
Unfortunately, this has already been shown to be the case with respect to the allegations of illegal wiretapping by President Bush. It was the responsibility, and duty, of Congress to demand and conduct an (at least partially public) investigation into the activities of the president and his minions.
Congress also let him off the hook on WMD misrepresentation (Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?), Illegal Torture authorization (which he admitted to by the way) and Guantanamo detainees (Geneva Convention). Other potential crimes (e.g. Valerie Plame) could not be directly linked to him but dirty his name, and that of his administration, nonetheless.
Congress abdicated their duties with regard to the separation of powers, international law, the constitution, and public trust - over and over again, because its members were (and still are) afraid of even being *accused* of being soft on terrorism.
So please don't tell me we can trust Congress to do the right thing. They've already proven they can't and won't, even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
Dude,
That was, by far one, of the most polite and well researched (i.e. educational) responses to an ignorant criticism that I have ever seen.
Well done sir.
"However if you don't pay the fines *nothing* happens."
This is also true in Cleveland, Ohio, since red-light camera violations are civil, not criminal violations (in the state of Ohio, anyway).
Until, of course, you want to renew your drivers license. Then you not only have to pay the fine but a substantial penalty as well. Unlike criminal vehicular violations, which have a statute of limitations, civil infractions/verdicts have no such limits. This is how the city gets away with nailing you at the bureau of motor vehicles; the same way they do with parking tickets.
I'm very curious if this is the same in your state, too. And if so, if you've tried to renew *your* license.
I personally like the idea of splitting the first Dune book into 2 or three really well made movies (probably three, in a similar vein to the Matrix Trilogy) with a budget to back up the special effects in a way that shows it wasn't made for the sci-fi channel (no offense intended to you SF channel fans out there). Also, to do them to well and true to every line in the book, what kind of an audience would it appeal to, outside of /.ers?
It does make me wonder if he has any recourse vs. having his life turned completely upside down.
My guess is no.
From the Democratic Underground:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3100544
"You're fired!"
Those are the words that millions of Americans could hear if Congress passes the SAVE Act.
The SAVE Act would require every employer in the U.S. to use so-called "electronic employment verification," cross-checking all current and potential employees' citizenship status against databases that the government itself knows are filled with errors and inaccuracies.
And what if the Social Security Administration (SSA) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) get it wrong and can't verify a person's citizenship or right to work using their buggy database? Tough luck. That person is out of a job, with no right to appeal. And you don't even need to have your identity stolen to be so unlucky.
Does this idea bother you?
(IANAL). If the lawyers disregarded the judge's instructions, shouldn't the judge have found them in contempt of court and declared a mistrial? It seems like waiting until the jury came to a decision and then overturning it doesn't result in a fair verdict.
He *could* have chosen to hold their hands (like small children), but he did not. More importantly, he DID NOT HAVE TO. These were experienced trial lawyers. They should have known better than to ignore Matsch's instructions, which were well within the realm of judicial authority & precedent.
They *were* warned.
They *chose* to ignore the Judge's instructions (over and over again).
They paid the price.
Finally, the Appeals court agreed with the judge's reasoning.
"Short answer, No."
Agreed, but here's one example of where they did:
I had a NRFB MSOffice product posted on eBay and it was yanked by the Microsoft police because it was an "educational version." Their argument was, since I couldn't guarantee it would be sold to a qualified educational beneficiary as per their license distribution agreement, it was illegal.
and so down it went.
"Will this set a precedent for other companies that want to stop the aftermarket resale of their products?"
It's already been happening. eBay is huge. It has slowly evolved/mutated over time, partially as a result of being pwned by entities with big money. This is just another example of why people do use other on-line auction houses (and should use them more).
I, personally, agree with what you said, but please do not underestimate:
* the spin-doctors in Washington abilities to take a vote or a law and have people believe it's something completely different
* People's oftentimes unjustified faith in the Bush admin's efforts to keep us safe or uphold the constitution
* the gullibility of the general electorate.
I remind you to look at the 2004 general election as an example of these principles in action.
Please don't make the mistake of assuming everyone is as enlightened/informed/well-read as you; in the slashdot crowd you are (largely) preaching to the choir.
That's an interesting idea. Another idea could be something like what is used here on /.
Buyers and sellers could "opt-in" to a moderated rating system. Under such a system, meta-moderators could rate buyer or seller feedback as "fair" or "unfair" depending on the justification for the rating by the buyer/seller. Buyer or seller could leave the the moderated user-rating system at any time, but could not re-enter once they leave. "Fair" ratings would remain, while "unfair" ratings would not, and enough "unfair" rating would be noted in the respective accounts.
That would still leave the question of who watches the watchers, or how one could get to meta-moderate, but it's a place to start.
Just my 2 cents.
I've had cable outages with TWC and crummy internet from time to time. When that has happened, I just called and asked for a service credit, which I received.
Did you try this?
That has got to be one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard.
.torrent files is a small, arguably incidental, part of what it does; the Pirate Bay uses advertising for the *almost* exclusive purpose of facilitating file-sharing of copyrighted materials.
.torrent files on the site that allow the sharing of files without copyrights, but that's not the reason for the vast majority of traffic on the The Pirate Bay.
Google's referencing of copyrighted
True, there's probably some
Go ahead, mod me flaimbait now.
When I read posts of yours like this, it reminds me of why you are on my "friends" list.
Your argument(s) was eloquently stated and very well done.
For standing up for our rights.
I haven't said a thank you like that with such heartfelt gratitude to a politician in a long time.
A ray of light in an era where the "threat of terrorism" is the darkness where our rights and freedoms are taken away one law, one amendment at a time.
(Yes, I did call my Senator today - not him. Yes I belong to the ACLU, the EFF and MoveOn.org)
Senator Chris Dodd's (D-CN) effort to filibuster the Telcomm immunity provision in the U.S. Senate failed by a Cloture vote of 76 to 10. The (amended) bill will now be considered on the full Senate floor.
More details can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/washington/17cnd-nsa.html?hp
I contacted one of my Senators, Sherrod Brown (D-OH). For the record, he is supporting Chris Dodd's (D-CONN) Filibuster of the telecomm immunity provision. I am unsure of Voinovich's (R-OH) position, but suspect he's for the immunity.