The point isn't that today's kids accept it, it's that kids from that era have grown up and haven't gone on to make pot any more accepted by society than it was then. It's still stigmatized by society at large just as it was then.
Actually, the gun analogy falls apart more easily than that.
It would be more accurate to say that you'd be held liable if you marketed your guns for killing people illegally. Like, "Is your neighbor annoying you? Our guns will shut him up, forever." On the other hand, "Worried about home invasions? Protect your family with our guns" would be seen as a legitimate use of the weapon, which also involves killing humans.
Yes, you can share data with lots of people without it being illegal. If you market your data sharing tool as a way to get Hollywood movies for free, that's when you're crossing the line. Market it for getting copies of people's crappy home movies, and you're fine.
I'd be curious to see how IBM explains the prices of ThinkPads when eMachines sells Windows laptops for a fraction of the price.
I'm guessing the word "quality" will appear in their explanation.
For that matter, I don't think Apple's ever actually tried to "explain" why the iPod costs more than similar music players with the same capabilities. Enough people buy them that they don't need to explain themselves to you or anyone else.
While I agree with your sentiments about Presidents opinions on science, I'd like to know what position, exactly, you think Mr. Bush is planning to run for that he'd need votes from anyone.
In what way(s) does the Mozilla Corporation look more professional than AOL/Time Warner or even the old Netscape Corp.?
And do you really think anyone actually believes that Netscape being part of a huge, professional, respected corporation makes their products better than the ones released by a non-profit?
The bottom of the page mentions that Mighty Mouse is copyrighted by Viacom.
This probably shows that the person who wrote the page is an idiot, since the page contains no Mighty Mouse cartoons whatsoever and copyright doesn't apply, but I'm also assuming it shows they've got Viacom's permission to use the name.
I think they should send every bit of data they collect each day to all of the world's major newspapers, myself. And shame on the publishers if they don't publish it all without knowing what, if anything, it all might mean.
Yes, I understand that. You're explaining one reason why someone might pirate something now, after they started copy protecting the CDs.
But what percentage of pirated music do you think even comes from copy protected CDs, let alone CDs that are owned by the people downloading the music? How do you account for all of the music that was downloaded before there were any copy protected CDs at all, and music downloaded today that came from CDs that have never been copy protected?
The whole argument is completely specious and intellectually dishonest.
You're justifying pirating music based on the music companies reaction to piracy of music.
They only started using copy protection on CDs because of widespread piracy. You can bet your ass that if, as you suggest, the music companies looked into the causes of piracy before starting to use copy protection, they wouldn't have found that people were pirating their music because of copy protection. Try again.
You read that right here on slashdot, and the story was that profits went up by turning wifi off on weekend nights, when the place was busy enough with people who'd rather actually talk to each other than read slashdot from a coffee house.
It's not a very convincing legal argument that you shouldn't be bound by a contract you signed because if you weren't willing to sign it they could have just found someone else to hire.
How would you like it if your employer decided not to pay you, and then when you sued them for breach of contract they said they shouldn't have to obey the terms of your contract, and that they were only forced to sign something saying they'd give you money because otherwise you wouldn't have taken the job?
And I can print up a "dictionary" that defines "HTH NE1" as "a pathetic wanker who is always wrong", but you might still be right about something once in a while. So what?
If you've ever been to Arizona in the summer, you'd realize that you'd have to be insane to want to do anything outside while the sun's still up. I'm surprised they haven't come up with a plan to set all the clocks 12 hours ahead and just sleep when it's hottest out.
Slashdot Mirror
AM General's own website says "GM now has responsibility for marketing and distributing all HUMMERs.", and GM owns the "Hummer" trademark.
(I'd be a bit less quit to jump on your stupidity, if you didn't make the badly made-up name of the case in quotation marks. Ok, not really.)
The point isn't that today's kids accept it, it's that kids from that era have grown up and haven't gone on to make pot any more accepted by society than it was then. It's still stigmatized by society at large just as it was then.
It would be more accurate to say that you'd be held liable if you marketed your guns for killing people illegally. Like, "Is your neighbor annoying you? Our guns will shut him up, forever." On the other hand, "Worried about home invasions? Protect your family with our guns" would be seen as a legitimate use of the weapon, which also involves killing humans.
Yes, you can share data with lots of people without it being illegal. If you market your data sharing tool as a way to get Hollywood movies for free, that's when you're crossing the line. Market it for getting copies of people's crappy home movies, and you're fine.
You must be new here.
I'm guessing the word "quality" will appear in their explanation.
For that matter, I don't think Apple's ever actually tried to "explain" why the iPod costs more than similar music players with the same capabilities. Enough people buy them that they don't need to explain themselves to you or anyone else.
While I agree with your sentiments about Presidents opinions on science, I'd like to know what position, exactly, you think Mr. Bush is planning to run for that he'd need votes from anyone.
And do you really think anyone actually believes that Netscape being part of a huge, professional, respected corporation makes their products better than the ones released by a non-profit?
This probably shows that the person who wrote the page is an idiot, since the page contains no Mighty Mouse cartoons whatsoever and copyright doesn't apply, but I'm also assuming it shows they've got Viacom's permission to use the name.
I think they should send every bit of data they collect each day to all of the world's major newspapers, myself. And shame on the publishers if they don't publish it all without knowing what, if anything, it all might mean.
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that Java developers do have any self respect.
Except of course that "almost all the other browsers" aren't standards compliant, either.
Those Commodore drives would always work better after you hit them really hard. It would knock the heads back into alignment or something.
Right, and Finnegan's Wake is a beautifully-written novel that's easy to read once you're used to Joyce's advanced style.
Although the submitter could certainly find a better source for a story that took place in Los Angeles than a South African website.
But what percentage of pirated music do you think even comes from copy protected CDs, let alone CDs that are owned by the people downloading the music? How do you account for all of the music that was downloaded before there were any copy protected CDs at all, and music downloaded today that came from CDs that have never been copy protected?
The whole argument is completely specious and intellectually dishonest.
Why would you buy something if you already have a perfectly good free copy?
They only started using copy protection on CDs because of widespread piracy. You can bet your ass that if, as you suggest, the music companies looked into the causes of piracy before starting to use copy protection, they wouldn't have found that people were pirating their music because of copy protection. Try again.
You read that right here on slashdot, and the story was that profits went up by turning wifi off on weekend nights, when the place was busy enough with people who'd rather actually talk to each other than read slashdot from a coffee house.
Why should some musician I don't listen to get paid when I burn photos to a CD? How is that benefiting everyone?
It's not a very convincing legal argument that you shouldn't be bound by a contract you signed because if you weren't willing to sign it they could have just found someone else to hire.
How would you like it if your employer decided not to pay you, and then when you sued them for breach of contract they said they shouldn't have to obey the terms of your contract, and that they were only forced to sign something saying they'd give you money because otherwise you wouldn't have taken the job?
I think it's fair to use the word "stupid" to refer to people who are ignorant and naive.
And I can print up a "dictionary" that defines "HTH NE1" as "a pathetic wanker who is always wrong", but you might still be right about something once in a while. So what?
That's not ironic, it's an oxymoron. Like Swiss cheese.
If you've ever been to Arizona in the summer, you'd realize that you'd have to be insane to want to do anything outside while the sun's still up. I'm surprised they haven't come up with a plan to set all the clocks 12 hours ahead and just sleep when it's hottest out.