Federal agents can (and most likely will) keep arresting those who are using pot, while it's completely legal in the stat
Actually they'll probably arrest those who are engaged in the business of selling pot, not those who are merely using it. Your point is still valid though.
Hopefully more and more states will start giving the finger to the Fed and do what's in their best interest and not some random law passed from on high in DC.
A few of them are trying to. It's not just pot either....
Did you have a snowball's chance in hell of negotiating?
Actually, yes, you did. You could have declined the service. Cell phones are not a life essential service. You'd be surprised to discover this but you actually can live without them. Failing that, you could always have gone prepaid. Or signed up for T-Mobile's "flexpay" contract-less option. You just want to use the Government to force a change to a private business model because you don't happen to like it.
Sprint and T-Mobile are screwed because they cater to bottom feeders and now they're complaining.
How is T-Mobile "screwed"? If you live somewhere where they have good coverage (most urban areas and quite a few suburban ones) they are a great option. Much more affordable than Verizon or AT&T and much better customer service.
May come as a surprise to you, but you don't need to be an FFL holder to sell a gun, just like you don't need to have a business license as a car dealer to sell a car.
No, you don't need an FFL to sell a gun. Somehow I doubt though that Mr. Tenenbaum shared one song. Start selling dozens of guns that wind up in the hands of people who can't legally possess them and I think you'll find out how quickly those ATF people can do jack shit to you.
The original point being that you aren't going to be able to weasel out of something with the lame ass argument of "How am I at fault? I just made it freely available. It's not my fault they broke the law"
...In case you didn't read it, something tells me the person who sold you the gun would not be at fault
If you actually believe that then I suggest you get an FFL and try it out in reality. Say hi to the friendly ATF agents for me when they slap the metal bracelets on you.
My post was entirely about how it would be perfectly legal for the person selling the item to sell it to you if there was no way of knowing where you were from or how it would be used.
And my point is that in most cases that defense doesn't fly.
However, if that person took my freely-given items then took them into another state, should I be at fault?
I'll remember your logic the next time I want to buy a firearm that's legal in PA but illegal in my home state of NY. What's the worst that could happen?
There's no "fair use" here, only some kid violating copyright for the hell of violating copyright. This is going to end badly for Joel, and his crybaby defense scheme is only going to set bad precedent. Someone somewhere will only extend this case's outcome to further wreck the place
What, you mean to suggest that admitting to committing the activity that the plaintiff claims caused them financial harm during a civil suit is not necessarily the best way for the defendant to proceed? Say it isn't so!
Fair use has to be one of the lamest arguments ever made to support file sharing. Mind you, I've done my fair share of downloading in my day, but I never would have claimed that fair use as a justification for doing so. If you and I both have copies of Civ2 and my CD got destroyed somehow then it might be fair use to make a copy of your CD. The last time I checked though most file sharing networks don't operate on this one to one principle -- they share the files with anybody who is interested in them. I'd really like to hear the brain trust at Harvard explain how that's fair use.
Sounds to me like the defendant needs a better legal strategy. Failing that, perhaps he should have his Harvard team start studying up on Title 11, Chapter 7 of the US Code. He might need it soon......
You either have free speech or you don't. If some Government agent is telling you that you can't say something because it's offensive towards some group of people then that's not free speech.
One of the things I value about my country is that we'll let anybody speak their mind. Europeans evidently regard that as too much freedom. That's their loss, I think.
Thanks to technology, you can see more boobs in an hour than your dad had in his entire stack of Playboys, and than your grandfather did during his entire life.
Speak for your own grandfather. My grandfather was part of the army that liberated Paris. I'm told that the French were most appreciative.....;)
They also love to take their sweet time on freeway entrance ramps. I know they're accelerating a greater mass, but I know they can clear 35 mph more easily than they're letting on
Umm, you'd take your sweet time too if your vehicle weighed 40 tons. It's not just acceleration, it's turning and merging too. Think of the difference between flying a single-engine prop plane vs. a 747 or A380. They have to plan ahead for every move and make slow gradual changes. Anyway, why do you care? Are you in that much of a rush to get to your destination that you don't have the patience to wait until he merges onto the highway and then pass him? Those 20 seconds must be really important to you....
The truckers' lobby also fights firmly against any infringement on their inalienable right not to pay the full cost of the damage they do to the roads
They probably should be paying that. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that it will save us any money. If truckers had to pay for the full cost of using the roadways then they'd simply charge more for hauling fright. The end result would be that you and I are going to pay for it at the grocery store instead of at tax time. Truckers aren't operating in a vacuum. They are delivering the goods and supplies that keep society running. Society is going to pay for that service one way or another.
In the U.S., you typically have both the cable company and the phone company vying for Internet business.
WTF are you basing this on? DSL only ranges about 15,000 to 18,000 feet from the DSLAM. There are huge swaths of land that don't receive DSL service, even in fairly suburban areas. The telco can install remote DSLAMs if they want to but many don't make the effort because there aren't enough potential customers in the area to justify the expense.
There are many areas where the cableco is your only choice. Worse, the cableco knows this. In my area you can usually get Time Warner to lower your rate if you threaten to move to DSL -- but if you live in an area where DSL isn't an option they refuse any sort of rate deal because they know they have you by the balls.
You are also discounting the remote areas that have DSL service but are stuck with slow service because of the distance and/or provider policy. I can get DSL where I live -- at a whooping 1.5mbit/s for the same price that Time Warner can deliver 8.0mbit/s. 1.5 isn't really enough to watch decent quality video. So I'm stuck with Time Warner even though DSL is an option.
Because normal people don't do it for the money! If you do only care for the money, you do not care for the idea in itself, and how it is realized, anyway.
Suit yourself. Eventually your patent will expire and/or $Monolith_Company will find a better way to implement your idea and you'll be run out of business. Or you'll become the next Microsoft and wind up answering to shareholders that care less about your idea and more about the quarterly results. Either way you become part of the system and steadily lose more and more control over your idea.
Personally I would rather sell out to $Monolith_Company once I've established my business. Get a decent enough pile of scratch to retire and let others worry about the rat race.
Citizens of Texas own lotsa guns, and Texans still have no great love for anything Federal.
And yet the good citizens of the great State of Texas allowed the Feds to murder 76 people after lying to obtain a search warrant and bumbling the execution of it in a manner that was all but guaranteed to result in violence.
This problem solves itself once all the white men are run out of Texas, which demographically will be in about 25 years. Eventually they will all be concentrated in Idaho, and we can nuke that from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I find it hypocritical that you got positive moderation for this when a similar post aimed at a different race would have modded down as the racist garbage that it is.
How is it that assholes like this aren't IP Banned?
Because/. has a moderation system and doesn't banish people or delete posts over content? If it bothers you why not browse at +1 or +2? I haven't seen too many racist trolls that aren't quickly modded -1.
Slashdot Mirror
Federal agents can (and most likely will) keep arresting those who are using pot, while it's completely legal in the stat
Actually they'll probably arrest those who are engaged in the business of selling pot, not those who are merely using it. Your point is still valid though.
Hopefully more and more states will start giving the finger to the Fed and do what's in their best interest and not some random law passed from on high in DC.
A few of them are trying to. It's not just pot either....
Did you have a snowball's chance in hell of negotiating?
Actually, yes, you did. You could have declined the service. Cell phones are not a life essential service. You'd be surprised to discover this but you actually can live without them. Failing that, you could always have gone prepaid. Or signed up for T-Mobile's "flexpay" contract-less option. You just want to use the Government to force a change to a private business model because you don't happen to like it.
Sprint and T-Mobile are screwed because they cater to bottom feeders and now they're complaining.
How is T-Mobile "screwed"? If you live somewhere where they have good coverage (most urban areas and quite a few suburban ones) they are a great option. Much more affordable than Verizon or AT&T and much better customer service.
National defense, and immigration and border controls. These are the things that Washington ought to be concerned about.
Fixed that for you.
Not if monopoly power robs the consumer of bargaining power.
What monopoly? There's four carriers. At least one of them will let you sign up without any contract what so ever.
That'll teach you to charge me $40 for roaming last month when I never left the city, motherfuckers!
Unless you are on an ancient plan or left the country, Verizon doesn't charge roaming fees for using partner networks.....
Blame the Catholics and other idiots who continue to promote 'abstinence' as the sole form of birth control
Yes, every social ill on planet Earth is the fault of the Catholics.....
and lie about and demonize other forms of birth control (including being gay)
I'd imagine being gay is a pretty effective form of birth control ;)
I'm intentionally child free so in the balance of things
So your idea of balancing things is to place the burden of paying for your social safety net/ripe old age on my children instead? ;)
May come as a surprise to you, but you don't need to be an FFL holder to sell a gun, just like you don't need to have a business license as a car dealer to sell a car.
No, you don't need an FFL to sell a gun. Somehow I doubt though that Mr. Tenenbaum shared one song. Start selling dozens of guns that wind up in the hands of people who can't legally possess them and I think you'll find out how quickly those ATF people can do jack shit to you.
The original point being that you aren't going to be able to weasel out of something with the lame ass argument of "How am I at fault? I just made it freely available. It's not my fault they broke the law"
...In case you didn't read it, something tells me the person who sold you the gun would not be at fault
If you actually believe that then I suggest you get an FFL and try it out in reality. Say hi to the friendly ATF agents for me when they slap the metal bracelets on you.
My post was entirely about how it would be perfectly legal for the person selling the item to sell it to you if there was no way of knowing where you were from or how it would be used.
And my point is that in most cases that defense doesn't fly.
However, if that person took my freely-given items then took them into another state, should I be at fault?
I'll remember your logic the next time I want to buy a firearm that's legal in PA but illegal in my home state of NY. What's the worst that could happen?
There's no "fair use" here, only some kid violating copyright for the hell of violating copyright. This is going to end badly for Joel, and his crybaby defense scheme is only going to set bad precedent. Someone somewhere will only extend this case's outcome to further wreck the place
What, you mean to suggest that admitting to committing the activity that the plaintiff claims caused them financial harm during a civil suit is not necessarily the best way for the defendant to proceed? Say it isn't so!
Fair use has to be one of the lamest arguments ever made to support file sharing. Mind you, I've done my fair share of downloading in my day, but I never would have claimed that fair use as a justification for doing so. If you and I both have copies of Civ2 and my CD got destroyed somehow then it might be fair use to make a copy of your CD. The last time I checked though most file sharing networks don't operate on this one to one principle -- they share the files with anybody who is interested in them. I'd really like to hear the brain trust at Harvard explain how that's fair use.
Sounds to me like the defendant needs a better legal strategy. Failing that, perhaps he should have his Harvard team start studying up on Title 11, Chapter 7 of the US Code. He might need it soon......
Let's face it, there is no analogy that is going to be 100% perfect
That's because nobody has tried a car analogy yet.
you're supposed to be using their more expensive EvDO service you know... :-D
You mean the crippled "internet" service that you can't use for anything other than e-mail/web browsing and VPN?
Freedom is a great thing.
Too bad you don't have it.
You either have free speech or you don't. If some Government agent is telling you that you can't say something because it's offensive towards some group of people then that's not free speech.
One of the things I value about my country is that we'll let anybody speak their mind. Europeans evidently regard that as too much freedom. That's their loss, I think.
Thanks to technology, you can see more boobs in an hour than your dad had in his entire stack of Playboys, and than your grandfather did during his entire life.
Speak for your own grandfather. My grandfather was part of the army that liberated Paris. I'm told that the French were most appreciative..... ;)
You will find that, with the exception of the USA, all developed countries forbid hate speech and incitement to violent crime
Right, so they don't have free speech. Thank you for agreeing with me.
They also love to take their sweet time on freeway entrance ramps. I know they're accelerating a greater mass, but I know they can clear 35 mph more easily than they're letting on
Umm, you'd take your sweet time too if your vehicle weighed 40 tons. It's not just acceleration, it's turning and merging too. Think of the difference between flying a single-engine prop plane vs. a 747 or A380. They have to plan ahead for every move and make slow gradual changes. Anyway, why do you care? Are you in that much of a rush to get to your destination that you don't have the patience to wait until he merges onto the highway and then pass him? Those 20 seconds must be really important to you....
The truckers' lobby also fights firmly against any infringement on their inalienable right not to pay the full cost of the damage they do to the roads
They probably should be paying that. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that it will save us any money. If truckers had to pay for the full cost of using the roadways then they'd simply charge more for hauling fright. The end result would be that you and I are going to pay for it at the grocery store instead of at tax time. Truckers aren't operating in a vacuum. They are delivering the goods and supplies that keep society running. Society is going to pay for that service one way or another.
They could remove this post. It's illegal in my country and would grant the poster some months in jail. Isn't it illegal in the USA?
I feel sad for you that you don't live in a country that respects free speech.
In the U.S., you typically have both the cable company and the phone company vying for Internet business.
WTF are you basing this on? DSL only ranges about 15,000 to 18,000 feet from the DSLAM. There are huge swaths of land that don't receive DSL service, even in fairly suburban areas. The telco can install remote DSLAMs if they want to but many don't make the effort because there aren't enough potential customers in the area to justify the expense.
There are many areas where the cableco is your only choice. Worse, the cableco knows this. In my area you can usually get Time Warner to lower your rate if you threaten to move to DSL -- but if you live in an area where DSL isn't an option they refuse any sort of rate deal because they know they have you by the balls.
You are also discounting the remote areas that have DSL service but are stuck with slow service because of the distance and/or provider policy. I can get DSL where I live -- at a whooping 1.5mbit/s for the same price that Time Warner can deliver 8.0mbit/s. 1.5 isn't really enough to watch decent quality video. So I'm stuck with Time Warner even though DSL is an option.
Because normal people don't do it for the money! If you do only care for the money, you do not care for the idea in itself, and how it is realized, anyway.
Suit yourself. Eventually your patent will expire and/or $Monolith_Company will find a better way to implement your idea and you'll be run out of business. Or you'll become the next Microsoft and wind up answering to shareholders that care less about your idea and more about the quarterly results. Either way you become part of the system and steadily lose more and more control over your idea.
Personally I would rather sell out to $Monolith_Company once I've established my business. Get a decent enough pile of scratch to retire and let others worry about the rat race.
Citizens of Texas own lotsa guns, and Texans still have no great love for anything Federal.
And yet the good citizens of the great State of Texas allowed the Feds to murder 76 people after lying to obtain a search warrant and bumbling the execution of it in a manner that was all but guaranteed to result in violence.
This problem solves itself once all the white men are run out of Texas, which demographically will be in about 25 years. Eventually they will all be concentrated in Idaho, and we can nuke that from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I find it hypocritical that you got positive moderation for this when a similar post aimed at a different race would have modded down as the racist garbage that it is.
How is it that assholes like this aren't IP Banned?
Because /. has a moderation system and doesn't banish people or delete posts over content? If it bothers you why not browse at +1 or +2? I haven't seen too many racist trolls that aren't quickly modded -1.