With all due respect to Lewis Black, the moment we make national security decisions based on what second rate comedians say in their bits is the moment I pledge never to get on a plane again.
I just did a quick unscientific survey of posters on slashdot. I went to the most recently submitted article and clicked on the usernames of the posters. Over 50% of them had the majority of their recent posts at 2's (discounting those who lacked sufficient posts to be qualified for excellent karma and those whose posts were not routinely modded up or down by the mods (I wasn't about to go out and check each post). Considering not all of them had excellent karma, it becomes clear that the majority of/.ers with excellent karma do not change the defaults to have their posts modded down. And whats more, you are the first one I have ever seen complain about it.
"
Preposterous. The majority of the population has little interest in copyright law. Everyone agrees that a person should be compensated for their labors. This does not equate with copyright law."
How did Nixon get elected...?
"
There is no such thing as a good law. Every law will inevitably be manipulated primarily with those with the money to fund legal budgets."
Ok, I'm game. What did that have to do with what you had quoted?
"Due to the inequities of the system there is no difference between majority Candidates A and B. "
First of all, I don't know about your district but in mine I have seen elections between people of very different political beliefs. Second how is the fact that certain political views are so common within the population that a candidate going against them cannot win an "inequity of the system". You are throwing out catchphrases, but you have no idea what is going on outside your own home, do you?
Look around, how many people keep that box unchecked? Virtually no one. Its the mods job to determine what rating my post has, not mine, not yours. So until you get moderation power, just keep your trap shut, deal?
"
That's leaning towards a dictatorship, don't you think?"
Nope. Even in a democracy, if you break the laws that the people put in place you will be locked up.
"Myself and the MAJORITY of my peers (making us collectively, the people) feel that the alleged violations are only questionably violations and CERTAINLY NOT felonies."
If true, then you and the majority can vote for new laws. However, in reality every reputable poll taken has shown that the majority of the population do not feel copyright law is unjust. Again, do not confuse sentiments within the slashdot community with the opinions of the general population as a whole.
This sort of reminds me about the reporter who when she heard about Nixon's electoral victory expressed surprise, saying "None of the people I know voted for him".
"I also called into question the right of jury nullification."
First of all, jury nullification does exist in the U.S., so I'm assuming your beef is with the court's right to dismiss jurors with radical views.
The problem with that is then all it would take would be one radical (not a majority of the population) to cause a mistrial whenever someone disagrees with a law. While you may like that when the radical is on your side, what if he is a neo-Nazi or Jack from the previous post?
"Where is democracy now except tucked in the pocketbook of artificial personages known as corporations? "
In the polls voting for the legislators to write the law. Remember civics class?
"The premise of a democracy is that the government is not doing anything that Bob, or the majority of his community"
No, just the majority. If Bob disagrees with the majority, the majority overrules him. In this case the majority of the population supports copyright law (again, do not confuse popular sentiments on slashdot with the majority opinion) even though you do not. Thus the government is free to enact copyright laws despite your personal objections.
"The government which has produced the RIAA spends billions each year without the approval of the people."
The RIAA is a trade group, not a government entity.
"There is nothing anarchistic about disapproving, as an individual, with the government."
No, but refusing the government is anarchistic by definition.
"I pulled my definition from www.m-w.com and double-checked it with www.dictionary.com. Both sites used the term "individual"."
Not in the context that you use it. Neither say the final authority is in the individual, as that would not be democracy. In a democracy, a majority can overrule the individual.
The term is actually never mentioned in the Merriam-Webster defintion, and in the dictionary.com only in the context that it has "respect for the individual within a community". Thats not the same as authority.
"You obviously wanted to touch off a flame war, or appeal to a demographic, when you used rape as a topic. "
No, I was using an extreme example to show the faults of your argument. If you prefer you can substitue murder in there, it doesn't matter. If you are free to nullify a law you disagree with, so can anyone else, including a pyscho like Jack.
I said the final authority of a democracy lies in the people. You said it lies in the individual. Do you really need me to explain to you the difference?
Example 1: The people of the state feels it needs to spend money on what it considers a worthy cause. Bob does not feel the cause is worthy. In a democracy, the government elected by the people can tax Bob and use his money for the cause as the authority lies in the people. In an anarchy, Bob can choose not to support it as the authority lies in Bob.
Example 2: The people feel Tom should be the ruler of the state. Joe does not feel that Tom should be ruler. In a democracy, the people are free to elect Tom as they have the authority. In anarchy, Joe can refuse to have Tom as his ruler as he has authority.
Example 3: Jack thinks women are nothing more than objects and thus rape is ok. However, the majority of the population disagrees and thinks rape should be a crime. In democracy, as the authority lies in the people, they are free to enact a law making rape illegal desipte Jack's objections. In an anarchic state, as the authority lies in the individual (Jack), he is free to commit the act if he feels it is ok.
Well unless you want a halfway recent address, you shouldn't be complaining anymore. However, until you start posting under an actual screenname that can be modded and tracked, my complaint still stands. Because I am willing to do so, I am free to use the karma bonus that I have since earned. You have a problem with/.'s karma system, take it up with the administrators.
That is a pillar of anarchy, not democracy. In a democracy, the final authority rests with the people. Big difference between the two.
Anarchy is not some "70s British punk buzzword", it is a political philosophy in which there is no central governing power. In such a state, the individual supposedly has all the power.
LOL. What kind of idiot puts his address on/.? Oh well, prepare to get on mailing lists for tons of gay porno magazines and have your identity stolen by a dozen different hackers.
What I wanted was for you to show your slashdot (you know, the name of the site we are posting on) identity and stop posting as an anonymous coward.
You again? God you are pathetic. Why the fuck would I care about your name and address? Being that we are posting on slashdot, the relevant data is your screenname. Yet you continue to post as an anonymous coward.
And I'll post at +2 as much as I damn feel like it. Jealous? Build up your own damn karma.
"Simple. Microsoft doesn't need to win the lawsuit, only drag it on and force the programmer to use money to pay for his lawyer untill the programmer goes banckrupt."
Do you have any examples of this exact sequence of events happening or is it a conspiracy theory that you made up?
In reality, there are multiple safeguards against that. For starters the judge could just throw out the patent. Also, once the patent is thrown out it cannot be used again so this is a "one try only" type of thing. Add to that, what would MS's motivation be. They are not just a bunch of sadists, why would they spend their money and waste their patent on a lawsuit against an individual programmer?
Well you probably lost $13 because of the "price-fixing". They have stopped the practice and how often do you see CDs advertised for less than what most likely would be the MAP? As Best Buy is learning, CDs as loss leaders isn't that great of a business strategy.
The problem is if you set the line at some moderate position, some sleazy media company will find a way to get around it and provide competing coverage.
They can still allow some violations of this policy by not enforcing it strictly. I believe most major sports have similar policies but I've seen plenty of events (like at the World Series) where a player will have a personal camcorder in the dugout (or wherever they hang out while not playing). That may have not been completely legal, but the broadcaster let them get away with it (as long as they didn't sell the video to the nearest competitor). But if they have a hard policy, they don't have to worry about someone sneaking out some video or reports through some grey area.
People have also heard objections to the law, so under your reasoning posts blasting copyright law should be modded down as well. And modding down an unpopular view for being "off-topic" is almost as bad as modding it down for being a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if he is an old man in disguise he wouldn't have to be 78. There is this new technology called "make up" that can change a person's appearence.
With all due respect to Lewis Black, the moment we make national security decisions based on what second rate comedians say in their bits is the moment I pledge never to get on a plane again.
Only guys named Muhammad get searched? White guys can commit terror acts as well. And what better disguise for a terrorist than a sick old man?
That was actually a sarcastic remark about... nevermind, you wouldn't get it.
" My response is that, as long as they're repealing laws, that can only be a good thing for society."
So repealling rape laws and murder laws when applied to minorities would be a good thing? Wow.
"For example, Nader will not be on the ballot in many states."
Yeah, no one wanted him on the ballot.
" Then we will move on to the media misrepresentation of any topics which actually affect the daily lives of the commoner."
Thats it, blame the media for everything wrong in the world. Who else could we blame, you?
It will never stand in court. The concept of ethical laws dictating behavior dates to before Socrates, let alone Asimov.
You are a troll, case closed.
How did Nixon get elected...?
" There is no such thing as a good law. Every law will inevitably be manipulated primarily with those with the money to fund legal budgets."
Ok, I'm game. What did that have to do with what you had quoted?
"Due to the inequities of the system there is no difference between majority Candidates A and B. "
First of all, I don't know about your district but in mine I have seen elections between people of very different political beliefs. Second how is the fact that certain political views are so common within the population that a candidate going against them cannot win an "inequity of the system". You are throwing out catchphrases, but you have no idea what is going on outside your own home, do you?
Look around, how many people keep that box unchecked? Virtually no one. Its the mods job to determine what rating my post has, not mine, not yours. So until you get moderation power, just keep your trap shut, deal?
Nope. Even in a democracy, if you break the laws that the people put in place you will be locked up.
"Myself and the MAJORITY of my peers (making us collectively, the people) feel that the alleged violations are only questionably violations and CERTAINLY NOT felonies."
If true, then you and the majority can vote for new laws. However, in reality every reputable poll taken has shown that the majority of the population do not feel copyright law is unjust. Again, do not confuse sentiments within the slashdot community with the opinions of the general population as a whole.
This sort of reminds me about the reporter who when she heard about Nixon's electoral victory expressed surprise, saying "None of the people I know voted for him".
"I also called into question the right of jury nullification."
First of all, jury nullification does exist in the U.S., so I'm assuming your beef is with the court's right to dismiss jurors with radical views.
The problem with that is then all it would take would be one radical (not a majority of the population) to cause a mistrial whenever someone disagrees with a law. While you may like that when the radical is on your side, what if he is a neo-Nazi or Jack from the previous post?
"Where is democracy now except tucked in the pocketbook of artificial personages known as corporations? "
In the polls voting for the legislators to write the law. Remember civics class?
No, just the majority. If Bob disagrees with the majority, the majority overrules him. In this case the majority of the population supports copyright law (again, do not confuse popular sentiments on slashdot with the majority opinion) even though you do not. Thus the government is free to enact copyright laws despite your personal objections.
"The government which has produced the RIAA spends billions each year without the approval of the people."
The RIAA is a trade group, not a government entity.
"There is nothing anarchistic about disapproving, as an individual, with the government."
No, but refusing the government is anarchistic by definition.
"I pulled my definition from www.m-w.com and double-checked it with www.dictionary.com. Both sites used the term "individual"."
Not in the context that you use it. Neither say the final authority is in the individual, as that would not be democracy. In a democracy, a majority can overrule the individual.
The term is actually never mentioned in the Merriam-Webster defintion, and in the dictionary.com only in the context that it has "respect for the individual within a community". Thats not the same as authority.
"You obviously wanted to touch off a flame war, or appeal to a demographic, when you used rape as a topic. "
No, I was using an extreme example to show the faults of your argument. If you prefer you can substitue murder in there, it doesn't matter. If you are free to nullify a law you disagree with, so can anyone else, including a pyscho like Jack.
Example 1: The people of the state feels it needs to spend money on what it considers a worthy cause. Bob does not feel the cause is worthy. In a democracy, the government elected by the people can tax Bob and use his money for the cause as the authority lies in the people. In an anarchy, Bob can choose not to support it as the authority lies in Bob.
Example 2: The people feel Tom should be the ruler of the state. Joe does not feel that Tom should be ruler. In a democracy, the people are free to elect Tom as they have the authority. In anarchy, Joe can refuse to have Tom as his ruler as he has authority.
Example 3: Jack thinks women are nothing more than objects and thus rape is ok. However, the majority of the population disagrees and thinks rape should be a crime. In democracy, as the authority lies in the people, they are free to enact a law making rape illegal desipte Jack's objections. In an anarchic state, as the authority lies in the individual (Jack), he is free to commit the act if he feels it is ok.
Get the picture?
Got it?
That is a pillar of anarchy, not democracy. In a democracy, the final authority rests with the people. Big difference between the two.
Anarchy is not some "70s British punk buzzword", it is a political philosophy in which there is no central governing power. In such a state, the individual supposedly has all the power.
What I wanted was for you to show your slashdot (you know, the name of the site we are posting on) identity and stop posting as an anonymous coward.
Don't confuse democracy with anarchy.
And I'll post at +2 as much as I damn feel like it. Jealous? Build up your own damn karma.
Do you have any examples of this exact sequence of events happening or is it a conspiracy theory that you made up?
In reality, there are multiple safeguards against that. For starters the judge could just throw out the patent. Also, once the patent is thrown out it cannot be used again so this is a "one try only" type of thing. Add to that, what would MS's motivation be. They are not just a bunch of sadists, why would they spend their money and waste their patent on a lawsuit against an individual programmer?
Well you probably lost $13 because of the "price-fixing". They have stopped the practice and how often do you see CDs advertised for less than what most likely would be the MAP? As Best Buy is learning, CDs as loss leaders isn't that great of a business strategy.
They can still allow some violations of this policy by not enforcing it strictly. I believe most major sports have similar policies but I've seen plenty of events (like at the World Series) where a player will have a personal camcorder in the dugout (or wherever they hang out while not playing). That may have not been completely legal, but the broadcaster let them get away with it (as long as they didn't sell the video to the nearest competitor). But if they have a hard policy, they don't have to worry about someone sneaking out some video or reports through some grey area.
Sick of annoying troll cowards? Change "Anonymous Coward" modifier to -1 penalty.
People have also heard objections to the law, so under your reasoning posts blasting copyright law should be modded down as well. And modding down an unpopular view for being "off-topic" is almost as bad as modding it down for being a troll.
Here you go, a simple result of a Google search.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html/
Well for starters I'm not afraid to attach my name to an opinion I post, unlike some people I know...
And they were forced to pay as well. What do you know? Its almost as if we had some sort of legal system.
They are taking settlements to avoid fines which would be more expensive.