How the devil does this get moderated informative? I mean, I suppose yes, technically, it's informative (in that I've never friended someone on slashdot). But surely it isn't deserving of a +2 Informative?
Y'know I've never friended someone on slashdot before (normally I just ignore the GNAA spammers and the biggots who want to put blacks to sleep), but that was good. I especially liked the self-moderation.
Saying you should follow an unjust law just because it is law is actually a pretty odd thing to say.
Isn't it a lucky thing I didn't say that? There are other alternatives other then following a law or breaking a law. One is civil disobedience.
no reasonable person said laws against molesting children were unjust
But the thing is, what we consider reasonable is biased to our own beliefs. Some view prohibition as something reasonable people wouldn't be against. Then again, you'll call such people unreasonable;)
when there were laws in the South which said it was illegal for a white person not capture and return a slave to his rightful owner.
While interesting, I won't be able to go to any new system that doesn't play DRM'd PDB books (also known as eReader files). Is there any way to convert them (even via a means that might not be DMCA approved, hint hint;)) or play them on this?
*snicker* It's a send-up of a similar signature I saw here at slashdot a while ago. It went like this: Wikipedia: The irrational belief that a group of trolls can produce an encyclopedia.
I simply took the same reasoning that person used with Wikipedia, and applied it to OSS. It isn't something I really believe, it's a send up to prove someone's logic is faulty.
Bank robbers are not fighting anything, they are just stealing money and hoping to get away with it. Ever heard of Robin Hood?
What do bank robbers giving to the poor have to do with people secretly buying alcohol and consuming it themselves?
Remember a lot of crime and other problems in society are fueled by alcohol - it is not some harmless liquid.
Are you actually responding to my post? I saw "secretly drinking alcohol during times of prohibition isn't fighting for any cause, it's simply breaking the law." You're response is "alcohol is bad, mmmkay?" I think you may have hit the reply button for the wrong person.
When they become out of touch you can have passive resistance (people just ignore them) or the other extreme, revolution.
Typical modern American thinking. There are more then two options. One is civil disobediance. Another is working to change the laws.
In short - things are not black and white only
How apt given your claim of there only being two methods of dealing with laws you don't agree with.
When the law is wrong people will fight for their right to do what is criminal. that said.. what is criminal is not necessarily morally wrong.
Actually 1 of those things isn't the same as the other (possibly the union men as well, haven't heard of them). Namely the drinking of alcohol during prohibition. They weren't fighting anything. They were just getting drunk and hope they wouldn't get caught.
It's only illegal when you consider the fact that the RIAA and companies like it have bought extensions. Whilever they continue in such behaviour, and their previous extensions exist, I have a difficult time feeling sorry for them when people abuse their copyright.
Now that I think about it, I suspect that Limewire's counterclaims are not as frivolous as we think
IANAL, and while in law terms it might be frivolous, in simple common sense terms, the counter claim isn't frivolous, it's just stating the plain facts. IMO that IS the RIAA's game. The fact they're able to target people who are breaking laws that the RIAA have helped buy merely allows them to have some aura of legitimacy. If these people were using p2p legally, they'd find other ways to try to crush p2p.
I've seen footage of people on the Vomit Comet, and for something that's supposedly weightless, it's amazing how much time they spent on the floor of the plane, or drifting towards it. It wasn't really weightless so much as really-really-light.
In that case it sounds like an overnight charge. After all, does anyone really drive 500 miles in a day? Although such cars will need to be hybrids so they can switch to petrol for the once every blue moon long trip, for most people for most daily usage, they sound perfect. Or does the $9 increase if you take longer to recharge (I can't imagine why, but I thought I'd ask)?
If the copyright cartel enforcers are required to have downloaded copies from the alleged infringer in order to maintain a suit
But hang on, when you download something, aren't you forced to upload as well on most p2p networks/bittorrent? If so, then does the RIAA have permission from the "artists" to distribute content in such a manner? If they don't, can't they then be sued by the people they're supposedly representing?
Oh please all of my answers be correct. Then someone find some wealthy artist who isn't too happy with the RIAA!
it's still probably safe to say that those using speakeasies disagreed with the law, and they certainly proved that ignoring a bad law is a good way to get rid of it!
I ask this: Is breaking the law and hiding from the police a course of action you (would/do) encourage in your society? After all, whether or not you think it's a bad law is irrelevant, as that's just your personal bias.
WTF are you talking about? Your irrational and offtopic "think of the children!" rhetoric has no place here!
I'll spell it out for you: You said that Rosa Parks being civilly disobediant is something to be praised, and that anyone who views civil disobediance as a bad thing is merely biased against a certain unjust crime. Is this correct?
If you're with me so far, then read on. Otherwise you may wish to explain your point better.
Pedophile finds a young child and brainwashes (sorry, my bias is showing) them to like sexual contact with adults. They have sexual relations with the young child. Much like Rosa Parks refused to stand up from her chair. The pedophile then goes to the police and turns himself in, much like Rosa Parks allowed herself to be arrested. That's called civil disobediance.
Would you consider the pedophile in the above paragraph something to be praised? If not, then I ask aside from your own bias -- which isn't relevant -- what's the difference? After all, no-one is harmed (thanks to the brainwashing down beforehand).
1. Geologically possible yes, but I doubt the humans had the technology to do so. 2. Us zany humans are actually able to determine past events based on various sources from nature. 3. What an interesting comment. Thankyou for that.
Sweeping statements like the above are simply stupid, as there is no evidence either way. They do make for good inflammatory copy, though.
Sweeping statements like the above are simply stupid, as they ignore the evidence that exists. They do make for good inflammatory copy, though.
Oh yeah, in geological terms, human history is less than the blink of an eye.
Again an interesting comment.
With fossils unearthed recently showing _tropical_ weather in Northern Canada, I think it's safe to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature.
But how can you know that unless humans were there to record it? Oh I see, so you acknowledge we don't need humans with recording devices to determine prior events, but ignored it up above when you made point two huh? As I said before, sweeping statements like the above are simply stupid, as they ignore the evidence that exists. They do make for good inflammatory copy, though.
Slashdot Mirror
How the devil does this get moderated informative? I mean, I suppose yes, technically, it's informative (in that I've never friended someone on slashdot). But surely it isn't deserving of a +2 Informative?
Thing is, if the elevator's there and that space isn't doing anything, why not whack a few WIFI stations onto it? What's the worst that could happen?
Naaah, don't worry. Bush will just siphon off money from the New Orleans damns to help build it.
i freely admit to knowing nothing about electricity
:P
Well isn't the answer you're just making stuff up regardless of whether or not what you're making up is true?
Aaaawh. I was expecting a "Nature versus the Killer Vacumns" type movie :(
Y'know I've never friended someone on slashdot before (normally I just ignore the GNAA spammers and the biggots who want to put blacks to sleep), but that was good. I especially liked the self-moderation.
Saying you should follow an unjust law just because it is law is actually a pretty odd thing to say.
;)
Isn't it a lucky thing I didn't say that? There are other alternatives other then following a law or breaking a law. One is civil disobedience.
no reasonable person said laws against molesting children were unjust
But the thing is, what we consider reasonable is biased to our own beliefs. Some view prohibition as something reasonable people wouldn't be against. Then again, you'll call such people unreasonable
when there were laws in the South which said it was illegal for a white person not capture and return a slave to his rightful owner.
Good point. I'll have to think on it.
While interesting, I won't be able to go to any new system that doesn't play DRM'd PDB books (also known as eReader files). Is there any way to convert them (even via a means that might not be DMCA approved, hint hint ;)) or play them on this?
Nope, they're merely criminals. Or are people who go around molesting children somehow fighting?
*snicker* It's a send-up of a similar signature I saw here at slashdot a while ago. It went like this:
Wikipedia: The irrational belief that a group of trolls can produce an encyclopedia.
I simply took the same reasoning that person used with Wikipedia, and applied it to OSS. It isn't something I really believe, it's a send up to prove someone's logic is faulty.
Bank robbers are not fighting anything, they are just stealing money and hoping to get away with it. Ever heard of Robin Hood?
What do bank robbers giving to the poor have to do with people secretly buying alcohol and consuming it themselves?
Remember a lot of crime and other problems in society are fueled by alcohol - it is not some harmless liquid.
Are you actually responding to my post? I saw "secretly drinking alcohol during times of prohibition isn't fighting for any cause, it's simply breaking the law." You're response is "alcohol is bad, mmmkay?" I think you may have hit the reply button for the wrong person.
When they become out of touch you can have passive resistance (people just ignore them) or the other extreme, revolution.
Typical modern American thinking. There are more then two options. One is civil disobediance. Another is working to change the laws.
In short - things are not black and white only
How apt given your claim of there only being two methods of dealing with laws you don't agree with.
When the law is wrong people will fight for their right to do what is criminal. that said.. what is criminal is not necessarily morally wrong.
Actually 1 of those things isn't the same as the other (possibly the union men as well, haven't heard of them). Namely the drinking of alcohol during prohibition. They weren't fighting anything. They were just getting drunk and hope they wouldn't get caught.
It's only illegal when you consider the fact that the RIAA and companies like it have bought extensions. Whilever they continue in such behaviour, and their previous extensions exist, I have a difficult time feeling sorry for them when people abuse their copyright.
Now that I think about it, I suspect that Limewire's counterclaims are not as frivolous as we think
IANAL, and while in law terms it might be frivolous, in simple common sense terms, the counter claim isn't frivolous, it's just stating the plain facts. IMO that IS the RIAA's game. The fact they're able to target people who are breaking laws that the RIAA have helped buy merely allows them to have some aura of legitimacy. If these people were using p2p legally, they'd find other ways to try to crush p2p.
I've seen footage of people on the Vomit Comet, and for something that's supposedly weightless, it's amazing how much time they spent on the floor of the plane, or drifting towards it. It wasn't really weightless so much as really-really-light.
I sure hope it isn't a vasectomy.
In that case it sounds like an overnight charge. After all, does anyone really drive 500 miles in a day? Although such cars will need to be hybrids so they can switch to petrol for the once every blue moon long trip, for most people for most daily usage, they sound perfect. Or does the $9 increase if you take longer to recharge (I can't imagine why, but I thought I'd ask)?
If the copyright cartel enforcers are required to have downloaded copies from the alleged infringer in order to maintain a suit
But hang on, when you download something, aren't you forced to upload as well on most p2p networks/bittorrent? If so, then does the RIAA have permission from the "artists" to distribute content in such a manner? If they don't, can't they then be sued by the people they're supposedly representing?
Oh please all of my answers be correct. Then someone find some wealthy artist who isn't too happy with the RIAA!
That's funny. I know plenty of people who buy doors with better locks then cheaper doors. Guess they're just fictional people though?
I didn't ask where he was from, I asked where he is. Yeeesh. You might want to brush up on those ESL courses.
it's still probably safe to say that those using speakeasies disagreed with the law, and they certainly proved that ignoring a bad law is a good way to get rid of it!
I ask this: Is breaking the law and hiding from the police a course of action you (would/do) encourage in your society? After all, whether or not you think it's a bad law is irrelevant, as that's just your personal bias.
WTF are you talking about? Your irrational and offtopic "think of the children!" rhetoric has no place here!
I'll spell it out for you:
You said that Rosa Parks being civilly disobediant is something to be praised, and that anyone who views civil disobediance as a bad thing is merely biased against a certain unjust crime. Is this correct?
If you're with me so far, then read on. Otherwise you may wish to explain your point better.
Pedophile finds a young child and brainwashes (sorry, my bias is showing) them to like sexual contact with adults. They have sexual relations with the young child. Much like Rosa Parks refused to stand up from her chair. The pedophile then goes to the police and turns himself in, much like Rosa Parks allowed herself to be arrested. That's called civil disobediance.
Would you consider the pedophile in the above paragraph something to be praised? If not, then I ask aside from your own bias -- which isn't relevant -- what's the difference? After all, no-one is harmed (thanks to the brainwashing down beforehand).
And they try blaming global warming. Pfaw.
1. Geologically possible yes, but I doubt the humans had the technology to do so.
2. Us zany humans are actually able to determine past events based on various sources from nature.
3. What an interesting comment. Thankyou for that.
Sweeping statements like the above are simply stupid, as there is no evidence either way. They do make for good inflammatory copy, though.
Sweeping statements like the above are simply stupid, as they ignore the evidence that exists. They do make for good inflammatory copy, though.
Oh yeah, in geological terms, human history is less than the blink of an eye.
Again an interesting comment.
With fossils unearthed recently showing _tropical_ weather in Northern Canada, I think it's safe to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature.
But how can you know that unless humans were there to record it? Oh I see, so you acknowledge we don't need humans with recording devices to determine prior events, but ignored it up above when you made point two huh? As I said before, sweeping statements like the above are simply stupid, as they ignore the evidence that exists. They do make for good inflammatory copy, though.
I thought he was in Alaska or something?