If you think anyone has a "right" to sue or seek prosecution of someone who posts a mere link to a "pirated" copy of a copyrighted work, then you are mentally ill.
Anyone who sues or prosecutes me for posting this...
Any judge who allows such a case or suit to go forward needs to be killed. Any judge who forces me to pay any amount of money as a result of such a case or suit needs to be killed.
The members of the Norway Supreme Court who voted in favor of this ruling need to be killed.
As you get older you will realize that a 30 year old guy can not talk to a 16 year old.
I'm 26 and I still "talk" to 16 year old sluts. Not a whole lot, but a couple per year. I don't expect to discontinue this practice by the time I'm 30. Sure, they're as dumb as your typical livestock, but the benefits greatly outweigh the annoyance.
As the age of consent in my state is 16, there's no way I can be prosecuted.
I don't care what government uses for their menial bureaucratic IT needs, as long as it doesn't cost any more of my money as absolutely necessary.
But any government choosing to spend a greater amount of the taxpayer's money to use "free" open-source software deserves to be blown up with truck bombs.
Please explain how a John Fucking Kerry presidential election victory would have prevented a Demonrat state senator in California's Demonrat dominated legislature from introducing this P2P criminalization bill.
Yes... when about 5 percent of the world's population uses between 20 and 40 percent of the world's energy, depending on the type you're discussing, I'd say there's a problem with that particular 5 percents energy policy.
We also produce 21 percent of the world's GDP, and among many, many other things, build the microprocessors and other stuff that allow you to excrete your bullshit onto the Web.
Any other posts you'd like to make so people can come back and make you sound stupid?
That site was produced by totalitarians, delusional psychotics and people of sub-human intelligence.
They neglect to mention places with fierce gun prohibitions, but murder rates higher than the US, such as Mexico, Taiwan and the Philippines. (They actually do mention Mexico, but they don't show us the total murder rate, instead throwing in some bullshit "firearm deaths" statistics to keep from being discredited.)
Only an ignorant sub-human who disregards hundreds of years of American history, or a delusional psychotic totally separated from objective reality is capable of making such a brain-damaged statement, let alone using a long-discredited article to back his "argument".
....provided the police and military are also required to use them, with the same penalties given to cops and soldiers who don't.
But, seeing as that is never going to be the case, people like Senator Frank Lautenberg can get fucked in the ass and die of AIDS.
Since he's already earned the death penalty for his victim disarmament activities in Congress, that would be a good alternative to a firing squad. But then again, he's too old. He'd likely die of old age before AIDS set in (yes, even without medications). Therefore, he should simply be shot down on the steps of the Capitol, or outside his home, etc.
But those who passed the New Jersey law, and all those who are trying to make it federal law, should suffer the same fate.
Mexico has all the qualities you want in a country
On the contrary; Mexico has less of the qualities I want, and more of the qualities you want: more labor regulations, more environmental regulations, more state ownership of property, etc.
Oh, and by the way, when were you born? I'm willing to bet it was my country before it was yours.
Not relevant to my statement. Individualists were in this country long before your kind came along and started America down the path to Hell (Socialism).
Re:"no end in sight"? Nonsense! Try a hanging rope
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 0
How about we just liquidate people who "think" like you do?
Those who try to interfere with who I trade or contract with all need to be killed.
Re:Americans have brought much of this on ourselve
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 0
Those pesky things like minimum wages, overtime pay, and regulated safe working conditions. You know, those things that make America a desirable place to live?
None of that makes America a desrable place to live. High degrees of capitalism and freedom is what makes America a desirable place to live.
Because economic markets are so stable! Let's just try to forget all the people who lost all their savings with companies' deceitful accounting and the dot com crash.
Then again, those of us who invested responsibly continue to do well.
Let me point out another country where labor is extremely cheap. MEXICO! You're right; we should model our economy on the example of a third world country.
Mexico is a second-world nation. It is a second world nation because of decades of socialist policies that many Slashdot posters are fond of.
Re:Americans have brought much of this on ourselve
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Do you drive on roads and highways? Do you flush your toilet?
The 2005 federal budget for roads is about $35 billion dollars.
In comparison, the Social(ist) Welfare State outlays this year will be somewhere around $1.3 trillion dollars.
So don't give us this "But you drive on roads, don't you?" argument. The money we pay to support the geezers, bums, addicts, sluts and illegal immigrants far exceeds what we spend on roads, and even the military.
Places like Sweden. Finland. Canada. Denmark. The Netherlands. The UK. The U.S. and Australia are in this category as well, plus a smattering of smaller countries like Luxembourg, Chile, and Ireland.
Most of these countries have strong social safety nets and workers have extensive and well-established rights. A strong social safety net benefits both society and business, as these countries have figured out.
The reason those countries now rank higher than the US is that they have dismantled much of their social(ist) welfare programs, have loosened restrictions and regulations on business, and lowered taxes, especially corporate taxes.
Throw that away, and you'll have robber baron capitalism, and we know how good that is for a country's standard of living (look at Russia after the fall of the USSR).
The standard of living in Russia after the fall of the USSR was a direct result of being a socialist state for 70+ years, not because of what you call "robber baron capitalism".
Can you name a country that has no social safety net, little government regulation of industry, and at the same time, has a high standard of living?
Hong Kong, Singapore. Maybe not "no social safety net", but close to it.
There are a lot of countries that fit the first two criteria, but they're in the third world.
Third World nations are Third World because of socialist policies, not because of "unrestrained capitalism".
what happens when someone goes to the hospital without health insurance and there is no Medicare.
Simple; that person is billed an amount to pay, and will have to pay it, probably with the assistance of family.
the amount of money spent on welfare is minuscule when compared to the amount of money spent to subsidize the industries that are so dear to the republican party.
But when we look at the federal budgets, we see that the Social(ist) Welfare State, and the funds necessary to administer it counts for well more than half of all federal outlays. Therefore, your assertion is absolute flat-out bullshit.
that welfare mom that you hate so much contributes more to you economic security that the fat peace of shit subsidized company that you probably think is wonderful you fucking ignorant savage you should that the welfare lady because shes part of the reason that you have a job fucktard.
When was the last time you were offered a job by a welfare whore, you idiot?
Eric Adint; your post here has been archived. It will be distributed to your prospective employers, who will no doubt find humor in your lack of writing skills. Your name has been added to the blacklist of left-wing human garbage who should not be hired under any circumstances.
You ought to move to Mexico where all that's the norm. And I'm not kidding.
That Mexico is a shithole is a direct result of socialist policies put in place by people like you.
The only reason I give a shit about you is that you're fucking up my country.
This is not "your country". Us individualists were here centuries before you sub-human "liberals" and socialists crawled out of the slime to destroy this once-great nation.
Really? The Chinese fought (and lost) two wars to kill the Opium trade because of the effects it was having on their people.
Squabbles over Chinese drug prohibition has no bearing on the morality or the ethical nature of one person selling a substance to another person who sought it.
And Prohibition wasn't a crime. Selling alcohol was the crime.
Let me put it to you this way:
Those who try to control what we eat, drink or smoke, all need to be killed.
As alcohol prohibition violated the natural right of people to drink what they want (which derives from the natural right of self-ownership, each protected by Amendment IX), it was a crime against the American people.
Got it?
Yes, you nitwit. There were several treaties later passed by the U.S. government to prevent the trade of alcohol with the Indians because of the disasterous effects it was having on their social order.
That some Indians were unable to control their alcohol consumption is not a valid rationale for banning alcohol sales to all Indians. Nor does that fact make the act of selling alcohol to an Indian (who may or may not be a miserable alcoholic) inherently immoral or unethical.
You need to stop thinking like a God damn collectivist.
Your post sounds curiously like the "slimebag revisionist history" that happened with regards to Kent State. "But they were throwing rocks. How could you not shoot at someone throwing rocks?" Well, the protestors didn't leave a body count. End of story.
That the Kent State rioters were throwing rocks - and throwing back tear gas canisters - at guardsmen who had not been trained to deal with riot situations is a fact. 28 guardsmen misunderstood an order and opened fire. Those soldiers were punished. It's not as if the Guard rolled into the campus bent on killing people.
Specific to Ludlow, what isn't mentioned is the infiltrators sent in by Rockefeller to try and bust-up the attempt to Unionize (and therefore, the intimidation tactics to see who was who).
If some group of people who I paid to work for me was causing trouble on the premises, I too would want to know what was going on.
You make it sound as if businesses were negotiating in good faith, and only after the "Marxist class-war union bosses" (nice use of language to dehumanize your opponent) got violent; well, the businesses had no choice but to respond.
Whether or not they were "negotiating in good faith" according to your standards is irrelevant. What matters is that the business fired the striking workers and hired replacements. The Marxist class-war union bosses then proceeded to violently intimidate and murder those workers. The company hired private security to protect it's workers, but it was the government who sent in the guard.
If the situation were reversed (a bunch of unionist get together and decided to kill Rockefeller)
As Rockefeller didn't outright decide to kill a bunch of union organizers, your statement is false.
Here's another fact that doesn't change: this isn't the first or last time. Do your research and you will see thousands of examples of where lives have been lost in businesses pursuing the almighty buck. I doubt "Marxist class-war union bosses" can be used to explain them all.
Yes, there are those who chose to risk their lives in the hopes of making a fortune.
Oh, but that's right, you're accusing the Evil Capitalists of capriciously and wantonly murdering the workers they employ.
Well, even if your assertion had so much as a grain of truth to it, the deaths caused by those who tried to suppress capitalism is, at minimum, three orders of magnitude greater than the number of deaths ("thousands") you people (falsely) attribute to the Evil Capitalists.
Shut-up up and do what you are told and you won't get some machine gun fire to your brain.
Actually, it's more like "don't beat up people, don't murder them, and you won't get some machine gun fire to your brain".
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who sues or prosecutes me for posting this...
http://www.thepiratebay.org/download.php/3274598/N ational.Treasure.TC.CUSTOM.SWESUB.DVDr-TFTDVDR.tor rent
Any judge who allows such a case or suit to go forward needs to be killed. Any judge who forces me to pay any amount of money as a result of such a case or suit needs to be killed.
The members of the Norway Supreme Court who voted in favor of this ruling need to be killed.
I'm 26 and I still "talk" to 16 year old sluts. Not a whole lot, but a couple per year. I don't expect to discontinue this practice by the time I'm 30. Sure, they're as dumb as your typical livestock, but the benefits greatly outweigh the annoyance.
As the age of consent in my state is 16, there's no way I can be prosecuted.
"StillNeedMoreCoffee" was referring to the presidential election, not the California gubernatorial race.
I don't care what government uses for their menial bureaucratic IT needs, as long as it doesn't cost any more of my money as absolutely necessary.
But any government choosing to spend a greater amount of the taxpayer's money to use "free" open-source software deserves to be blown up with truck bombs.
Please explain how a John Fucking Kerry presidential election victory would have prevented a Demonrat state senator in California's Demonrat dominated legislature from introducing this P2P criminalization bill.
We also produce 21 percent of the world's GDP, and among many, many other things, build the microprocessors and other stuff that allow you to excrete your bullshit onto the Web.
Looks like I've made you sound stupid.
This is probably due to hearing loss.
I encode in FLAC when I borrow CDs, or have a beat-up CD I can get a good extraction from (I use Exact Audio Copy with AccurateRip).
That site was produced by totalitarians, delusional psychotics and people of sub-human intelligence.
They neglect to mention places with fierce gun prohibitions, but murder rates higher than the US, such as Mexico, Taiwan and the Philippines. (They actually do mention Mexico, but they don't show us the total murder rate, instead throwing in some bullshit "firearm deaths" statistics to keep from being discredited.)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Gun prohibition has never reduced crime in any place at any time. Therefore, the purpose of gun control is control.
I won't be celebrating until all ATF firearm division enforcement agents are tried and executed for violating the Bill of Rights.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html
Mother Jones has always been written by untermenschen and delusional psychotics.
Those laws are for us, not them.
Somehow, I don't think we have to worry too much about US soldiers. The vast majority of them, anyway.
ATF and FBI agents on the other hand, seem to be ripe for the picking; as do legislators, judges, cops, etc.
If there are people like you in the city, that is reason enough for a citizen to own a gun.
But, seeing as that is never going to be the case, people like Senator Frank Lautenberg can get fucked in the ass and die of AIDS.
Since he's already earned the death penalty for his victim disarmament activities in Congress, that would be a good alternative to a firing squad. But then again, he's too old. He'd likely die of old age before AIDS set in (yes, even without medications). Therefore, he should simply be shot down on the steps of the Capitol, or outside his home, etc.
But those who passed the New Jersey law, and all those who are trying to make it federal law, should suffer the same fate.
On the contrary; Mexico has less of the qualities I want, and more of the qualities you want: more labor regulations, more environmental regulations, more state ownership of property, etc.
Not relevant to my statement. Individualists were in this country long before your kind came along and started America down the path to Hell (Socialism).
Those who try to interfere with who I trade or contract with all need to be killed.
None of that makes America a desrable place to live. High degrees of capitalism and freedom is what makes America a desirable place to live.
Then again, those of us who invested responsibly continue to do well.
Mexico is a second-world nation. It is a second world nation because of decades of socialist policies that many Slashdot posters are fond of.
The 2005 federal budget for roads is about $35 billion dollars.
In comparison, the Social(ist) Welfare State outlays this year will be somewhere around $1.3 trillion dollars.
So don't give us this "But you drive on roads, don't you?" argument. The money we pay to support the geezers, bums, addicts, sluts and illegal immigrants far exceeds what we spend on roads, and even the military.
The reason those countries now rank higher than the US is that they have dismantled much of their social(ist) welfare programs, have loosened restrictions and regulations on business, and lowered taxes, especially corporate taxes.
The standard of living in Russia after the fall of the USSR was a direct result of being a socialist state for 70+ years, not because of what you call "robber baron capitalism".
Hong Kong, Singapore. Maybe not "no social safety net", but close to it.
Third World nations are Third World because of socialist policies, not because of "unrestrained capitalism".
Simple; that person is billed an amount to pay, and will have to pay it, probably with the assistance of family.
But when we look at the federal budgets, we see that the Social(ist) Welfare State, and the funds necessary to administer it counts for well more than half of all federal outlays. Therefore, your assertion is absolute flat-out bullshit.
When was the last time you were offered a job by a welfare whore, you idiot?
Eric Adint; your post here has been archived. It will be distributed to your prospective employers, who will no doubt find humor in your lack of writing skills. Your name has been added to the blacklist of left-wing human garbage who should not be hired under any circumstances.
Have a bad day.
That Mexico is a shithole is a direct result of socialist policies put in place by people like you.
This is not "your country". Us individualists were here centuries before you sub-human "liberals" and socialists crawled out of the slime to destroy this once-great nation.
Squabbles over Chinese drug prohibition has no bearing on the morality or the ethical nature of one person selling a substance to another person who sought it.
Let me put it to you this way:
Those who try to control what we eat, drink or smoke, all need to be killed.
As alcohol prohibition violated the natural right of people to drink what they want (which derives from the natural right of self-ownership, each protected by Amendment IX), it was a crime against the American people.
Got it?
That some Indians were unable to control their alcohol consumption is not a valid rationale for banning alcohol sales to all Indians. Nor does that fact make the act of selling alcohol to an Indian (who may or may not be a miserable alcoholic) inherently immoral or unethical.
You need to stop thinking like a God damn collectivist.
That the Kent State rioters were throwing rocks - and throwing back tear gas canisters - at guardsmen who had not been trained to deal with riot situations is a fact. 28 guardsmen misunderstood an order and opened fire. Those soldiers were punished. It's not as if the Guard rolled into the campus bent on killing people.
If some group of people who I paid to work for me was causing trouble on the premises, I too would want to know what was going on.
Whether or not they were "negotiating in good faith" according to your standards is irrelevant. What matters is that the business fired the striking workers and hired replacements. The Marxist class-war union bosses then proceeded to violently intimidate and murder those workers. The company hired private security to protect it's workers, but it was the government who sent in the guard.
As Rockefeller didn't outright decide to kill a bunch of union organizers, your statement is false.
Yes, there are those who chose to risk their lives in the hopes of making a fortune.
Oh, but that's right, you're accusing the Evil Capitalists of capriciously and wantonly murdering the workers they employ.
Well, even if your assertion had so much as a grain of truth to it, the deaths caused by those who tried to suppress capitalism is, at minimum, three orders of magnitude greater than the number of deaths ("thousands") you people (falsely) attribute to the Evil Capitalists.
Actually, it's more like "don't beat up people, don't murder them, and you won't get some machine gun fire to your brain".
Right back at you, you son of a bitch.
Correct yourself. I do not seek those things.
What I seek is for socialist lunatic fucks to leave people like me alone and stop stealing from us.
I recommend moderate doses of anti-psychotics for you.