Nice straw man. Most of the anti-death penalty liberals I know are opposed to it because the judicial system exhibits a systematic bias against the poor and against black defendants, because it's harder to bring someone back to life than it is to let them out of prison, and because it hasn't been shown to be an effective deterrent to violent crime.
Not to mention the famous liberal former Gov. Ryan of Illinois...
My guess is that they want you to use their proprietary format (yes, I know they don't have control, and it's a standard, but it's patent-encumbered and there aren't a lot of decent free software tools for manipulating it) so that it's a pain in the ass to switch away from iTunes and iPod.
You don't know what you're talking about, and I mean that in a non-judgmental way. These men posted photos of the Does, they posted the Does' class schedules, what time they went to the gym, and more. This is not a case of some people saying nasty things on the internet; it is a case of harassment and stalking, and whether the anonymity of a stalker and harasser should be protected.
In this case, a court has taken action against posters: it has revealed their identities, thus exposing them to harassment and other consequences from private parties.
That's rich, since the lawsuit alleges that the posters engaged in harassment. Wouldn't want them to be harassed.
You sound like you're against this result, but your argument supports it. No one said these guys don't have a right to say disgusting shit, but their statements were lies or threats or calls to harassment or other things that have no merit and are wholly intended to be harmful to specific people.
The point is that stopping music sharing would be horrendously expensive. How much labor is expended on the RIAA's many Doe suits? Do we, as a society, actually think that a five-figure fine is a realistic punishment for downloading a song? We can keep increasing punitive measures, but music downloading doesn't seem to be on the decline. There comes a point where enforcement of a law is so expensive that we ought to look into changing the law. (See also, prohibition.)
Services exist that satisfy most of the people who are willing to pay for music. iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, eMusic, etc., etc. The people downloading music today would never buy it anyway, so why put so much effort into stopping them?
If you're using Gnome, I would recommend Epiphany. It doesn't require Firefox anymore, which was my biggest pet peeve. It's much lighter in memory usage, and its tag-based bookmarking system is still miles ahead of Firefox's. It uses tags as a substitute for manually creating a folder hierarchy, and it does an excellent job turning tags into folders. For example, if all your "Gentoo"-tagged bookmarks are also tagged "GNU/Linux", then Gentoo appears as a folder under GNU/Linux.
I think for people without net-access, phone-in activation is a decent substitute.
But what if you had it and for whatever reason (travel, etc.) are without it for a while? If a game has to phone home every so often, you run the risk of having it deactivated.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice straw man. Most of the anti-death penalty liberals I know are opposed to it because the judicial system exhibits a systematic bias against the poor and against black defendants, because it's harder to bring someone back to life than it is to let them out of prison, and because it hasn't been shown to be an effective deterrent to violent crime.
Not to mention the famous liberal former Gov. Ryan of Illinois...
1. $12k includes the price of the truck.
2. According to this, his truck would get 16 mpg, not 25.
Why did you want to get rid of all GNU software? Could you smell RMS's beard on it?
According to Wikipedia, Bash was first released in 1987, 21 years ago. I have no idea when it became the predominant shell in GNU/Linux-world.
Considered by whom?
My guess is that they want you to use their proprietary format (yes, I know they don't have control, and it's a standard, but it's patent-encumbered and there aren't a lot of decent free software tools for manipulating it) so that it's a pain in the ass to switch away from iTunes and iPod.
Unless someone wants to do drugs or have an abortion.
The article isn't very good. Here is a post containing links to previous posts and news articles.
Your claim that the web poster may be halfway around the world is less than credible, considering these men posted photos of these women at the gym.
You don't know what you're talking about, and I mean that in a non-judgmental way. These men posted photos of the Does, they posted the Does' class schedules, what time they went to the gym, and more. This is not a case of some people saying nasty things on the internet; it is a case of harassment and stalking, and whether the anonymity of a stalker and harasser should be protected.
Say hi to the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion when you burn that straw man.
Thank you. Someone is actually familiar with the facts of the case before spouting off about it.
Free speech means Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. However, things like slander, libel, and harassment are actions.
That's rich, since the lawsuit alleges that the posters engaged in harassment. Wouldn't want them to be harassed.
Yes, these Jane Does sound like they feel entitled not to be threatened with rape.
You sound like you're against this result, but your argument supports it. No one said these guys don't have a right to say disgusting shit, but their statements were lies or threats or calls to harassment or other things that have no merit and are wholly intended to be harmful to specific people.
Don't worry, it takes goddamn forever, reboots four times and requires you to be there after each reboot.
The point is that stopping music sharing would be horrendously expensive. How much labor is expended on the RIAA's many Doe suits? Do we, as a society, actually think that a five-figure fine is a realistic punishment for downloading a song? We can keep increasing punitive measures, but music downloading doesn't seem to be on the decline. There comes a point where enforcement of a law is so expensive that we ought to look into changing the law. (See also, prohibition.)
Services exist that satisfy most of the people who are willing to pay for music. iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, eMusic, etc., etc. The people downloading music today would never buy it anyway, so why put so much effort into stopping them?
Our market research shows that's the most popular coupon in the country!
Basically, it would be really nice to never leave your web browser because all the functionality is there.
Have you considered Emacs?
If you're using Gnome, I would recommend Epiphany. It doesn't require Firefox anymore, which was my biggest pet peeve. It's much lighter in memory usage, and its tag-based bookmarking system is still miles ahead of Firefox's. It uses tags as a substitute for manually creating a folder hierarchy, and it does an excellent job turning tags into folders. For example, if all your "Gentoo"-tagged bookmarks are also tagged "GNU/Linux", then Gentoo appears as a folder under GNU/Linux.
I think for people without net-access, phone-in activation is a decent substitute.
But what if you had it and for whatever reason (travel, etc.) are without it for a while? If a game has to phone home every so often, you run the risk of having it deactivated.
Well, they do have a few convicted felons. G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North...
Go back to jacking off with the new issue of the National Review and get the fuck of my internet.
It sure is funny to call women bitches, huh? It reminds us that issues are much less important than personality.