I find it really, really funny that this came up. Back when Linus Torvalds said Slashdot was like one big wankfest, a friend and I came up with this:
Prideaux's Three Laws of Slashdot
First Law
In any story involving software, the probability of the discussion turning to open-source software and Microsoft becomes 1
Second Law
In any story involving energy or the environment, the probability of the discussion turning to the merit of global warming becomes 1
Third Law
In any story in YRO or involving peer-to-peer software, the probability of the phrase "there is no loss on any user's part, so it is not theft" or some variation thereof occurring becomes 1
Finn's Supplement to the First Law
If the topic of browsers, standards or the W3C arises, the probability of the phrase "standards are whatever the majority uses" or some variation thereof occurring within the discussion approaches 1 as the discussion continues
Living in a nation that does have video game laws, I can confidently say that the bill won't do jack. In New Zealand, GTA:SA is R18, or 16, or whatever. I know people from 10-17 who have it. Parents only ever care about violence in games for the first week after a news story about it comes on.
I agree that the Gandhi comparison is ridiculous - reductio ad Gandhium, I suppose, reducing an argument to comparing oneself to Gandhi.
But I do support artists, I do buy CDs, and I do know that use/distribution of pirated intellectual property is illegal and immoral. I just don't really care. If it did bring about the collapse of the music industry as we know it, you see, I wouldn't do it. That's the point I was trying to make. But as it stands, not much really happens as a result other than some lawsuits.
Oh, yes, downloading music will cause the collapse of the music industry as we know it, because artists lose so much money from it. It's certainly not as if the RIAA is bunch of rich c***s who deserve every cent they get out of the sale of a CD (most of it, by the way).
I'm not quite sure that's how it works. I don't see any reason why they couldn't vote against their own party's bill, or else there wouldn't be a vote at all, the party with the majority seat in parliament would win.
Impossible? Unrealistic utopia? My god, what world are you lot living in?
Ask any noble in the 14th century or thereabouts, doubtless he would have said it was impossible for a person who was not a born noble to become wealthy and be respected in upper-crust society. Ask a peasant, he would have said it a 'utopian dream'.
Capitalism sUx0rz!
Slashdot Mirror
I find it really, really funny that this came up. Back when Linus Torvalds said Slashdot was like one big wankfest, a friend and I came up with this:
Prideaux's Three Laws of Slashdot
First Law
In any story involving software, the probability of the discussion turning to open-source software and Microsoft becomes 1
Second Law
In any story involving energy or the environment, the probability of the discussion turning to the merit of global warming becomes 1
Third Law
In any story in YRO or involving peer-to-peer software, the probability of the phrase "there is no loss on any user's part, so it is not theft" or some variation thereof occurring becomes 1
Finn's Supplement to the First Law
If the topic of browsers, standards or the W3C arises, the probability of the phrase "standards are whatever the majority uses" or some variation thereof occurring within the discussion approaches 1 as the discussion continues
Not stupid, just pure evil. And nobody really blames them for that - you can't expect the spawn of Satan to be good, now, can you?
Living in a nation that does have video game laws, I can confidently say that the bill won't do jack. In New Zealand, GTA:SA is R18, or 16, or whatever. I know people from 10-17 who have it. Parents only ever care about violence in games for the first week after a news story about it comes on.
What do you need electricity for? Just stick it in the freezer.
I'd start by doing the exact opposite of what any /.er suggests.
Unless it is the reply to that suggestion.
Yeah, who likes not paying for batteries anyway? I know that I love spending monvey on small items that I need all the time, rather than walking.
I agree that the Gandhi comparison is ridiculous - reductio ad Gandhium, I suppose, reducing an argument to comparing oneself to Gandhi.
But I do support artists, I do buy CDs, and I do know that use/distribution of pirated intellectual property is illegal and immoral. I just don't really care. If it did bring about the collapse of the music industry as we know it, you see, I wouldn't do it. That's the point I was trying to make. But as it stands, not much really happens as a result other than some lawsuits.
Who said anything about justification? I only said it didn't matter.
mattered
Oh, yes, downloading music will cause the collapse of the music industry as we know it, because artists lose so much money from it. It's certainly not as if the RIAA is bunch of rich c***s who deserve every cent they get out of the sale of a CD (most of it, by the way).
Hmmm...a comment is modded 'Funny'.
Then a reply, saying that the comment was stupid, is modded 'insightful', obviously for pointing out that the previous post was ridiculous and stupid.
Hmmm...slashdot readers.
I'm not quite sure that's how it works. I don't see any reason why they couldn't vote against their own party's bill, or else there wouldn't be a vote at all, the party with the majority seat in parliament would win.
Impossible? Unrealistic utopia? My god, what world are you lot living in? Ask any noble in the 14th century or thereabouts, doubtless he would have said it was impossible for a person who was not a born noble to become wealthy and be respected in upper-crust society. Ask a peasant, he would have said it a 'utopian dream'. Capitalism sUx0rz!
I question the credibility of any scientist that brings it up.