while i tend to agree with you, i'm terribly misinformed on this topic...
perhaps you could include a fact or two in your post railing against lacking correct facts
honestly, i would love to hear some of the finer legal arguments on both sides -- how does one define theft? when is it different than borrowing? if i were to lend you a cd, and asked for it back in a week, and you ignore me for a while, at what point is that theft?
what if you rip the tracks but don't give the cd back -- you're sure as shit stealing from me...but are you really stealing from the artist?
While I don't know much about the Mitnick fiasco, I completely agree with this assessment...almost...I can't help but point out one slight problem with your diatribe on this "exaggerated" appraisal. Last time I checked...
For a second, after reading your response, I thought, "hmmm, wow...maybe I was wrong"...after all, I have no problem acknowledging that. Then, I took a quick look at your psuedo-facts, and was relieved to learn you're simply full of shit!
Really? Based on what...your say-so?
No -- based, for one, on common sense...but if you'd like further description, here are quotes from wikipedia...
"Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality."
"Civil rights are those rights developed by citizens over time and sometimes protected by governments...refer to the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, sex, or other class"
Pretty much says it all...you really couldn't be more wrong. That's a relief...
it is to DEFEND those rights that we institute government. Notice that at no point does the government "give" rights
How can you assert that the government is established to DEFEND our rights when the rights themselves are, simply and exclusively, our DEFENSE against the government itself?
The constitution is not merely a document defining the powers of the government, but a document on human rights that ALL PEOPE ARE ENTITLED TO.
I can't believe I have to bother pointing this out, but Civil Rights and Human Rights are very -- repeat very different beasts...
The Constitution lays out our Civil Rights or our Civil Liberties -- it makes no assertions of human rights, and as such, is meant to only apply to citizens of this Republic!
Human rights, while more basic and less extensive, are supposed to apply to all...but try telling that to China. When you're back, if you make it, make sure you tell/. what it's like staring down the barrel of a rifle...
"Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others." --Ayn Rand
As someone explained to me once, corporation are by law required to work towards enriching stakeholders.
Did that someone happen to come from a land prefixed by The People's Republic of...?
There are so many ignorant and inflammatory things wrong with your post I don't even know where to begin.
First of all, if this were the case, stupidity would have to be a white collar crime, and half the world (including myself) would probably end up in country club prison.
Profit is obviously one of the goals of any for profit institution, but it is clearly unlegislatable to mandate this. Even if it were, enriching stakeholders would be pointless -- if you've ever taken a business class, or even done an iota of research, which I highly doubt, you would know there's a huge difference between stockholders and stakeholders -- a stakeholder is anybody and everybody associated with a given entity -- employees, vendors, customers, regulatory agencies, etc. -- in addition to investors.
Give me a feckin' break, man...we live in a world driven by profit, as it should be. A corporation contributing to the rape and pillage of our civil liberties may bring a short term profit, but it by no means guarantees continued success, particularly with/. and other loud and abrasive public forums around to point these abuses out -- and this, my naive comrade, is why capitalism works!
Slashdot Mirror
while i tend to agree with you, i'm terribly misinformed on this topic...
perhaps you could include a fact or two in your post railing against lacking correct facts
honestly, i would love to hear some of the finer legal arguments on both sides -- how does one define theft? when is it different than borrowing? if i were to lend you a cd, and asked for it back in a week, and you ignore me for a while, at what point is that theft?
what if you rip the tracks but don't give the cd back -- you're sure as shit stealing from me...but are you really stealing from the artist?
While I don't know much about the Mitnick fiasco, I completely agree with this assessment...almost...I can't help but point out one slight problem with your diatribe on this "exaggerated" appraisal. Last time I checked...
$2.1 billion != $2,100,000.00
For a second, after reading your response, I thought, "hmmm, wow...maybe I was wrong" ...after all, I have no problem acknowledging that. Then, I took a quick look at your psuedo-facts, and was relieved to learn you're simply full of shit!
...just...wow!
Really? Based on what...your say-so?
No -- based, for one, on common sense...but if you'd like further description, here are quotes from wikipedia...
"Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality."
"Civil rights are those rights developed by citizens over time and sometimes protected by governments...refer to the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, sex, or other class"
Pretty much says it all...you really couldn't be more wrong. That's a relief...
it is to DEFEND those rights that we institute government. Notice that at no point does the government "give" rights
How can you assert that the government is established to DEFEND our rights when the rights themselves are, simply and exclusively, our DEFENSE against the government itself?
Logically falicies aside, wow!
The constitution is not merely a document defining the powers of the government, but a document on human rights that ALL PEOPE ARE ENTITLED TO.
/. what it's like staring down the barrel of a rifle...
I can't believe I have to bother pointing this out, but Civil Rights and Human Rights are very -- repeat very different beasts...
The Constitution lays out our Civil Rights or our Civil Liberties -- it makes no assertions of human rights, and as such, is meant to only apply to citizens of this Republic!
Human rights, while more basic and less extensive, are supposed to apply to all...but try telling that to China. When you're back, if you make it, make sure you tell
"Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others." --Ayn Rand
As someone explained to me once, corporation are by law required to work towards enriching stakeholders.
/. and other loud and abrasive public forums around to point these abuses out -- and this, my naive comrade, is why capitalism works!
Did that someone happen to come from a land prefixed by The People's Republic of...? There are so many ignorant and inflammatory things wrong with your post I don't even know where to begin.
First of all, if this were the case, stupidity would have to be a white collar crime, and half the world (including myself) would probably end up in country club prison.
Profit is obviously one of the goals of any for profit institution, but it is clearly unlegislatable to mandate this. Even if it were, enriching stakeholders would be pointless -- if you've ever taken a business class, or even done an iota of research, which I highly doubt, you would know there's a huge difference between stockholders and stakeholders -- a stakeholder is anybody and everybody associated with a given entity -- employees, vendors, customers, regulatory agencies, etc. -- in addition to investors.
Give me a feckin' break, man...we live in a world driven by profit, as it should be. A corporation contributing to the rape and pillage of our civil liberties may bring a short term profit, but it by no means guarantees continued success, particularly with