Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Please (Score 2) 334

Whether you want to see all of the political information on screen or not is one thing, but Starship Troopers turned the political segments into a straight parody of Heinlein's views. You shouldn't piss on the author while making his book into a movie.

As far as his views in ST being fascist, I disagree. They're not mainstream, but not totalitarian either. There was a democracy, you just had to earn the right to participate through community service. I'm not 100% sold on the idea, but it has some merit.

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 525

IANAL, and you are, but it seems to me that there are two issues here.

What is a reasonable estimation of damages?
Does the statutory damage award have to bear some resemblance to the damages.

Gore and Campbell appear to only address the second question. The first is still very open. I don't think either side is arguing that correctly. To me $21 is just as wrong as $675000(though possibly less damaging to society). The real answer lies somewhere in between, but both lawyers are arguing the interpretation most beneficial to them(probably cause that's their jobs). In my mind the judge should put damages at some estimated seeding ratio * number of songs * punitive multiplier. I think 10*21*3=$630 would be about right. That's enough to be a deterrent to most, but not enough to ruin someones life for a trivial offense.

Comment Re:Non-Story (Score 2, Insightful) 261

I'm particularly not crazy about stem cells being cultivated, and possibly embryos destroyed, for frivolous treatments.

I'm not particularly crazy about you not realizing that this has nothing to do with embryos even though the article summary(not even the article itself), mentions twice that the stem cells don't come from embryos.

Comment Re:Good for AT&T! (Score 4, Insightful) 165

First off, not only did you not RTFA, but you couldn't even read the headline. The whole point of the article is that AT&T is *NOT* going to turn off your service without a court order.

As far as them being jerks for sending you a letter, I would think you'd like the heads up that whatever you're doing(legal or not) is drawing the attention of the RIAA. This is about the best policy one could hope for from an ISP.

HOLY MACRO!

Working...