Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Too much detail (Score 2, Funny) 267

by whiledo (#28615203) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

I: Did you ever bother to read this? I didn't post anything agreeing with the RIAA. My post was how NYCL's post made it sound like the RIAA was gonna get smacked down, and the complete opposite happened. I was disappointed.

LOVE: This was basically the same thing, only the first time it was a general comment and the second time it was directed at Ray, who responded. It's funny you can take a comment where I say I don't like the verdict that Jammie Thomas is guilty and claim that's RIAA shill.

THE: Saying it would help her to have an alibi is being a shill and supporting DRM? If I said it would help Hans Reiser if he had an alibi, would that mean I'm a murder shill?

RIAA: Again, saying that we need to change the pro-RIAA laws before we can get the judges to follow them is being an RIAA shill? I'm beginning to understand why you think I think so differently from you. You take my comments and read them to mean the exact opposite.

ALOT #1: Okay, now this is just getting silly. That was a thread about gun control. Which part of that is "support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners"? You're really grasping here, buddy.

ALOT #2: Responding to a post claiming the GPL is pro-(software)copyright by stating that the GPL uses copyright against itself and would be unnecessary if we got rid of copyrights altogether is now pro-copyright?

Did you just decide to hate me first and then read my old posts to fit your mindset, or have you really misread my posts so badly?

Comment: Re:Too much detail (Score 2, Funny) 267

by whiledo (#28615083) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

But if Roy Disney decided that one of my songs was great for his multi-billion-dollar film and didn't want to pay me a dime, that would be unacceptable.

I understand where you're coming from on feeling like you need to control your own music in such a way, but in reality I think you'd be far better off if they used it and didn't get a dime. It'd promote you far beyond anything you could do on your own, assuming people like the music. It's really only when bands get huge, like Metallica, that it makes more financial sense for them to be more restrictive with the music being played outside of their concerts.

Sorry, I accidentally posted something on-topic. My fan club will be terribly disappointed.

Comment: Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point (Score 2, Funny) 267

by whiledo (#28614991) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

Well, honestly, how can anyone NOT read your crap seeing that you've taken up 3/4 of the god damn discussion. Suddenly this entire topic became about YOU and YOU alone.

The reason this thread is taking up most of the discussion is that there's nothing to discuss. This story is almost identical to yesterday's story that garnered a whopping 123 comments (including all the down-moderated ones). Today's "news" is just that the judge took the next step and asked Nesson to respond. Then they'll be a step after that when she rules based on his response. Couldn't we have just waited until the ruling, because you'd have the same thing to talk about, only then it would actually not be hypothetical. And if the previous story was worthy of posting and this one is, too, wouldn't it be logical that when she rules one way or the other, then that'd be worthy of posting? Can you see what I mean by minutiae?

I'm not really trying to prove my point anymore. Either people get it or they don't. I just have the unfortunate character weakness that when someone addresses a comment to me, I respond. If people stopped doing that, took their own advice and ignored things they aren't interested in, this would have been over long, long ago.

Comment: Re:Too much detail (Score 2, Funny) 267

by whiledo (#28614841) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

It will be a major occurrence if he actually gets sanctioned. If he doesn't, it will just be another blip. So why not wait until he actually gets sanctioned to post about it? Does anyone think that somehow we can change the judge's mind on this issue?

Having the minutiae ("someone is thinking about doing something but hasn't done it yet") left to blogs like NYCL's excellent one isn't depriving anyone. As far as the "don't read it" argument goes, the problem is that I am interested in the cases. I can't tell it's minutiae that has no effect on the case yet (again, when she decides to sanction him, then it will have had an effect) until after I've read it. So I read post after post, each time rolling my eyes afterwards thinking "damn, I thought something had actually happened." This time I just decided to post about it.

Sorry you didn't find my post interesting. I suggest to fix this that you don't read it. ;)

Comment: Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point (Score 1) 267

by whiledo (#28614571) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

Thanks for the word of support, mate. I think part of the problem is that many people read my post complaining about posting too often about legal minutiae and instead interpreted it as complaining about posting about the RIAA at all. That's why I wouldn't actually be all that interested in having a category that I can exclude. I want to know about how the trial turns out. I just understand that all this stuff has very little to do with it. I was also rooting for Jammie Thomas and you would thought she was a lock to win from the breathless daily updates posted to slashdot, but then she didn't. I'm not sure what purpose that served other than to show us that maybe we're not the most objective bunch when it comes to separating what we'd like to see from what is actually happening. I also think it's distracting people by leaving them with the impression that the courtroom is where they'll win, when I think that's unlikely until we actually get some of the laws changed.

Oh, and sorry about this, but be prepared to be accused of being me posting on another account (one of many I have no doubt!), and RIAA shill, and/or part of the 9/11 inside job.

Comment: Re:Too much detail (Score -1, Offtopic) 267

by whiledo (#28614405) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

My point and the reason I posted was to make some people realize that hey, this stuff has been posted in too fine a level of detail. Considering the moderation on my first comment, I can see I'm not the only one. I'm hoping it will influence people on the firehose and more importantly the slashdot editors reading it to reflect on just how much they're approving stories that are basically only about today's legal minutiae. I'm posting a lot on this particular thread following from my original comment because people keep asking me questions (even if it's just their rhetorical attempt to flame me).

And then I get the legions of people whining that they're tired of me whining. That's probably been the funniest part of the whole thread.

Comment: Re:Too much detail (Score 1, Funny) 267

by whiledo (#28614335) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

It's funny that you're not the first to follow this line. Complain about me because I complain about something else. I have a lot of posts in this thread, but they're all in response to people responding to me. It's funny how you don't follow your own logic - no one forced you to read any of my posts. And yet apparently you've read many. And you needed to post to complain about them. This same urge is what led me to complain about the story. It's pretty common human nature. Not going to put you down for it, but I hope you realize that you've displayed the same mentality.

Comment: Re:Too much detail (Score 1, Funny) 267

by whiledo (#28614165) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

Can't speak to how often it happens, as I've never seen anyone claim it before. In my case, I wouldn't actually want the account back unless I did get a job at slashdot (yeah, right) or was self-employed and didn't need to look for a job again. It has my initials as the username and I signed some of my earliest posts with my full name (yeah, stupid in retrospect but I was still a bit of a young-un at the time). Even after I had that account, I started mostly posting AC because I was getting paranoid.

Since then, I've went through a couple of different accounts because I realize that being such a slacker at work and leaving a nicer trail of bread crumbs showing frequent posting on slashdot might be an unwise career decision. I plan on sticking with the current account for a while, though, since I telecommute now and all my traffic goes out my own router.

Yes, far more information than you wanted to know in response to what was basically a rhetorical question so you could take a pot-shot at me. Sorry, but that's how I roll. If it makes you feel any better, you beat my original uid by over 7k. ;)

Comment: Re:Too much detail (Score 1, Funny) 267

by whiledo (#28613919) Attached to: Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.

Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts. I've been around and posting comments since a few months after slashdot was created. Abandoned it about the time I decided I didn't want my boss knowing how much I was slacking off posting to slashdot (I had my name on my sig for a while and all it takes is one google search for my name to link me to it).

Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing.

Working...