Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

Oh, I agree the issue is major, but won't that issue be decided when the judge rules and not be this order?

That's what I mean. If this had been a story about the ruling, I wouldn't have complained. But this boils down to "the judge is thinking about doing something but hasn't done it yet."

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

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?

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point (267 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

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. ;)

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point (267 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

I remember my username. It's rather easy, considering it's my initials.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

his many courageous statements in previous threads asserting support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners

[citation needed]
Seriously. Post some links rather than just making accusations. This should be fun.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

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. ;)

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

But it's not being posted in "the media." It's being posted on slashdot, a site where the great majority of us are already on-board the "RIAA is evil" bandwagon. It's not changing any minds having the legal minutiae posted here.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

Try reading my post. I didn't complain about coverage of the trails, but about the level of detail. Hell, it was right there in the TITLE.

My post was no more self-centered than your little rant here, and if I do say so myself it was quite a bit less petulant. Time to take your own advice about whining.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

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).

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

If slashdot wants to make me an editor, I'd be happy to help them out with that.

Your uid is too high.

Nah. When they make me editor, I just get them to change the password on my earliest account that still points to my old college email address. It's 10k below timothy.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

Getting tired of posting this, but once again - I'm not disinterested in the cases. I'm disinterested in the daily minutiae of legal maneuvering in the cases. Those who can't tell the difference between those two will continue to fail to understand my point. Won't keep them from responding, though.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?

That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

Nope, not bitter, just like to have discussions about something interesting, rather than rehash the same old arguments every time. Most of the slashdot is already sold on the RIAA=evil topic. We don't need what amounts to a blog about it as part of the front page.

Journals are useless for what I'm talking about. I'm looking for the discussions that come about by posting an article where the whole of the slashdot readership will see and comment about it. Journals don't fit the bill.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

You have heard of the firehose, haven't you? You have a say.

Yes, I have and I do. Turns out that's not all it takes to front page a story, though. Front paged stories get discussion. Hence, I would like more interesting front page stories in order to have more interesting discussions, rather than more and more anti-RIAA circle-jerks.

It's really not such a difficult concept.

more than 5 years ago
top

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

whiledo Re:Too much detail (267 comments)

No, we really don't. But look, I see somebody has called you a shill already. Welcome to the Club of the Speedily Accused. We get together every year on Devil's Island in the Fall.

It was very astute of that particular AC to figure out that the entire world is separated into either RIAA shills or those who care passionately about the daily motions and orders and findings of every court case the RIAA is currently involved in. I bow before such a gifted mind. Maybe we should put them in charge of the Precrime division.

more than 5 years ago

Submissions

whiledo hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

whiledo has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?