Slashdot Mirror

Nope

http://www.google.com/search?q=best+buy+internal+w ebsite&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-U S:official&client=firefox-a

From Feb 2007
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070209/124307.s html

March 2007
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-watchdog0302, 0,5198012.column

The FBI has blamed its blatant longterm abuseof the Bush privacy-invasion toy "National Security Letters" on its broken database.

Since, as usual, no one at Bush's FBI has suffered after disclosure of this destructive abuse, the excuse will of course multiply in popularity.

Funny how Bush Gang "mistakes" always seem to benefit Bush, though his gang claims it's all just accident and happenstance. Random distributions that always favor Bush must be "miracles".

I googled techdirt, and I searched their blog, and there's nothing about google and feedburner, take a look:
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=feedburner

So I'm betting scuttlemonkey typo'ed it, and it's actualy techcrunch, as the link says.

Please correct the summary.

--
Eat my dirt.

You know..there is an old saying about people who say things like 'there ought to be a law'.

Nice try though.

Sorry to reply to my own posting, but here is the link I was looking for:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070405/201336.s html

Do the friggin study :

1)Get a few dozen lab rats (baby rats if you RTFA and are still worried),

2)Put them near a wi-fi base station for a few months

3)Dissect and observe if tumors have formed

4)Repeat as necessary, with other organisms if you wish (perhaps the uninformed media wh**es?)

Now tell me: where in that list is there ANY room for a bunch of moronic talking heads on an alarmist docudrama to offer their OPINION? Farking incompetent buncha loonies! Bah ...

Rants aside, people really need to grow up and get over this knee-jerk reaction they have with "radiation". In case it hasn't been said already, EVERYTHING emits radiation. Fancy names like gamma rays, xrays, alpha, beta, etc etc (ad nauseum) are just names that were given to things BEFORE we figured out the physical principles that governed them. Someone needs to construct an equivalent of the dihydrogen-monoxide parody for radiation methinks :P.

Anyway, I found a very nice website for laypeople that explains the behavior of water exposed to different parts of the EM spectrum (water is a good prototypical substance as it is so ubiquitous in our body): http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html.

A special focus on the microwave region (1mm to 30cm wavelengths) can also be linked from that page. A few seconds of Googling found the following articles:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061212/080748.s html - A year ow wi-fi is equivalent to 20 minutes on a cell phone :P.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/he alth/features/article665419.ece - The original article. Notable quote:

"When we have conducted measurements in schools, typical exposures from wi-fi are around 20 millionths of the international guideline levels of exposure to radiation. As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 per cent of guideline levels. So a year sitting in a classroom near a wireless network is roughly equivalent to 20 minutes on a mobile. If wi-fi should be taken out of schools, then the mobile phone network should be shut down, too -- and FM radio and TV, as the strength of their signals is similar to that from wi-fi in classrooms."

IMO, the most comprehensive study was done recently by a Danish team: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061205/170444.s html and this is what came out of it:

A new Danish study tracked 420,095 people who've been using mobile phones for up to two decades or more, and found absolutely no evidence of a substantial cancer risk. The study is the largest yet disproving any cancer link, but the debate over the topic is like a b-horror film villain, who just keeps popping up after you're sure the last blow killed him. Science means little to the significant number of people who have made cancer via wireless their personal techno-bogeyman, so no study in the world is likely to change their minds and put this debate in the morgue.

Especially note the lines I have highlighted in bold.

Here's the original story for the Danish study in the Guardian: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/20 06/12/07/mobile_phones_dont_trigger_cancer_says_st udy.html

And just to assure the tinfoil pholks :P,

Do the friggin study :

1)Get a few dozen lab rats (baby rats if you RTFA and are still worried),

2)Put them near a wi-fi base station for a few months

3)Dissect and observe if tumors have formed

4)Repeat as necessary, with other organisms if you wish (perhaps the uninformed media wh**es?)

Now tell me: where in that list is there ANY room for a bunch of moronic talking heads on an alarmist docudrama to offer their OPINION? Farking incompetent buncha loonies! Bah ...

Rants aside, people really need to grow up and get over this knee-jerk reaction they have with "radiation". In case it hasn't been said already, EVERYTHING emits radiation. Fancy names like gamma rays, xrays, alpha, beta, etc etc (ad nauseum) are just names that were given to things BEFORE we figured out the physical principles that governed them. Someone needs to construct an equivalent of the dihydrogen-monoxide parody for radiation methinks :P.

Anyway, I found a very nice website for laypeople that explains the behavior of water exposed to different parts of the EM spectrum (water is a good prototypical substance as it is so ubiquitous in our body): http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html.

A special focus on the microwave region (1mm to 30cm wavelengths) can also be linked from that page. A few seconds of Googling found the following articles:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061212/080748.s html - A year ow wi-fi is equivalent to 20 minutes on a cell phone :P.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/he alth/features/article665419.ece - The original article. Notable quote:

"When we have conducted measurements in schools, typical exposures from wi-fi are around 20 millionths of the international guideline levels of exposure to radiation. As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 per cent of guideline levels. So a year sitting in a classroom near a wireless network is roughly equivalent to 20 minutes on a mobile. If wi-fi should be taken out of schools, then the mobile phone network should be shut down, too -- and FM radio and TV, as the strength of their signals is similar to that from wi-fi in classrooms."

IMO, the most comprehensive study was done recently by a Danish team: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061205/170444.s html and this is what came out of it:

A new Danish study tracked 420,095 people who've been using mobile phones for up to two decades or more, and found absolutely no evidence of a substantial cancer risk. The study is the largest yet disproving any cancer link, but the debate over the topic is like a b-horror film villain, who just keeps popping up after you're sure the last blow killed him. Science means little to the significant number of people who have made cancer via wireless their personal techno-bogeyman, so no study in the world is likely to change their minds and put this debate in the morgue.

Especially note the lines I have highlighted in bold.

Here's the original story for the Danish study in the Guardian: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/20 06/12/07/mobile_phones_dont_trigger_cancer_says_st udy.html

And just to assure the tinfoil pholks :P,

No, but it probably exposes a little bit of the ridiculous claims that Sony is losing massive amounts of money per console.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/16/sony-losing-mad -loot-on-each-ps3/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/88295/son y_losing_money_on_ps3_systems.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061116/085020.s html

And it proves the point that as consoles age, they become much cheaper to produce.

I'm actually surprised this didn't come sooner. At the very least, I've known MS, IBM and Apple (and should I even mention IP Innovation, the patent troll that sits on several Xerox patents and suing Apple over tabs) have numerous UI patents either cross-licensed or violated by everyone under the sun.

I've seen a dozen or two other patents mentioned on Slashdot over the years and know of a few more cases, as well, so this is not a surprise.
MS has its sticky patent fingers everywhere - UI elements, some parts of RSS news feeds, numerous graphical features (which are probably paid for by card manufacturers), some parts of font rendering (e.g. Cleartype, which can be added into freetype), application embedding, networking, filesystem and probably so many others it would take pages to talk about them all. Some of these patents may be frivolous and probably all but unenforcible outside of Marshall, TX, like the SMB/CIFS ones (which are not used as described in Samba and likely obsolete).

If we really want to have fun, Microsoft badly violates these patents, but then again, so does Linux (but if IBM needed grounds to sue by, there are a couple nasty ones there). I doubt Apple will ever sue over their skinning patent, but that would really suck.

Microsoft doesn't need to sue to kill OSS projects - they could start off by sending a threatening cease-and-desist letters to the projects violating the patents and hope they voluntarily kill the project. If that wasn't enough, they issue a patent infringement lawsuit and get an injunction on the author(s) and have their ISP shut them down. Then its a matter of follow-through and do a cease-and-desist on hosting sites.

    At least MS can't heavy hand it like Paramount did to a shareware author I knew in college (the game was a mac only trek game - I think Net Trek) - they basically sued the living crap out of him (he told me they asked for some ridiculous amount - I think millions of dollars - for use of the license) and then settled out of court including destruction of source and removal of the game from all servers (he was not allowed to talk about the settlement as part of the settlement, so I only know obvious).

The FBI has blamed its blatant longterm abuse of the Bush privacy-invasion toy "National Security Letters" on its broken database.

Since, as usual, no one at Bush's FBI has suffered after disclosure of this destructive abuse, the excuse will of course multiply in popularity.

Funny how Bush Gang "mistakes" always seem to benefit Bush, though his gang claims it's all just accident and happenstance. Random distributions that always favor Bush must be "miracles".

Mike Masnick covers all this quite nicely in his attempt to explain how Old Media "should encourage people to get their content for free". Old Media does not have to die at the hands of the "whiners", as you eloquently put it, though some may choose (business) suicide rather than change. To quote from Mr. Masnick's summary:

It's not about defending unauthorized downloads. It's not even about getting rid of copyright -- just recognizing that copyright holders can actually be better off ignoring their own copyrights. It's very much about showing the key trends that are impacting all infinite goods -- and pointing out a clear path to benefiting from it (while making life more difficult on those who refuse to give up their old business models).

Here are a few: the authors of Against Intellectual Monopoly , and some folks at TechDirt.

From the rules I have read, the USPTO appears to pitch themselves in a similar way to the courts. That is, if you dislike the results you can apply for a reexamination. If the judge/jury/etc misbehaves you can get a retrial. However, I doubt you can sue the Dept of Justice for legal costs etc due to needing a retrial.

This question of culpability was raised here http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051216/0312216. shtml

Pandora is being forced to block non-US listeners.

From the article:

Pandora.com, a popular streaming music recommendation service (which is already facing some challenges due to the new webcaster rates) is being forced to block all non-US users of its service. This is because the recording industry wants Pandora to sign separate licensing deals in every country where it has listeners -- a nearly impossible task.

You have to wonder how much longer the RIAA will get away with its ignorance and greed.

perhaps Boing Boing was banned for having something up about the equally asinine event where the police were called in to a church which somebody as a "prank" had placed stereos with obscene music playing, and then detonated the stereos by means of bomb squad, yet claimed the 3rd as "evidence" - which I also believe was in Boston...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070223/071109.s html

So you think that if I'm not reselling it, I should be able to take whatever I want, from anyone, for free? You just put every software, movie, pharmaceutical and music company out of business. prepare to enter a new dark ages.

Unbiased research, however, suggests the opposite will be true.

Note further the modern day example of fashion, where despite a complete lack of copyright or patent new designs are continually made...they have to, to compete! And to give complete lie to your statement: there are many many many fashion companies, and many are very profitable.

As I said, this is communism.

To argue for such a system is to say you are unhappy with capitalism, and would prefer a communist system instead.

I for one am leaving the DNC feedback on their feedback page:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

Here is what my feedback looked like:
I think it is a serious mistake for the DNC to closely associate itself with the RIAA. The RIAA is despised in more technical literate circles, and increasingly at universities for their questionable legal maneuvers in their holy war against file sharing.

Close association with the RIAA reinforces stereotypes about the DNC being "no different" then the RNC as both are "owned by corporate interests". Please reconsider the decision to appoint Jenni Engebretsen to the Convention leadership team. I'm sure she is a great lady and did wonderful things for Kerry/Edwards, but I have serious problems with the morality of her employer. Her involvement at a leadership position casts a shadow over the entire Democratic party in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others.

Thanks for your time, a few links about the RIAA follow.

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/04/13/162 5218.shtml
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061219/121441.s html
http://www.riaaradar.com/
http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-a merica/worst-company-in-america-2007-final-deathma tch-244408.php

Well, that's sort of the joke: they don't have any standing to send takedown notices, or rather, copyright infringement notices. According to their own website, "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry." They are, at best, a partial shareholder in some intellectual property rights. However, they can't issue subpoenas or adjudicate in any way, which is doubly unfortunate for them since Federal courts seem to be ruling against them a lot as reported here and here and here and here.

?How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?

As it has been repeatedly stated it is legal to gamble online, not all types of gambling are illegal. See Gambling Law US.

This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.

If you had RTFA you would of read, I know this is /. but if people actually read the articles linked to they may learn something, where the admin had tried this tactic but the WTO ruled otherwise: The ruling said that the US had a right to ban online gambling, but sided with Antigua in noting the US was allowing online horse race betting. Horse race betting is gambling so the US does allow online gambling.

Feh.

What is currently happening that needs to be fixed by this law? Forcing websites to cough up to be given a high bandwidth access to end users would be bad, but (AFAIK) that's not happening.

I see no reason to make a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Really?

Does Verizon pay every ma and pa phone shop who's lines they use passing Cell Calls to land lines?

I highly doubt it.

Why do you doubt it? Of course they pay them. Check out this recent story on a company that was making millions off of these payments by redirecting incoming calls back out over VoIP, basically a form of bit-laundering.

And, it's "whose," not "who's."

Commenter #4 on the Tech Dirt article nailed it!

See for yourself: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070320/171228.s html

You'd be right if it were not for the fact that they got a ton of taxpayer money to assist in rolling out broadband 'everywhere'. Not to mention that in many cases (as with cable) they are granted 'franchises' (read: effective monopoly) in certain regions by local governments.

It's a scam, plain and simple. If they were financing it all themselves in a totally free market then I'd agree that it's just capitalism at work.

Good thing we gave them $200 Billion http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_ F.shtml

It is quite possible that I am mistaken. It has happened once or twice in the past :)

I thought your two quotes were related, because although they were to two different people in two different posts, the second was in defense of the first.

The discussion at this point, as I understand it is that there is money to be made selling recorded music, despite what Courtney Love said about it.

I believe that Courtney's essay on the subject of record industry chicanery is probably accurate - she's not the only artist with the same view.

I take the Techdirt view of the value of recorded music:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070222/002451.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061218/203728.shtml
etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Basically, technology has rendered musical recordings worthless as a product in and of themselves. Yes, people will continue to buy them. Some people will actually continue to buy them at their current, historically inflated prices. But the number that do so is dropping year after year.

This doesn't change the other issue, most bands have always made more money from touring and ancillary sales (t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc) than from recording sales. If they don't have a recording contract with a distribution deal, or their contract allows them to do so, they can make a bit of cash off CD sales at concerts.

And here now, I see the crux of my disagreement, I believe. I mistook this quote!

When it is so patently obvious that owning music is worth quite a bit to hundreds of millions of people, the old argument that recorded music "should" just be used to draw people to concerts seems more than a little self-serving.

Yes. You are certainly correct! The only point I was trying to make about this is that the price of that ownership will drop dramatically.

It is quite possible that I am mistaken. It has happened once or twice in the past :)

I thought your two quotes were related, because although they were to two different people in two different posts, the second was in defense of the first.

The discussion at this point, as I understand it is that there is money to be made selling recorded music, despite what Courtney Love said about it.

I believe that Courtney's essay on the subject of record industry chicanery is probably accurate - she's not the only artist with the same view.

I take the Techdirt view of the value of recorded music:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070222/002451.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061218/203728.shtml
etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Basically, technology has rendered musical recordings worthless as a product in and of themselves. Yes, people will continue to buy them. Some people will actually continue to buy them at their current, historically inflated prices. But the number that do so is dropping year after year.

This doesn't change the other issue, most bands have always made more money from touring and ancillary sales (t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc) than from recording sales. If they don't have a recording contract with a distribution deal, or their contract allows them to do so, they can make a bit of cash off CD sales at concerts.

And here now, I see the crux of my disagreement, I believe. I mistook this quote!

When it is so patently obvious that owning music is worth quite a bit to hundreds of millions of people, the old argument that recorded music "should" just be used to draw people to concerts seems more than a little self-serving.

Yes. You are certainly correct! The only point I was trying to make about this is that the price of that ownership will drop dramatically.

It is quite possible that I am mistaken. It has happened once or twice in the past :)

I thought your two quotes were related, because although they were to two different people in two different posts, the second was in defense of the first.

The discussion at this point, as I understand it is that there is money to be made selling recorded music, despite what Courtney Love said about it.

I believe that Courtney's essay on the subject of record industry chicanery is probably accurate - she's not the only artist with the same view.

I take the Techdirt view of the value of recorded music:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070222/002451.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061218/203728.shtml
etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Basically, technology has rendered musical recordings worthless as a product in and of themselves. Yes, people will continue to buy them. Some people will actually continue to buy them at their current, historically inflated prices. But the number that do so is dropping year after year.

This doesn't change the other issue, most bands have always made more money from touring and ancillary sales (t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc) than from recording sales. If they don't have a recording contract with a distribution deal, or their contract allows them to do so, they can make a bit of cash off CD sales at concerts.

And here now, I see the crux of my disagreement, I believe. I mistook this quote!

When it is so patently obvious that owning music is worth quite a bit to hundreds of millions of people, the old argument that recorded music "should" just be used to draw people to concerts seems more than a little self-serving.

Yes. You are certainly correct! The only point I was trying to make about this is that the price of that ownership will drop dramatically.

I'm an Aussie, so I've never watched an NFL game such as this, but that notice "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited" is just plain crazy (hence her initial video posting I suppose)... I mean trying to stop people DESCRIBING an event... dear god who the F*ck do they think they are?

Hah! You think that's ridiculous? How about the NFL's assertion that if your television is larger than 55 inches (diagonal measurement), you can't watch the Superbowl?! It's so absurd you probably think I'm joking, but, frighteningly, I'm not. (Search for "55 inch" in that second link.)

Interesting, at first i thought this was going to be a reference to this story:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070316/112645.shtml

Granted that dog's noses are quite amazing, are there enough subtle differences between the plastic my discs and, say, my phone, for a dog to tell them apart?

I guess i'll have to close down my buisiness of exporting copies of Benny and Joon to the UK.

Given that his stories do tend to be fairly interesting, does it really matter if he's making money by submitting them here?

Of course! Making money off of someone else is evil! Just ask ultrasocialists like SBC/AT&T and Rogers cable, who think that people who make money from them are evil!

don't expect MS to admit that any time soon

Do you use a VCR? There's a show that you really want to watch, but you have another appointment. The broadcast flag is designed to prevent people from recording television shows for personal use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag/ VCRs were declared legal by the Supreme Court, which the content providers want to overrule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America _v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc./ The purpose of this is to make you pay for the episode which you already paid your cable bill for. The cable company pays the television channel for access and you paid the cable company. This is even more warped in countries like the United Kingdom which have a television tax.

If I own a DVD, I think I should be able to rip the video from it so I can watch it on a portable device. I paid for the DVD, the company which made the movie received its cut. The DMCA prevents me from legally ripping the video. This is to make me pay for a second copy of the same movie.

The nature of mandatory DRM hurts open source audio/video players (read more about this in the broadcast flag link). This closes the market to companies with innovative ideas and makes manufacturers follow the draconian rules of the RIAA/MPAA. The heart of a free market is the ability of new competitors to enter a market.

This is very similar to treating every Arab as if they were a terrorist. Imagine if you wanted to watch a movie and a permanent record is kept on a corporate server. If it's porn, I hope you never want to run for public office. If it's about a medical condition you have, I hope your insurance company doesn't find out. Why would you want to give up your rights so that a few companies can continue to enforce their cartel?

As far as the economic damage of piracy, Microsoft has admitted that when someone pirates software, they hope that it's their software http://techdirt.com/articles/20070312/165448.shtml /. A pirated copy is compared to a demo copy which might lead to a future sale. Windows has been frequently pirated, has Microsoft gone out of business? Several of the richest men in the world (including the richest) have made their fortune from this company which has been "victimized" by piracy.

I believe that stiff efforts need to be in place to stop the selling of pirated material. I just don't want to be monitored, digitally handcuffed or otherwise screwed over because the RIAA/MPAA wants to blame a bad year on someone other than themselves.

• More On Gunshot Detection
• Don't Fire A Gun In Minneapolis, They're Listening

• More On Gunshot Detection
• Don't Fire A Gun In Minneapolis, They're Listening

I read your comment as being an assertion that each padlock should have its own unique key, which, let's face it, is reasonable. But since car manufacturers are unable to reliably provide unique keys to their, far more expensive, vehicles I'd suggest that even then it's a form of security through obscurity. But that's aside from the point I want to make.

Padlocks are arguably less secure than user-name/password protected equipment (lock-picking and key-bumping, mechanical destruction with tools and so on) but their prevalence allows it to be impracticable to try all possible keys. Randomly assigned user-names and passwords are probably an order of magnitude more secure (though obviously it depends on the computational power available to an attacker) however this causes its own problem. If the randomly assigned details are set at the factory then what happens when the factory messes up its packaging, with the wrong details being sent with the router?

That's the only reasonable, so far as I can see, use for obvious factory-defaults, to allow guaranteed (so long as the firmware's not been messed up by the user in the meantime) access to the router's configuration panel. But, while in the default state, it shouldn't be allowed to connect to an external network in order to prevent/reduce potential harm to the user's network.

RIAA Will Drop Cases If You Point Out That An IP Address Isn't A Person

Earlier this month the inability to prove who actually did the file sharing caused the RIAA to drop a case in Oklahoma and now it looks like the same defense has worked in a California case as well. In both cases, though, as soon as the RIAA realized the person was using this defense, they dropped the case, rather than lose it and set a precedent showing they really don't have the unequivocal evidence they claim they do.

see here

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/001607.s html

for a few more details.

--What if prince was sick and couldn't tour, but could still make albums?--
What if I can only work for part of my 40 hours a week? Do I still get paid for the full 40? No, I don't... why? Because I didn't (or wasn't able to if I was sick) work the full 40 hours, so I don't get paid for the full 40 hours.
Artists are still WORKERS. That means if they want to get paid, they have to... work! I am always amused when a guy who makes over 500,000$ /yr wants to complain to me about how he doesn't have any money and he's soooooo starving. Give it up. From what I can see, it's people who want to work one time for less than a year of their life and get paid eternally for it. Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way, or should I say it *shouldn't* work that way.

--As for copyright keeping control in 'the politically powerfull' thats just slashdot immature 13 year old bullshit.--

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060808/1850214. shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/140812.s html

The first article is about Major League Baseball's fight for the STATISTICS OF A GAME. (and their subsequent loss as I recall.)
The second article is about Major League Football and their fight over the words Super and Bowl. They went so far as to sue a church because they had a screen bigger than 55" to play it on.

So absolutely, major corporations are NOT trying to 'own' every little thing that they can so they can get paid for it, it's just "slashdot immature 13 year old bullshit." (/sarcasm)

Sincerely,
"Theiving scum"

--What if prince was sick and couldn't tour, but could still make albums?--
What if I can only work for part of my 40 hours a week? Do I still get paid for the full 40? No, I don't... why? Because I didn't (or wasn't able to if I was sick) work the full 40 hours, so I don't get paid for the full 40 hours.
Artists are still WORKERS. That means if they want to get paid, they have to... work! I am always amused when a guy who makes over 500,000$ /yr wants to complain to me about how he doesn't have any money and he's soooooo starving. Give it up. From what I can see, it's people who want to work one time for less than a year of their life and get paid eternally for it. Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way, or should I say it *shouldn't* work that way.

--As for copyright keeping control in 'the politically powerfull' thats just slashdot immature 13 year old bullshit.--

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060808/1850214. shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/140812.s html

The first article is about Major League Baseball's fight for the STATISTICS OF A GAME. (and their subsequent loss as I recall.)
The second article is about Major League Football and their fight over the words Super and Bowl. They went so far as to sue a church because they had a screen bigger than 55" to play it on.

So absolutely, major corporations are NOT trying to 'own' every little thing that they can so they can get paid for it, it's just "slashdot immature 13 year old bullshit." (/sarcasm)

Sincerely,
"Theiving scum"

I imagine that the prices are very carefully calculated to yield the maximum amount of profit (feel free to correct me if anyone has statistics to prove otherwise).

I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course, this ignores the concept of a "fair" price. But since the word fair is such a difficult word to pin down, I'll have to give it my best shot.
There is the model of competitive pricing, which is more or less built on the cost of selling. When you go the grocery store to buy your dozen eggs, you can see they're not very expensive; a dollar at most in most areas. I would say that is relatively in line with how much it costs to get the eggs there, with just enough left over to make the grocer 'feel like' putting them there, and the farmer to sell them.
Now there's the darker side. I feel like I first became aware of this concept at my local amusement park, with the obviously jacked up food prices. It's $2.50 for the cup of french fries, which after cost of goods and wages, probably set them back 45 cents at most. I use this example not only because it's the perfect example of monopoly pricing, but also because there's a (relatively) fair market price waiting outside at your local fast food joint. 99 cents for more or less the same product.

I think consumers subtly realize when they're getting screwed. Wendy's doesn't have access to a pricing model of "do you get your food or don't you", they're stuck with "get it here or get it elsewhere". The amusement park definitely realizes you can't get it elsewhere, and the prices show it. People buy, of course, because it's usually a pain to leave and come back, and a day with hungry->whiney kids is hardly 'amusing'.
Ok, so maybe I should be thankful that my local amusement park is offering me the choice to not go hungry, but I know I'm getting screwed. They're making their extra buck off of my back, and I'm well aware of it. The same goes with the record labels. They keep the copyrights for the works that 'their' artists produce, so they don't have to fight against someone else selling the same music. Thanks to their convenient cartels, they don't even have to compete with each other over similar genres. The result? You guessed it. Overinflated prices. Again, this concept of a "fair" price is a difficult one to pin down, but I would certainly say it's less than the $12.75 we're stuck with now. Even 99 cents per song for the ones I like is a tough sell. I've been on a farm before (well, at least visited one), and I have a small idea of what a pain in the ass it is to raise chickens. I feel like a dollar is a pretty modest price to pay for 12 of them, actually.

Now there's the RIAA. Of course, their model is based on a certain amount of uncertainty of whether or not an artist will succeed, so it's a bit harder to gett a spot price (as opposed to measuring the effort it takes to raise chickens for eggs). Well, they claim that it's a lot, but in my experience, whenever a company is being secretive about their pricing, I've found that something fishy is usually going on. Music consumers (and artists... the monopoly works both ways) have been getting screwed for a long time, and it's no secret. Now, somebody comes along with a way to screw them back, and they cry foul? Please. I don't want to hear it.

What the Napster era really produced wasn't a country full of pirates. It was a new fair price. Now, the music industry actually has to compete with something. And it sucks for them. Bye-bye amusement park profits. Hello market price. But back to this

Vista has gone to great extremes to achieve digital content management. The Vista DRM requirements will greatly affect the design of video cards, monitors, HD-DVDs and other computer hardware in the near future. Microsoft seems to have really gone overboard to try to satisfy all of Hollywood and the music studios fears about computer owners somehow managing to access unencrypted protected content. Windows itself seems to have been designed as a digital content delivery system. Personally, I would have prefered to see a small seperate dedicated box of some kind use for that purpose instead of redisigning the Windows operating system and the computer hardware so drastically for that purpose. Here are two transcripts which talk about Vista DRM. At the top of each transcript there is also a free MP3 version available.

• Digital Rights Management (DRM)
• Peter Gutmann on Vista DRM

Hollywood, the music industry and Microsoft all seem to think that they should have the right to reach into people home computers and tell the computer owners what they can and can't do. As mentioned recently on Slashdot, the RIAA is now acting much like 17th century French button makers. It is almost as if the same people had been reincarnated again and are back again.

History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers

This Federal ID idea is definitely rediculous. I'm glad someone is actively opposing it. I suppose it is good they are trying to push states to actually have good ID cards. Some of them (West Virginia, New Jersey until recently) are rediculously easy to fake. Not that I, ahem, would know anything about that.
But let's not give them too much credit. This is obviously another step toward removing already eroding privacy rights in this country. And of course the convenient excuse "war on terror" will be stamped all over this.

Let's get a run-down of what this will actually mean to the average consumer.
~ By "common machine readable technology", I'm assuming they mean RFID, which we all know has its drawbacks.
~ I doubt this will end up being a substitute for a Driver's License. What if you lose driving privilages and have to turn in your ID? Do you have to get a new "non-driver" card just to go to the bank? Bull shit. Inevitably, this will have to be carried around in addition to a driver's license. Great, another unnecessary card to carry in my wallet. Why don't they just make us all wear collars around our necks. Not like nobody's ever thought of that before.
~ It will obviously be scanned at every point of use. I forsee an amendment in the near future extending this to train/bus travel as well.
~ Inevitably, this will be part of a big government database. We all know those are generally bad ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if they link this up to your EZ-Pass so they can see where your car is going too. Remember (FTA) this is an $83 billion project. It is going to be BIG. ~ What if you lose this thing? It's bad enough getting the state to replace an ID... who do I complain to now? The FBI? Dept of Homeland Security?

I don't even want to think about this anymore. Go Maine.

History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers

As regular readers know, I've been working through a series of posts on how economics works when scarcity is removed from some areas. I took a bit of a break over the holidays to catch up on some reading, and to do some further thinking on the subject (along with some interesting discussions with people about the topic). One of the books I picked up was one that I haven't read in well over a decade, but often recommend to others to read if they're interested in learning more about economics, but have no training at all in the subject. It's Robert L. Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers. Beyond giving readers a general overview of a variety of different economic theories, the book actually makes them all sound really interesting. It's a good book not necessarily because of the nitty gritty of economics (which it doesn't cover), but because it makes economics interesting, and gives people a good basis to then dig into actual economic theory and not find it boring and meaningless, but see it as a way to better understand what these "philosophers" were discussing.

Reading through an early chapter, though, it struck me how eerily a specific story Heilbroner told about France in 1666 matches up with what's happening today with the way the recording industry has reacted to innovations that have challenged their business models. Just two paragraphs highlight a couple of situations with striking similarities to the world today:

"The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: 'If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.' One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.

Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods."

Requiring permission to innovate? Feeling entitled to search others' property? Getting the power to act like law enforcement in order to fine or arrest those who are taking part in activities that challenge your business model? Don't these all sound quite familiar? Centuries from now (hopefully much, much sooner), the actions of the RIAA, MPAA and others that match those of the weavers and button-makers of 17th century France will seem just as ridiculous.

History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers

As regular readers know, I've been working through a series of posts on how economics works when scarcity is removed from some areas. I took a bit of a break over the holidays to catch up on some reading, and to do some further thinking on the subject (along with some interesting discussions with people about the topic). One of the books I picked up was one that I haven't read in well over a decade, but often recommend to others to read if they're interested in learning more about economics, but have no training at all in the subject. It's Robert L. Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers. Beyond giving readers a general overview of a variety of different economic theories, the book actually makes them all sound really interesting. It's a good book not necessarily because of the nitty gritty of economics (which it doesn't cover), but because it makes economics interesting, and gives people a good basis to then dig into actual economic theory and not find it boring and meaningless, but see it as a way to better understand what these "philosophers" were discussing.

Reading through an early chapter, though, it struck me how eerily a specific story Heilbroner told about France in 1666 matches up with what's happening today with the way the recording industry has reacted to innovations that have challenged their business models. Just two paragraphs highlight a couple of situations with striking similarities to the world today:

"The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: 'If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.' One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.

Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods."

Requiring permission to innovate? Feeling entitled to search others' property? Getting the power to act like law enforcement in order to fine or arrest those who are taking part in activities that challenge your business model? Don't these all sound quite familiar? Centuries from now (hopefully much, much sooner), the actions of the RIAA, MPAA and others that match those of the weavers and button-makers of 17th century France will seem just as ridiculous.

History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers

As regular readers know, I've been working through a series of posts on how economics works when scarcity is removed from some areas. I took a bit of a break over the holidays to catch up on some reading, and to do some further thinking on the subject (along with some interesting discussions with people about the topic). One of the books I picked up was one that I haven't read in well over a decade, but often recommend to others to read if they're interested in learning more about economics, but have no training at all in the subject. It's Robert L. Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers. Beyond giving readers a general overview of a variety of different economic theories, the book actually makes them all sound really interesting. It's a good book not necessarily because of the nitty gritty of economics (which it doesn't cover), but because it makes economics interesting, and gives people a good basis to then dig into actual economic theory and not find it boring and meaningless, but see it as a way to better understand what these "philosophers" were discussing.

Reading through an early chapter, though, it struck me how eerily a specific story Heilbroner told about France in 1666 matches up with what's happening today with the way the recording industry has reacted to innovations that have challenged their business models. Just two paragraphs highlight a couple of situations with striking similarities to the world today:

"The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: 'If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.' One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.

Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods."

Requiring permission to innovate? Feeling entitled to search others' property? Getting the power to act like law enforcement in order to fine or arrest those who are taking part in activities that challenge your business model? Don't these all sound quite familiar? Centuries from now (hopefully much, much sooner), the actions of the RIAA, MPAA and others that match those of the weavers and button-makers of 17th century France will seem just as ridiculous.

History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers

As regular readers know, I've been working through a series of posts on how economics works when scarcity is removed from some areas. I took a bit of a break over the holidays to catch up on some reading, and to do some further thinking on the subject (along with some interesting discussions with people about the topic). One of the books I picked up was one that I haven't read in well over a decade, but often recommend to others to read if they're interested in learning more about economics, but have no training at all in the subject. It's Robert L. Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers. Beyond giving readers a general overview of a variety of different economic theories, the book actually makes them all sound really interesting. It's a good book not necessarily because of the nitty gritty of economics (which it doesn't cover), but because it makes economics interesting, and gives people a good basis to then dig into actual economic theory and not find it boring and meaningless, but see it as a way to better understand what these "philosophers" were discussing.

Reading through an early chapter, though, it struck me how eerily a specific story Heilbroner told about France in 1666 matches up with what's happening today with the way the recording industry has reacted to innovations that have challenged their business models. Just two paragraphs highlight a couple of situations with striking similarities to the world today:

"The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: 'If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.' One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.

Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods."

Requiring permission to innovate? Feeling entitled to search others' property? Getting the power to act like law enforcement in order to fine or arrest those who are taking part in activities that challenge your business model? Don't these all sound quite familiar? Centuries from now (hopefully much, much sooner), the actions of the RIAA, MPAA and others that match those of the weavers and button-makers of 17th century France will seem just as ridiculous.

A quick Google search will find much more of the same.

Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?

In 2005, there were 16,692 murders in the United States. (link)

In 2005, there were 43,200 deaths due to car accidents. (link)

It has been shown that cameras increase car accident rates by between 7 and 24 percent. (link).

So, you tell me. With results like these, is there really a good basis for argument FOR these cameras?