"Like many things their needs to be the correct balance."
Well said.
The headline here is incorrect. It isn't copyright that's making titles disappear. It's the extremes of copyright that the government has allowed.
The fact that a system is subject to abuse (like forever copyrights) does not mean the system itself is a bad one. What's bad are the a**holes who have abused that system. (I'm looking at you, "content owners", and Congress.)
First, I wasn't talking about the regulations. I said it was their job. If the regulations allow them to skirt their job, then the regulations need to be fixed.
Second, I was referring primarily to non-metered mail, and non-precanceled stamps. Did you see where I mentioned that my comment was not about canceling stamps so they can't be re-used? Postmarks also serve other purposes.
As for metered mail: again, I did not say anything about the regulations. I mentioned a realistic scenario which illustrates that a postmark is called for.
It used to be, the U.S. mail was accepted for sending legal notices, etc. But it is completely useless for that purpose in many cases, IF THERE IS NO POSTMARK.
So, back to my original point: regulations bedamned. The post office needs to start postmarking mail again.
I disagree. Granted, it could be intended as distraction, but it is bad enough in and of itself.
" Vote every single incumbent out of office. Having more than two political parties wouldn't hurt either."
Agreed. But having no parties would be even better.
"In the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle." -- Thomas Paine"
Pardon the long quote, but it's a good one:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissensions, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This, within certain limits, is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party: but, in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." -- Pres. George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
I'd give odds that I am older than you, and have been through experiences that show me how BAD of an idea this surveillance shit is. So why don't YOU grow up, and go read some f*cking history?
"It has long been held by US courts that the exteriors of letters and other items sent through the mail are not considered private."
Irrelevant. Systematic collection of public information can legally (not to mention morally) constitute "surveillance" and an invasion of privacy. Have you ever heard of stalkers? I've had people stalk me. Why would you give the government a pass or stalking when you wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else?
"It makes sense that they are allowed to photograph and record them for later use."
It makes sense to them. It doesn't make sense from a citizen's perspective. And guess which is more important?
"I mean, did you really think that a piece of mail sent through a government controlled organization would be hidden from law enforcement?"
Again: there is a very big difference between information simply being "public", and a systematic collection of that information. The courts have recognized this.
"... but still not really a big deal."
(Sound of loud buzzer.) Ehhhhh... sorry. That's not quite the answer we were looking for. Perhaps you'd prefer to live in Cuba?
I've been getting a lot of mail lately with no postmark. That's just BS, because postmarked mail can have enormous legal implications.
One of the Post Office's primary functions is to POSTMARK mail! If they aren't doing that -- and in a lot of cases, they haven't been -- they're very seriously not doing their jobs.
Prepaid bulk mail is one thing. But metered mail? How do I know you didn't meter it in your office one day, then actually send it two weeks later? Other mail? Hey, postal service: it's not JUST about cancelling stamps so they aren't used later! It's about marking when the damned thing was sent!!!
They haven't been doing their REAL jobs for a long time. They'd rather track your mail for Big Brother than worry about when you got the notice to appear in court for your lawsuit against the landlord.
Sheesh. And they wonder why they're losing business.
No, it doesn't preclude relevance, but it very strongly implies irrelevance. After all, if it is relevant to the discussion, then Godwin's law approaches being a tautology; there is no point to it anymore.
"They'd never call it "Patriot talk." Remember, "Patriots" are the brave men and women who spy on everything you do to keep this great nation and its people safe."
A friend recently linked me to an article about this very thing. For a change this is not Godwin's Law; this is actually relevant.
The reason it was possible for Hitler and the Nazis to rise to power, was because the populace mistakenly believed "patriotism" was not loyalty to The People or their country, but to their government. Big Mistake.
Patriotism is loyalty to your family and your neighbors, not to Barack Obama.
I've already read that article. In fact I referred to it above.
It really doesn't say much. A 4% difference, plus: they can't show that the correlation has any attached causation, and it appears they left out some figures (like union dues) that would tend to reduce that 4% to an even lower number.
I don't benefit from anybody forcing me to belong to their club in order to get a job. I've been in a union, and that hasn't changed my opinion. If anything, it reinforced it.
Jeff Cooper, ex-Texas State Trooper, found out police were IR scanning the outside of homes in NY, looking for growing operations. They set up something... I think it was a Christmas tree, don't remember... with some grow lights, then some remote cameras.
When the cops busted the door in, it was all caught on camera. They found a note saying "Busted!" and a few other choice things, and the video was made public.
"Not where I'm sitting. The employer can and does put all sorts of unreasonable restrictions in contracts it forms with employees, but unions cannot do the same thing on behalf of employees. It's about screwing employees."
Well, my experience with a union was exactly the other way around. It was the union screwing employees AND the company.
"Not really, right to work states don't have collective bargaining in any reasonable fashion. Sure it probably technically exists, but if unions can't prevent non-union workers from working on the site, then it's pretty hard for them to really negotiate as the employer holds all the cards."
There are NEARLY (but admittedly not quite) as many unions in my state now as there were before it became a Right to Work state. I won't speak for other states, but for mine, this is just plain BS.
The ONLY practical difference now is that you are not REQUIRED to belong to a union to work somewhere. A great many still do anyway. As a side-effect, it is true that the unions are not as powerful, in the sense that they can no longer command you to be a member in order to work. But hey... monopolies are un-American anyway, so why should I care?
"As for the 4%, I'm skeptical of that, I was making far more than that working for a union employer versus the rate for a non-union employer. And I know that the union drivers at the site were making even more with respect to the other drivers as well."
The 4% came from a study someone linked to above. Be as skeptical as you like. But complain to them, not to me.
"Ultimately, you do have to admit that it's a rather suspicious situation where pretty much all the welfare states are right to work states and pretty much all of that money is coming from states with decent unions."
My state is certainly not a "welfare state". It pays for itself quite well.
... whether it is "a growing movement". It's the user's browser. Let her turn off JavaScript if she wants.
Note to programmers (and keep in mind I am one): you don't own people and their browsers. If you try to lock them in, they'll struggle against you and you'll end up losing business.
"No, what right to work says is that unions can't form private contracts about the terms of hiring employees."
... because the unions are not the employers.
The practical difference is this, and I've experienced it myself so you can't tell me otherwise: in non-right-to-work states, you can be forced by unions to be a union member in order to get a job somewhere. In right-to-work states, the union can't force you to be a member in order to get a job.
So whose "rights" are more important in practice? The rights of the union, or the rights of the worker?
While what you say might be technically correct, it also misses the real issue by a country mile.
"If your'e not happy being a worker bee in a union shop, you might be in a field where your aspirations will not be met. That's more or less my take on unions. They're good for certain fields, but not others."
I tend to agree with this. But it still doesn't address the central issue: being forced to belong to a union in order to work somewhere.
Maybe the job doesn't meet your aspirations, but maybe you need the money and want to work, even if only for a couple of years. What then?
I, too, think unions still have their place in some situations. Being forced to belong to one? Not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
"Like many things their needs to be the correct balance."
Well said.
The headline here is incorrect. It isn't copyright that's making titles disappear. It's the extremes of copyright that the government has allowed.
The fact that a system is subject to abuse (like forever copyrights) does not mean the system itself is a bad one. What's bad are the a**holes who have abused that system. (I'm looking at you, "content owners", and Congress.)
It's actually pretty funny that you think so.
Have a nice day. Be careful not to hit your head.
Read my reply to the other poster. His little factoid has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.
"Let me help you with a link to start from:"
Let me help YOU understand my post:
First, I wasn't talking about the regulations. I said it was their job. If the regulations allow them to skirt their job, then the regulations need to be fixed.
Second, I was referring primarily to non-metered mail, and non-precanceled stamps. Did you see where I mentioned that my comment was not about canceling stamps so they can't be re-used? Postmarks also serve other purposes.
As for metered mail: again, I did not say anything about the regulations. I mentioned a realistic scenario which illustrates that a postmark is called for.
It used to be, the U.S. mail was accepted for sending legal notices, etc. But it is completely useless for that purpose in many cases, IF THERE IS NO POSTMARK.
So, back to my original point: regulations bedamned. The post office needs to start postmarking mail again.
"Stuff like this is a total sideshow."
I disagree. Granted, it could be intended as distraction, but it is bad enough in and of itself.
" Vote every single incumbent out of office. Having more than two political parties wouldn't hurt either."
Agreed. But having no parties would be even better.
"In the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle." -- Thomas Paine"
Pardon the long quote, but it's a good one:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissensions, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This, within certain limits, is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party: but, in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." -- Pres. George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
"Hmmm, so you're, what? 12? 13? Surely anyone past the ninth grade would have a better response than that."
And THIS is supposed to be an example?
Hahahahahahaha.
"Wow, grow up."
Wow. Fuck off.
I'd give odds that I am older than you, and have been through experiences that show me how BAD of an idea this surveillance shit is. So why don't YOU grow up, and go read some f*cking history?
"It has long been held by US courts that the exteriors of letters and other items sent through the mail are not considered private."
Irrelevant. Systematic collection of public information can legally (not to mention morally) constitute "surveillance" and an invasion of privacy. Have you ever heard of stalkers? I've had people stalk me. Why would you give the government a pass or stalking when you wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else?
"It makes sense that they are allowed to photograph and record them for later use."
It makes sense to them. It doesn't make sense from a citizen's perspective. And guess which is more important?
"I mean, did you really think that a piece of mail sent through a government controlled organization would be hidden from law enforcement?"
Again: there is a very big difference between information simply being "public", and a systematic collection of that information. The courts have recognized this.
"... but still not really a big deal."
(Sound of loud buzzer.) Ehhhhh... sorry. That's not quite the answer we were looking for. Perhaps you'd prefer to live in Cuba?
Looks like I've been hit by "vindictive mystery modder" again.
I've been getting a lot of mail lately with no postmark. That's just BS, because postmarked mail can have enormous legal implications.
One of the Post Office's primary functions is to POSTMARK mail! If they aren't doing that -- and in a lot of cases, they haven't been -- they're very seriously not doing their jobs.
Prepaid bulk mail is one thing. But metered mail? How do I know you didn't meter it in your office one day, then actually send it two weeks later? Other mail? Hey, postal service: it's not JUST about cancelling stamps so they aren't used later! It's about marking when the damned thing was sent!!!
They haven't been doing their REAL jobs for a long time. They'd rather track your mail for Big Brother than worry about when you got the notice to appear in court for your lawsuit against the landlord.
Sheesh. And they wonder why they're losing business.
I should amend my previous reply.
No, it doesn't preclude relevance, but it very strongly implies irrelevance. After all, if it is relevant to the discussion, then Godwin's law approaches being a tautology; there is no point to it anymore.
I know what it says. Sorry you didn't follow the logic.
"Godwin's law does not preclude relevancy."
Yes it does. Otherwise it would be a tautology.
"They'd never call it "Patriot talk." Remember, "Patriots" are the brave men and women who spy on everything you do to keep this great nation and its people safe."
A friend recently linked me to an article about this very thing. For a change this is not Godwin's Law; this is actually relevant.
The reason it was possible for Hitler and the Nazis to rise to power, was because the populace mistakenly believed "patriotism" was not loyalty to The People or their country, but to their government. Big Mistake.
Patriotism is loyalty to your family and your neighbors, not to Barack Obama.
I've already read that article. In fact I referred to it above.
It really doesn't say much. A 4% difference, plus: they can't show that the correlation has any attached causation, and it appears they left out some figures (like union dues) that would tend to reduce that 4% to an even lower number.
I don't benefit from anybody forcing me to belong to their club in order to get a job. I've been in a union, and that hasn't changed my opinion. If anything, it reinforced it.
They tried that in NY and got busted, big time.
Jeff Cooper, ex-Texas State Trooper, found out police were IR scanning the outside of homes in NY, looking for growing operations. They set up something... I think it was a Christmas tree, don't remember... with some grow lights, then some remote cameras.
When the cops busted the door in, it was all caught on camera. They found a note saying "Busted!" and a few other choice things, and the video was made public.
"And, if you have to worry about them watching you use their site, you hopefully will leave before giving them any important information anyway."
You have to know about it first, which I think was pretty much the point here.
"Not where I'm sitting. The employer can and does put all sorts of unreasonable restrictions in contracts it forms with employees, but unions cannot do the same thing on behalf of employees. It's about screwing employees."
Well, my experience with a union was exactly the other way around. It was the union screwing employees AND the company.
"Not really, right to work states don't have collective bargaining in any reasonable fashion. Sure it probably technically exists, but if unions can't prevent non-union workers from working on the site, then it's pretty hard for them to really negotiate as the employer holds all the cards."
There are NEARLY (but admittedly not quite) as many unions in my state now as there were before it became a Right to Work state. I won't speak for other states, but for mine, this is just plain BS.
The ONLY practical difference now is that you are not REQUIRED to belong to a union to work somewhere. A great many still do anyway. As a side-effect, it is true that the unions are not as powerful, in the sense that they can no longer command you to be a member in order to work. But hey... monopolies are un-American anyway, so why should I care?
"As for the 4%, I'm skeptical of that, I was making far more than that working for a union employer versus the rate for a non-union employer. And I know that the union drivers at the site were making even more with respect to the other drivers as well."
The 4% came from a study someone linked to above. Be as skeptical as you like. But complain to them, not to me.
"Ultimately, you do have to admit that it's a rather suspicious situation where pretty much all the welfare states are right to work states and pretty much all of that money is coming from states with decent unions."
My state is certainly not a "welfare state". It pays for itself quite well.
... whether it is "a growing movement". It's the user's browser. Let her turn off JavaScript if she wants.
Note to programmers (and keep in mind I am one): you don't own people and their browsers. If you try to lock them in, they'll struggle against you and you'll end up losing business.
Bonehead move, Mozilla. Put it back.
"No need for the ability to remove it; just change important info to all blanks."
Hahaha! You wish.
"No, what right to work says is that unions can't form private contracts about the terms of hiring employees."
... because the unions are not the employers.
The practical difference is this, and I've experienced it myself so you can't tell me otherwise: in non-right-to-work states, you can be forced by unions to be a union member in order to get a job somewhere. In right-to-work states, the union can't force you to be a member in order to get a job.
So whose "rights" are more important in practice? The rights of the union, or the rights of the worker?
While what you say might be technically correct, it also misses the real issue by a country mile.
Not to nitpick either, but they're both.
When people can track what you are doing while sitting in front of the computer, it's a VERY BIG security issue.
"If your'e not happy being a worker bee in a union shop, you might be in a field where your aspirations will not be met. That's more or less my take on unions. They're good for certain fields, but not others."
I tend to agree with this. But it still doesn't address the central issue: being forced to belong to a union in order to work somewhere.
Maybe the job doesn't meet your aspirations, but maybe you need the money and want to work, even if only for a couple of years. What then?
I, too, think unions still have their place in some situations. Being forced to belong to one? Not so much.