...what will Big Media do if they do manage to "conquer piracy" and they still don't sell more crappy content than they do now? I know I rarely bother to "pirate" any of the crap they think is so hot, there is so much niche, antique, and "unavailable" stuff that I prefer now. Lots of it really is free on the archive, among other places.
They'll continue to claim piracy losses and work towards instituting taxes on anything that could conceivably be used in conjunction with copying works. Hard drives, CDs/DVDs, flash drives, Internet connections, portable media players, etc. One thing's for sure. There's no stopping them.
but how about the G8 ease other side of Copyright by allowing the old stuff into public domain within a reasonable timeframe.
How would that help facilitate the continued transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the amazingly wealthy ruling class? See, you haven't thought through what you're asking for.
I've been using a light gray background for a few months now, and I think it helps quite a bit. I work in a shared space, so I can't do much about the lighting in here (fluorescents, and fairly bright), so I switched my background to the darker color. It is easier to look at for longer periods of time than a white background. Even works well when the others are gone and I can shut off the lights.
But come on, the only problem with their business model is that it is easy to break the law and people are willing to do it.
That and the fact that they have to continually bribe Congress to give them a free handout of longer copyright durations every 20 years or so. I think people can intuitively sense when they're being screwed, even if they can't articulate exactly how. Our representatives keep giving them longer and longer monopolies over the creations, in exchange for money, and the public gets squat in return. We've been getting fucked in this system for decades, and now they're trying to create legislation to fuck us even harder. Not surprising that people are pissed off and don't feel much remorse for not paying for the music they listen to. After all, I doubt the industry execs are losing any sleep over screwing us out of access to millions of works over the years.
If you eliminate the permanent politician in Washington, then there wouldn't be as much need for the money chase and we might actually get better laws.
Another benefit of having congress critters serving fewer terms would be that they would probably have to simplify a lot of the complexity of the rules that the two houses go by to facilitate the churn of new representatives coming in all the time. This should help increase transparency and allow for more sensible methods of handling legislation. It would be harder for them to hide their intentions behind mountains of procedural BS, and harder for them to point the finger at others if they can't easily hide their own actions.
Personally, I think they should serve shorter terms. Maybe 2-3 years, with a 2-term maximum. That limits the amount of damage that they can do, and the amount of influence they can accumulate.
Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.
And that's the moral high ground you hold your presidential candidate to? No wonder the US is scrapping the bottom of the barrel any more. You are aware of the term complacency? Last time I checked it wasn't a virtue.
Seems to me, with all the excuses people try to make for a candidate's behavior, that it's more like Stockholm Syndrome than actual political support.
It's all very easy, when the time to vote comes around you just consider the candidates, all of them, and vote for who you would actually like to run the country. Forget this "lesser of 2 evils" crap and vote for someone who you like.
Sounds great. Now if only someone worth voting for could get on the ballot here.
Just admit that guns are your security blanket and that you're emotionally unable to let go of it instead of making up fake arguments.
Your arguments are ridiculous, and aren't supported by the facts. Most studies that have been done report anywhere between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year. Every study had flaws, including the one study with the absolute lowest number, 108,000 per year. Even if you figure the answer is somewhere in the middle, that's a lot of defensive uses each year. Your suppositions about their effectiveness don't seem to hold water. I'd rather have a shot at being one of those who doesn't become a victim, rather than another statistic that the police will investigate after the fact.
You are missing out on the most reasonable answer to this: You pull out your gun and he has no qualms about shooting you, when otherwise he most likely would not have. He first is using the gun to frighten you, but when you show that you are going to use deadly force against you, he has no choice but to shoot you. It is a classic escalation of violence that drives this, even if neither party really wants to shoot each other.
Your scenario is possible, but it assumes that the person is only interested in your money/valuables, which isn't always the case. Second, anyone with any sense at all would hand over the money without resisting. It's only if there is an obvious opening that you would resist, or if the attacker attempts to escalate things on his own (maybe he's facing a third strike situation or is just mentally unstable and violent). A gun won't save you in all situations. Sometimes you just don't have a chance. But they have helped in a lot of cases. Thousands of times per year they're used in self-defense, usually without even being fired.
You tell me why some junkie seeking money would seek rape or murder, my mind can't make the connection between a robbery and a rape, but you sure seem to think they go hand in hand..? So you don't think rapes and murders happen? No gangs where you live? Nobody said it's just junkies that are the problem. Not sure where your assumptions come from.
Apart from the fact that the government, in the US at least, isn't representative of the people, regardless of what they say. It's impossible for 2 parties to accurately represent 300m people. That is my point - make the government accountable to the people, and not the other way round. Currently the government doesn't listen to anyone, and does what it likes with the military and the people. And when you find that you can't reign in the corrupt government, then you end up having to forcefully eject them from their positions and replace them with new (Now with more accountability!) representatives. I don't think we're too close to that point yet, but with energy prices rising dramatically and no end in site, the squeeze on the middle and lower class could bring things to a head. The government will probably do something to reduce the pressure to manageable levels, but things don't always work as planned.
The insurgency tactics being used in Iraq require access to things like plastic explosives and knowledge of bomb making. Those aren't available under your 2nd amendment rights, and if you tried to get them Homeland Security would come a-knocking.
That knowledge is widely available to anyone with an Internet connection and a search engine. There are many torrents of such information available too. It's not hard to get. There just isn't much use for it for most people. The materials for military-grade high explosives may not be easily available (although that probably wouldn't be a problem in a civil war scenario, as they can be stolen or bought if needed), but you can do a lot of damage with pretty common materials.
Iraqis have gotten weapons from all over the place. The same would happen here if it ever came to that point. There are national guard units, depots, and military bases all over the place. Given that there would be a certain amount of defection in the military, possibly entire units and bases, the weapons would be obtainable. And that's just a few sources from within the country.
Do people get robbed? Yes of course they do, but strangely seldom with a gun - usually its a knife being wielded. It's not just robberies that are the problem, it's assaults of all sorts. There's spousal abuse, crazy exes, rapes, etc. Having the means to defend yourself should be everyone's right. The state takes no responsibility for your defense. It wouldn't really matter whether the attacker had a gun, knife, baseball bat (or cricket bat if you swing that way), the best defense is a gun. If your attacker thought you could fight him off, he wouldn't be attacking you. You have to be able to shift the odds in your favor, or at least as close to equal as possible.
Or, all it means is that criminals carry guns in the expectation that their victims will also. Criminals tend to pick easier targets if possible. Doesn't make sense to take the risk of attacking someone who is armed as well as you are if you can find a softer target. Probably why crime goes down when concealed carry laws are passed. It ends up being a more uncertain environment for criminals.
Perhaps most interesting is one part of the Court's last paragraph: "...where well-trained police forces provide personal security...". Not sure whether this is just a one-off sentence with no value or whether, in fact, the Supreme Court actually believes it.
Wow. That is an interesting sentence. I sincerely hope they don't believe it. I'm sure the police forces don't believe it themselves.
I wonder about the common use test though. I'm not sure I read that part right. Would the kinds of weapons carried by common infantrymen be protected then?
Exactly; meanwhile they still cost too much and how do they compare for readability to a printed page again? The newest ones are very readable. High contrast text makes them pretty easy to read in most lighting conditions. I'd say they're as good or better than a paper book in that respect. The main concerns I have now are the DRM issues, storage/transfer capabilities, and intuitive search capabilities.
Which would require time travel by the telcos. It is clear that the NSA would be the only ones who broke the law in the case you are citing, which I might add you have no proof of ever occuring.
They both broke the law. The NSA broke the law by asking for unlimited taps, and the telcos broke the law by allowing taps to continue beyond 72 hours without a warrant. Proof? They have already admitted that they allowed warrantless wiretapping! Why do you think they want this immunity so goddamn bad you fucking imbecile? They knew they were breaking the law, and now they want Congress to let them get away with it!
This is my last response. You have failed to display even the most basic grasp of the issue, so there's no use taking this any further. Anyone who had thoughts along the same lines as you would already understand, or, like you they are well beyond the reach of reason.
English not your first language? Nor second, I'm guessing. Et tu, asshole. Jesus Christ! You really have no idea what any of this is about, do you? It's not about 9 cases where a warrant was denied. It's about the unknown number of cases where no warrant was ever applied for, but the telcos allowed taps anyway! Go fucking educate yourself on the subject so you can stop looking like a retard.
I told them I was from their state and was calling to urge the senator not to support the cloture vote for H.R. 6304 regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that I urge the senator not to support the bill because it takes away rights from every citizen. Unfortunately, both of my senators are Republican assholes who are probably guaranteed to get re-elected because they're voting for this bill. Texas is fucked up.
It doesn't really matter whether it is 72 hours or 2 weeks, the telcos have no way to know in advance whether the NSA is going to comply with the law. Thus time travel is required. You moron. They aren't breaking the law by providing the taps for the 72 hour period. They are breaking the law if they continue to allow those taps after that period has passed and they haven't received a warrant to continue the taps. I don't think you have the IQ to continue this conversation. I think we're done here.
So, short of travelling into the future and back again, how exactly are the telcos suppossed to know whether the NSA is complying with the law? Also, since the FISA court is secret, when they travel to the future, the telco time-travelers aren't going to be told the results, so they really are screwed.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? This really isn't that hard to understand. They get to tap it for up to 72 hours, not two weeks, before they have to provide the warrant. If the telecoms allowed them to continue the taps beyond those periods, then both they and the government have broken the law. The FISA court isn't secret, only the meetings and applications are secret. Obviously the approved warrant grants them the ability to continue surveillance, while not having the warrant means that the surveillance must be discontinued. No time-traveling necessary!
You're just going to bend over backwards trying to make this seem infinitely more difficult than it actually is, aren't you? The FISA court has rejected a grand total of 9 applications in 28 years. That's 9 out of a total of 25153 applications! It's not like it's hard to get a warrant if the case is even remotely legitimate.
If the NSA didn't go to the FISA court, then they are breaking the law. The telcos are only complying with a bad law and should not have to pay for bad laws being passed by our incompetent, lawyer filled congress. If the telcos allowed the taps without warrants, then they broke the law too. That's the whole reason there is a FISA court to authorize the warrants. Both the agencies that pushed for these warrantless taps and the telcos that allowed them should be prosecuted.
Slashdot Mirror
...what will Big Media do if they do manage to "conquer piracy" and they still don't sell more crappy content than they do now? I know I rarely bother to "pirate" any of the crap they think is so hot, there is so much niche, antique, and "unavailable" stuff that I prefer now. Lots of it really is free on the archive, among other places.
They'll continue to claim piracy losses and work towards instituting taxes on anything that could conceivably be used in conjunction with copying works. Hard drives, CDs/DVDs, flash drives, Internet connections, portable media players, etc. One thing's for sure. There's no stopping them.
but how about the G8 ease other side of Copyright by allowing the old stuff into public domain within a reasonable timeframe.
How would that help facilitate the continued transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the amazingly wealthy ruling class? See, you haven't thought through what you're asking for.
I've been using a light gray background for a few months now, and I think it helps quite a bit. I work in a shared space, so I can't do much about the lighting in here (fluorescents, and fairly bright), so I switched my background to the darker color. It is easier to look at for longer periods of time than a white background. Even works well when the others are gone and I can shut off the lights.
But come on, the only problem with their business model is that it is easy to break the law and people are willing to do it.
That and the fact that they have to continually bribe Congress to give them a free handout of longer copyright durations every 20 years or so. I think people can intuitively sense when they're being screwed, even if they can't articulate exactly how. Our representatives keep giving them longer and longer monopolies over the creations, in exchange for money, and the public gets squat in return. We've been getting fucked in this system for decades, and now they're trying to create legislation to fuck us even harder. Not surprising that people are pissed off and don't feel much remorse for not paying for the music they listen to. After all, I doubt the industry execs are losing any sleep over screwing us out of access to millions of works over the years.
If you eliminate the permanent politician in Washington, then there wouldn't be as much need for the money chase and we might actually get better laws.
Another benefit of having congress critters serving fewer terms would be that they would probably have to simplify a lot of the complexity of the rules that the two houses go by to facilitate the churn of new representatives coming in all the time. This should help increase transparency and allow for more sensible methods of handling legislation. It would be harder for them to hide their intentions behind mountains of procedural BS, and harder for them to point the finger at others if they can't easily hide their own actions.
Personally, I think they should serve shorter terms. Maybe 2-3 years, with a 2-term maximum. That limits the amount of damage that they can do, and the amount of influence they can accumulate.
Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.
And that's the moral high ground you hold your presidential candidate to? No wonder the US is scrapping the bottom of the barrel any more. You are aware of the term complacency? Last time I checked it wasn't a virtue.
Seems to me, with all the excuses people try to make for a candidate's behavior, that it's more like Stockholm Syndrome than actual political support.
It's all very easy, when the time to vote comes around you just consider the candidates, all of them, and vote for who you would actually like to run the country.
Forget this "lesser of 2 evils" crap and vote for someone who you like.
Sounds great. Now if only someone worth voting for could get on the ballot here.
Just admit that guns are your security blanket and that you're emotionally unable to let go of it instead of making up fake arguments.
Your arguments are ridiculous, and aren't supported by the facts. Most studies that have been done report anywhere between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year. Every study had flaws, including the one study with the absolute lowest number, 108,000 per year. Even if you figure the answer is somewhere in the middle, that's a lot of defensive uses each year. Your suppositions about their effectiveness don't seem to hold water. I'd rather have a shot at being one of those who doesn't become a victim, rather than another statistic that the police will investigate after the fact.
You are missing out on the most reasonable answer to this: You pull out your gun and he has no qualms about shooting you, when otherwise he most likely would not have. He first is using the gun to frighten you, but when you show that you are going to use deadly force against you, he has no choice but to shoot you. It is a classic escalation of violence that drives this, even if neither party really wants to shoot each other.
Your scenario is possible, but it assumes that the person is only interested in your money/valuables, which isn't always the case. Second, anyone with any sense at all would hand over the money without resisting. It's only if there is an obvious opening that you would resist, or if the attacker attempts to escalate things on his own (maybe he's facing a third strike situation or is just mentally unstable and violent). A gun won't save you in all situations. Sometimes you just don't have a chance. But they have helped in a lot of cases. Thousands of times per year they're used in self-defense, usually without even being fired.Most of us don't believe we'll wake up three days later if we get killed. Bizarre belief either way.
Now, the American faith seems to be that it is up to every American to take arms and decide themselves whether another life is worth living.I believe it's up to the would-be criminal to decide whether his life is worth the risk of attacking another human being.
That knowledge is widely available to anyone with an Internet connection and a search engine. There are many torrents of such information available too. It's not hard to get. There just isn't much use for it for most people. The materials for military-grade high explosives may not be easily available (although that probably wouldn't be a problem in a civil war scenario, as they can be stolen or bought if needed), but you can do a lot of damage with pretty common materials.
Iraqis have gotten weapons from all over the place. The same would happen here if it ever came to that point. There are national guard units, depots, and military bases all over the place. Given that there would be a certain amount of defection in the military, possibly entire units and bases, the weapons would be obtainable. And that's just a few sources from within the country.
Wow. That is an interesting sentence. I sincerely hope they don't believe it. I'm sure the police forces don't believe it themselves.
I wonder about the common use test though. I'm not sure I read that part right. Would the kinds of weapons carried by common infantrymen be protected then?
... this is what you get in a competitive society where anyone will do their damndest to avoid poverty.
I guess something had to trickle down in this economy... turned out to be the ethicsSUBJECT: NEW RULES
FROM: Dude@epa.gov
[x] Delete
(like that)
Looks like spam to me... I'd delete it tooThey both broke the law. The NSA broke the law by asking for unlimited taps, and the telcos broke the law by allowing taps to continue beyond 72 hours without a warrant. Proof? They have already admitted that they allowed warrantless wiretapping! Why do you think they want this immunity so goddamn bad you fucking imbecile? They knew they were breaking the law, and now they want Congress to let them get away with it!
This is my last response. You have failed to display even the most basic grasp of the issue, so there's no use taking this any further. Anyone who had thoughts along the same lines as you would already understand, or, like you they are well beyond the reach of reason.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? This really isn't that hard to understand. They get to tap it for up to 72 hours, not two weeks, before they have to provide the warrant. If the telecoms allowed them to continue the taps beyond those periods, then both they and the government have broken the law. The FISA court isn't secret, only the meetings and applications are secret. Obviously the approved warrant grants them the ability to continue surveillance, while not having the warrant means that the surveillance must be discontinued. No time-traveling necessary!
You're just going to bend over backwards trying to make this seem infinitely more difficult than it actually is, aren't you? The FISA court has rejected a grand total of 9 applications in 28 years. That's 9 out of a total of 25153 applications! It's not like it's hard to get a warrant if the case is even remotely legitimate.