The article gives short shrift to the animated 1986 "Transformers: The Movie," calling it "little-loved". Personally, I thought it was great... am I the only one?
Well, my understanding is that they're talking about the document formats, not the software itself. Using open-source document formats allows for greater interoperability across diverse operating systems and document-creation software--or that's the theory, anyway.
It'd be kind of like each publishing company using a proprietary alphabet in its books. Readers would then have to invest the time and effort to learn each alphabet, or focus on one alphabet and lose access to all the other publishing companies' information.
Yeah, yeah. Look, I'm all for sharing, too, but unfortunately you can't make a living giving stuff away for free. Most musicians I know do love to play, and like nothing better than giving a show. However, they also need to eat, make car payments, and pay rent like the rest of us.
In an effort to combat Apple's plans for a notebook offering keyboard-free input, Compaq has announced that it will ship all 2001 notebook models with a stone-tablet-and-chisel interface.
You're very right. Proving it beyond any doubt would place an impossible standard on the prosecution. But, guess what? That's their problem, not mine. If they can figure out a way to do it, then I say let the death penalty go forward. And you're also right about wrongly imprisoning someone. It's a heinous crime. But it's also somewhat more revocable than killing somebody. If you've been in prison for (say) 20 years and the state finds new evidence that exonerates you, you get out, scot free, and you can probably live out the remainder of your life in extreme comfort on the interest alone for the millions of dollars you get in your wrongful imprisonment lawsuit. Whereas, if the state kills somebody after 10 years on death row, and then discovers exonerating evidence, there's not a damn thing _anybody_ can do.
Animal-rights folks would have even more of a conniption fit if you caged a gorilla for 3 years and then strapped it into a chair and cooked it from the inside out.
Re: 5% So, what you're saying is this: if you were placed on death row and executed for a crime you didn't commit, you'd be fine with that as long as the other 20 people on death row with you were really guilty?
I don't have the data to answer your question, and, frankly, I think your question is flawed. Again, knowing that the state has killed _any_ innocent people is too much.
Please feel free to email me at mcsnee@hotmail.com with your response, as I'm pretty sure this topic is gonna be hard to find soon.
You're right. There is a standard of reasonableness. It should apply, though, to both sides. It's similarly unreasonable to be forced to pay between $12 and $20 for a cd that costs $.50 to manufacture. It is especially unreasonable for a band to expect people to pay that amount of money for an album which they haven't heard. And it is unreasonable in the extreme to decide that, because tool A can be used to do something illegal (something which hasn't even been proven to harm anyone at all, a fact the RIAA is conveniently forgetting in their holier-than-thou zeal), we should then ban all use of tool A.
You're _personally_ allowed to think whatever the hell you want. So don't use Napster. Personally, I don't have any qualms about the way I use Napster.
However, the problem is that some tinpot judge has decided for _everybody_ what is reasonable and what isn't. And the further problem is that she's just plain wrong.
Good. Then I'll take the last word. What _most_ people use napster for is not at issue, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Napster _can_ be used to do illegal things does not make it in itself illegal. For instance, since you're so fond of hyperbolic comparisons, let's look at handguns. Handguns are designed to kill people. Killing people is, last I checked, illegal. But manufacturing, selling, buying, and firing guns is not illegal. It's only illegal if you use it for its designed purpose. There are a lot of tools available that perform similar or the same functions as Napster (photocopiers, scanners, hi-speed multi-tape dubbing machines, VCRs, etc.). The fact that people sometimes use these tools to do bad things like infringe on somebody's copyright DOES NOT MEAN they should be outlawed. The Napster situation is EXACTLY the same. The intent of the programmers is not at issue. Nor is what "most people use napster for." If you have a problem with the people who use it to pirate music, feel free to go after them. Frankly, I wouldn't care if they called it "Music Piracy Machine" or "Copyright Infringer." I still have a right to have it on my PC. Only when I use it to do something illegal does its USE become illegal. But the software itself is NOT the same as the act of using it.
You're just plain wrong. Listening to a song with the intent of deciding whether or not to purchase is legally fair use, under copyright law. It is not, repeat _not_, the same thing as "stealing a glass for a day," because _that_ is illegal.
You're right. It is a pretty big exaggeration. And what's more, it's not a fair comparison.
Here's my situation. The radio stations in my town (Atlanta) suck big dick. In order to tell if I want to buy music, in the past, I could tune into a radio station and wait 'til something caught my ear. Well, I don't know if you've listened to 99X lately, but if I hear one more freakin' Limp Bizkit song I will slit my wrists. Meanwhile, there are a lot of extremely good artists out there whom I don't get to hear because they're not commercial enough. So how do I tell whether I should buy a CD by band X? I download a sample of their music from Napster. If I like what I hear, I buy the CD. If I don't, I'm sure as hell not gonna keep their crappy music clogging up my hard drive, so I delete it. This is no different, in my mind, from hearing a song on the radio and then buying the CD. The band and the recording industry get their money. They might even get some concert bucks from me if they're good enough. If they're not good enough, they don't get paid.
The RIAA produces a product that, yes, allows people to listen to music. That, in and of itself, is perfectly legal. The point is that they use strongarm tactics to stop the perfectly legal tactics of other companies who get in their way. Furthermore, the RIAA being made up of corporations and all, they plan to make a profit by selling other peoples' music and keeping the lion's share for themselves! (Don't know how the middlemen got to be so powerful, but you don't form a leech league just for the heck of it.) That makes them little better than something I'd scrape off my shoe.
First, you're right, race shouldn't be an issue. But guess what: it is. The fact is, a black person is more likely to be put on death row for the same crime as a white person and far more likely to be executed once on death row, and until we can be sure that juries are color-blind, yes, you're right: I think we should stop killing people altogether.
Now, as far as your percentage question: frankly, as far as I'm concerned, finding out that we've executed one innocent person means that we've executed too many people. I don't really give a damn if the system executes 1% innocent people or 90% innocent people: ANY INNOCENT PEOPLE AT ALL is too many. Until we can PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT (not just "reasonable" doubt) whether someone has committed murder, we should absolutely NOT kill them.
I'm curious: what would be a high enough percentage for you? Would you continue executions if only 1 perecent of the people executed were innocent? How about 10 percent? 50? What do the numbers matter? We're not talking about statistics here. We're talking about real, actual, human peoples' lives.
Here's a link to info about why the pro-capital-punishment governor of Illinois issued a moratorium on the death penalty in his state. Numbers? 12 people freed from death row in Illinois, more than have been executed, in the past two years.
Here's another couple of numbers for you: 12% of Americans are black, but 40% of death row inmates are black. Or how about these numbers: a black defendant is twice as likely to be executed (100 since 1973) if his victim is white than if is victim is black (49 since 1973). And a white defendant who kills a white person is 48 times more likely to be executed for killing a white person (242 since 1973) than for killing a black person (5 since 1973). Numbers are from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
And here's a list of some wrongful executions that have taken place in the US in the 20th century. Admittedly, only one of the victims on the list was executed since 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should be reinstated.
There are numbers for you. Will they make any difference? I doubt it... no matter how many numbers people like you see, you want to see more. You'll go on blithely accusing anti-capital punishment types of not providing enough numbers, or the right numbers, or whatever. I look forward to your reply.
First off, let's chill on the ad hominem attacks. I mean, I could call you a bigoted country-fried redneck asshole with similar numbers of teeth and brain cells (4 of each), but I won't. If you can't make your point without calling me names, don't bother, 'cause it just makes you look stupid.
I'm not referring to any case in particular. In fact, I think it's pretty likely that Graham was guilty. I'm referring to the fact that the death penalty is FAR MORE LIKELY to be given in a case where the defendant is black than in one where the defendant is white. I'm also referring to the fact that W says he gives his full attention to a review of the facts of each execution that takes place in his state, but clearly cannot, 'cause there just isn't time for him to do that _and_ run the state.
I'm also saying that supporting the death penalty lowers you to the level of the murderer. Throw the murderer in jail. Throw away the key, if you want. But killing him is taking an irrevocable step. I'd prefer to kill NOBODY to finding out I killed a million murderers and one innocent person.
This is what W would like you to think. However, the truth is that everyone on the board is a Bush appointee, and had Bush asked them to commute the sentence, they would have.
Yeah. We dropped Smart Microwaves on Iraq during the Gulf War. They cook most of your food, but leave a hard ice crystal at the center, causing you to chip a tooth.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, sure... it's great, until something you'd like to print becomes politically unpopular.
RTFA.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/wp.php
The article gives short shrift to the animated 1986 "Transformers: The Movie," calling it "little-loved". Personally, I thought it was great... am I the only one?
Well, my understanding is that they're talking about the document formats, not the software itself. Using open-source document formats allows for greater interoperability across diverse operating systems and document-creation software--or that's the theory, anyway.
It'd be kind of like each publishing company using a proprietary alphabet in its books. Readers would then have to invest the time and effort to learn each alphabet, or focus on one alphabet and lose access to all the other publishing companies' information.
Well, *I* laughed.
Now that Iraq's a beacon of democracy, we needed a new member for the Axis of Evil anyway.
Viri means "men."
Virus (="slime," the root of the common English word) is a fourth-declension collective noun. Its plural, if it had one, would be virus.
Use "viruses."
Or, better yet, a program to handle reading slashdot. I could actually get some work done!
Maybe he's a lousy speaker.
Why are we trying to cure ADD. High-speed tots are a cheap, renewable energy source.
Yeah, yeah. Look, I'm all for sharing, too, but unfortunately you can't make a living giving stuff away for free. Most musicians I know do love to play, and like nothing better than giving a show. However, they also need to eat, make car payments, and pay rent like the rest of us.
Dammit, don't give me alternatives! Choices make my little head hurt!
(And, of course, a new mouse. It'll be circular.)
Animal-rights folks would have even more of a conniption fit if you caged a gorilla for 3 years and then strapped it into a chair and cooked it from the inside out.
Re: 5% So, what you're saying is this: if you were placed on death row and executed for a crime you didn't commit, you'd be fine with that as long as the other 20 people on death row with you were really guilty?
I don't have the data to answer your question, and, frankly, I think your question is flawed. Again, knowing that the state has killed _any_ innocent people is too much.
Please feel free to email me at mcsnee@hotmail.com with your response, as I'm pretty sure this topic is gonna be hard to find soon.
You're _personally_ allowed to think whatever the hell you want. So don't use Napster. Personally, I don't have any qualms about the way I use Napster.
However, the problem is that some tinpot judge has decided for _everybody_ what is reasonable and what isn't. And the further problem is that she's just plain wrong.
Good. Then I'll take the last word. What _most_ people use napster for is not at issue, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Napster _can_ be used to do illegal things does not make it in itself illegal. For instance, since you're so fond of hyperbolic comparisons, let's look at handguns. Handguns are designed to kill people. Killing people is, last I checked, illegal. But manufacturing, selling, buying, and firing guns is not illegal. It's only illegal if you use it for its designed purpose. There are a lot of tools available that perform similar or the same functions as Napster (photocopiers, scanners, hi-speed multi-tape dubbing machines, VCRs, etc.). The fact that people sometimes use these tools to do bad things like infringe on somebody's copyright DOES NOT MEAN they should be outlawed. The Napster situation is EXACTLY the same. The intent of the programmers is not at issue. Nor is what "most people use napster for." If you have a problem with the people who use it to pirate music, feel free to go after them. Frankly, I wouldn't care if they called it "Music Piracy Machine" or "Copyright Infringer." I still have a right to have it on my PC. Only when I use it to do something illegal does its USE become illegal. But the software itself is NOT the same as the act of using it.
You're just plain wrong. Listening to a song with the intent of deciding whether or not to purchase is legally fair use, under copyright law. It is not, repeat _not_, the same thing as "stealing a glass for a day," because _that_ is illegal.
Here's my situation. The radio stations in my town (Atlanta) suck big dick. In order to tell if I want to buy music, in the past, I could tune into a radio station and wait 'til something caught my ear. Well, I don't know if you've listened to 99X lately, but if I hear one more freakin' Limp Bizkit song I will slit my wrists. Meanwhile, there are a lot of extremely good artists out there whom I don't get to hear because they're not commercial enough. So how do I tell whether I should buy a CD by band X? I download a sample of their music from Napster. If I like what I hear, I buy the CD. If I don't, I'm sure as hell not gonna keep their crappy music clogging up my hard drive, so I delete it. This is no different, in my mind, from hearing a song on the radio and then buying the CD. The band and the recording industry get their money. They might even get some concert bucks from me if they're good enough. If they're not good enough, they don't get paid.
What the hell is wrong with that?
The RIAA produces a product that, yes, allows people to listen to music. That, in and of itself, is perfectly legal. The point is that they use strongarm tactics to stop the perfectly legal tactics of other companies who get in their way. Furthermore, the RIAA being made up of corporations and all, they plan to make a profit by selling other peoples' music and keeping the lion's share for themselves! (Don't know how the middlemen got to be so powerful, but you don't form a leech league just for the heck of it.) That makes them little better than something I'd scrape off my shoe.
Now, as far as your percentage question: frankly, as far as I'm concerned, finding out that we've executed one innocent person means that we've executed too many people. I don't really give a damn if the system executes 1% innocent people or 90% innocent people: ANY INNOCENT PEOPLE AT ALL is too many. Until we can PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT (not just "reasonable" doubt) whether someone has committed murder, we should absolutely NOT kill them.
I'm curious: what would be a high enough percentage for you? Would you continue executions if only 1 perecent of the people executed were innocent? How about 10 percent? 50? What do the numbers matter? We're not talking about statistics here. We're talking about real, actual, human peoples' lives.
Here's another couple of numbers for you: 12% of Americans are black, but 40% of death row inmates are black. Or how about these numbers: a black defendant is twice as likely to be executed (100 since 1973) if his victim is white than if is victim is black (49 since 1973). And a white defendant who kills a white person is 48 times more likely to be executed for killing a white person (242 since 1973) than for killing a black person (5 since 1973). Numbers are from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
And here's a list of some wrongful executions that have taken place in the US in the 20th century. Admittedly, only one of the victims on the list was executed since 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should be reinstated.
There are numbers for you. Will they make any difference? I doubt it... no matter how many numbers people like you see, you want to see more. You'll go on blithely accusing anti-capital punishment types of not providing enough numbers, or the right numbers, or whatever. I look forward to your reply.
I'm not referring to any case in particular. In fact, I think it's pretty likely that Graham was guilty. I'm referring to the fact that the death penalty is FAR MORE LIKELY to be given in a case where the defendant is black than in one where the defendant is white. I'm also referring to the fact that W says he gives his full attention to a review of the facts of each execution that takes place in his state, but clearly cannot, 'cause there just isn't time for him to do that _and_ run the state.
I'm also saying that supporting the death penalty lowers you to the level of the murderer. Throw the murderer in jail. Throw away the key, if you want. But killing him is taking an irrevocable step. I'd prefer to kill NOBODY to finding out I killed a million murderers and one innocent person.
This is what W would like you to think. However, the truth is that everyone on the board is a Bush appointee, and had Bush asked them to commute the sentence, they would have.
What _will_ those DOD boys think of next?