You keep using that word "forced". What coercion is present in the author-publisher relationship, especially in the era of Internet self-publication?
Because most media requires things that the artist either does not want to do or isn't suited to do or doesn't have time to do. Mostly, promotion and distribution. They are necessary, and Youtube is full of "self-publishers" who aren't going anywhere because no one knows their work exists (And of course, many of them may be no good in the first place).
Here, the prosecutor didn't even ask for charges, meaning you had no one who was adverse to the cop.
Prosecutors know what they can try. They don't try every possible case; some cases aren't winnable. If the prosecution looks at the evidence that was gathered and says "it doesn't look like we have much to go on here," then what would be the point of going through with a trial? For fun? To drag victims' families and the defendants through it?
If the prosecution says they have a case, and the defence says "he's right, we're F-ed," then you start seeing things like quick plea deals, just plain guilty pleas.
It's only when the prosecution and the defence both think they can win or at least get something major out of a trial, that's when you a see a trial. Otherwise there's really not much point.
And should be confronted by society. Contrary to popular belief, the Police is still a civilian force. No special rules or exemptions should apply,
As a private citizen, I am not allowed to tackle a guy on the street, hand-cuff him, throw him in my truck, and drive him to the nearest police station, even if I suspect he might have committed a crime.
Actually, a grand majority of DRM is ineffective; it gets cracked almost immediately, and therefore anyone with a slight amount of knowledge can apply the cracks.
It confirms something I've long known: DRM only really inconveniences non-infringers. Warez kids and movie bootleggers have ways around it. Your average person at home trying to figure out how to space-shift his blu-ray so it plays in his car media center for the kids will not.
The DMCA is intended to be such a save haven law, and megaupload complied to the letter
No they didn't. That's the problem -- removing a link but allowing a file to remain on your system which you've been alerted infringes, that is clearly against the DMCA.
Oh, almost forgot: and if you say that the DMCA is a US law and doesn't affect people in other countries... well, you'd be absolutely right that the DMCA itself is only a US law. However, it is requirement, an implementation of WIPO treaties which all mentioned companies have agreed to.
Even if you can predict that no rules/laws will apply, how can you reasonably plan for that contingency? What would those plans look like? Should KDC have given up business and become a survivalist?
Except that in this case the law was very plain and it was obvious that it was being violated. I may not like the DMCA, but it doesn't take a legal brainiac to know that refusing to comply with take-down requests (what Kim's was doing with his links vs files argument) will lead to greater legal retaliation.
police officers have a +1 on application-of-force laws. If this statement doesn't make sense to you, you lack the basic understanding of the law to even participate in this argument
And/or understanding of the rules of D&D or RPGs in general.
That means the same thing. You just used more words to say it.
No, it's not the same thing, there's a distinction between the two, and our justice system is built upon that distinction.
Not guilty does not mean innocent. This is not a binary, there are more than two options. It's an admission that we do not try to prove innocence in trial, we try to prove guilt, or we fail to prove guilt.
That's why defendants are not forced to testify -- they are not under any obligation to prove their innocence, and in the US it's considered legally and morally wrong to require someone to prove himself guilty.
You do not prosecute someone "for the greater good." You let justice be done for the accused and the defense. Those who are without standing (everyone else) should get nothing.
No, no you wouldn't. You would only know what the prosecution and defense could find and present. Nothing more, nothing less.
Which, at least, is an adversarial system.
Of course it's an adversarial system. It always has been, and always should be. There are two sides in a dispute. Each side is not impartial, the goal is to let each partial side make its case while an impartial third party (judge, jurors) decides which side has made its case the best.
Sometimes people don't take you seriously and won't change their ways until you start breaking some shit.
I take them seriously UNTIL they start breaking shit. But then at that point, I start thinking that maybe they are the bigger problem, and my sympathy lessens.
Regardless of everything else, a man under cover of authority has shot and killed an unarmed teenager. Again. Some would consider this a serious crime. Some would even think there should be repurcussions as a result of killing another person. Yesterday evening we learned there will be no criminal charges. How did we think this was going to turn out?
You can't consider that there might have been justification for this?
One question: Why can't the "majority" reign in the "minority" that are looting/etc? All it would take is the 'majority' of peaceful protestors to grab the looters (should be easy, remember, they vastly outnumber them, right?), and turn them over to the cops. (Or at the very least, rough them up and send them home.)
Because the cops would see people fighting, walk in and nightstick both, and send them both away in a paddy wagon.
He said nothing about Libertarianism, or anything that agrees with their general philosophy. Why would you bring that label up? Do you even know what it means?
The amount of space that contains matter and energy is likely finite, but space itself is not. We do not, at the moment, have a way of outpacing the rate of expansion.
There was no "customer revolt." There was a bunch of assholes who got pissed that the gaming press called them out on their abusive and unwarranted behavior
Who is the "their" that you're mentioning? I have no patience for misogyny and it's a very small minority of dickheads who cause trouble, but like every other normal gamer, I got roped into it with the shoddy "gamers are misogynistic assholes" articles pumped out by "games journalists" trying to deflect the blame from their own issues in a transparent attempt to make themselves seem more important and listened to than they are.
Here in the US, people can discuss (for example) banning hand guns or abortion - but its a fruitless conversation as these things are not up to simple majority rule.
And thats a Good Thing.
Of course it's up for majority rule, if the majority is large enough. The US Constitution isn't set in stone, ordained by God. You just need a Constitutional Amendment, which requires majorities of a certain number of states. But Americans don't feel strongly enough about banning hand guns or abortion.
Did you ever notice that it's OK to mock "red state" speech patterns
It's mocking an attitude, a reference to the source material: Team America, which reserved it hatred equally for the left and the right.
Kind of like how it's OK to mock Christianity, but Islam has to be held up as a "beautiful religion of peace".
I don't know of anyone, besides actual Muslims (and often the fundamentalists) who hold that value. Now there ARE liberals who hate Christianity and like to mock it (and usually other religions). And there ARE also liberals who think that Islam should be held up as a "beautiful religion of peace." But they're not the same people. Neither liberals nor conservatives are monocultures.
It's almost as if liberals despise success and greatness, and appreciate failure.
Most don't know about civil forfeiture, and that's truly unfortunate. However, I think you would find that a majority of Americans, while perhaps a bit uncomfortable with some parts of the PATRIOT act, are generally for it, as well as the TSA. Or at least, they find it better than the alternatives. There are plenty of folks on the far far left and far far right and of course on Slashdot that will rant and rail about it (I certainly have), but it's hardly something that is forced on them by a dictatorship.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep using that word "forced". What coercion is present in the author-publisher relationship, especially in the era of Internet self-publication?
Because most media requires things that the artist either does not want to do or isn't suited to do or doesn't have time to do. Mostly, promotion and distribution. They are necessary, and Youtube is full of "self-publishers" who aren't going anywhere because no one knows their work exists (And of course, many of them may be no good in the first place).
Here, the prosecutor didn't even ask for charges, meaning you had no one who was adverse to the cop.
Prosecutors know what they can try. They don't try every possible case; some cases aren't winnable. If the prosecution looks at the evidence that was gathered and says "it doesn't look like we have much to go on here," then what would be the point of going through with a trial? For fun? To drag victims' families and the defendants through it?
If the prosecution says they have a case, and the defence says "he's right, we're F-ed," then you start seeing things like quick plea deals, just plain guilty pleas.
It's only when the prosecution and the defence both think they can win or at least get something major out of a trial, that's when you a see a trial. Otherwise there's really not much point.
Especially batshit irrelevant, as the cop had no idea there was a reported robbery
Relevant because Michael Brown certainly knew about it and it informed his actions.
And should be confronted by society. Contrary to popular belief, the Police is still a civilian force. No special rules or exemptions should apply,
As a private citizen, I am not allowed to tackle a guy on the street, hand-cuff him, throw him in my truck, and drive him to the nearest police station, even if I suspect he might have committed a crime.
Yes, police powers are just that, for the police.
Actually, a grand majority of DRM is ineffective; it gets cracked almost immediately, and therefore anyone with a slight amount of knowledge can apply the cracks.
It confirms something I've long known: DRM only really inconveniences non-infringers. Warez kids and movie bootleggers have ways around it. Your average person at home trying to figure out how to space-shift his blu-ray so it plays in his car media center for the kids will not.
The DMCA is intended to be such a save haven law, and megaupload complied to the letter
No they didn't. That's the problem -- removing a link but allowing a file to remain on your system which you've been alerted infringes, that is clearly against the DMCA.
Oh, almost forgot: and if you say that the DMCA is a US law and doesn't affect people in other countries... well, you'd be absolutely right that the DMCA itself is only a US law. However, it is requirement, an implementation of WIPO treaties which all mentioned companies have agreed to.
Even if you can predict that no rules/laws will apply, how can you reasonably plan for that contingency? What would those plans look like? Should KDC have given up business and become a survivalist?
Except that in this case the law was very plain and it was obvious that it was being violated. I may not like the DMCA, but it doesn't take a legal brainiac to know that refusing to comply with take-down requests (what Kim's was doing with his links vs files argument) will lead to greater legal retaliation.
police officers have a +1 on application-of-force laws. If this statement doesn't make sense to you, you lack the basic understanding of the law to even participate in this argument
And/or understanding of the rules of D&D or RPGs in general.
That means the same thing. You just used more words to say it.
No, it's not the same thing, there's a distinction between the two, and our justice system is built upon that distinction.
Not guilty does not mean innocent. This is not a binary, there are more than two options. It's an admission that we do not try to prove innocence in trial, we try to prove guilt, or we fail to prove guilt.
That's why defendants are not forced to testify -- they are not under any obligation to prove their innocence, and in the US it's considered legally and morally wrong to require someone to prove himself guilty.
You do not prosecute someone "for the greater good." You let justice be done for the accused and the defense. Those who are without standing (everyone else) should get nothing.
No, no you wouldn't. You would only know what the prosecution and defense could find and present. Nothing more, nothing less.
Which, at least, is an adversarial system.
Of course it's an adversarial system. It always has been, and always should be. There are two sides in a dispute. Each side is not impartial, the goal is to let each partial side make its case while an impartial third party (judge, jurors) decides which side has made its case the best.
It's almost like they have no reason to be mad at all. I mean, officer kills a black kid, news at 11. All thugs deserve what they get, am i rite?
OH WAIT. You mean this isn't 4-chan? People should actually be outraged about this?
Maybe, maybe not. If a thug attacks an officer in his car and tries to grab his gun, maybe he DOES deserve what he gets, am i rite?
Sometimes people don't take you seriously and won't change their ways until you start breaking some shit.
I take them seriously UNTIL they start breaking shit. But then at that point, I start thinking that maybe they are the bigger problem, and my sympathy lessens.
Regardless of everything else, a man under cover of authority has shot and killed an unarmed teenager. Again. Some would consider this a serious crime. Some would even think there should be repurcussions as a result of killing another person. Yesterday evening we learned there will be no criminal charges. How did we think this was going to turn out?
You can't consider that there might have been justification for this?
One question: Why can't the "majority" reign in the "minority" that are looting/etc? All it would take is the 'majority' of peaceful protestors to grab the looters (should be easy, remember, they vastly outnumber them, right?), and turn them over to the cops. (Or at the very least, rough them up and send them home.)
Because the cops would see people fighting, walk in and nightstick both, and send them both away in a paddy wagon.
He said nothing about Libertarianism, or anything that agrees with their general philosophy. Why would you bring that label up? Do you even know what it means?
They didn't get the right answer, they got an answer with a very small variation of error.
The amount of space that contains matter and energy is likely finite, but space itself is not. We do not, at the moment, have a way of outpacing the rate of expansion.
There was no "customer revolt." There was a bunch of assholes who got pissed that the gaming press called them out on their abusive and unwarranted behavior
Who is the "their" that you're mentioning? I have no patience for misogyny and it's a very small minority of dickheads who cause trouble, but like every other normal gamer, I got roped into it with the shoddy "gamers are misogynistic assholes" articles pumped out by "games journalists" trying to deflect the blame from their own issues in a transparent attempt to make themselves seem more important and listened to than they are.
I like how you keep reiterating that this is some sort of "movement" that you "join."
"Hardcore gamers" don't remain hardcore gamers forever.
Eventually they actually do develop a real life.
Here in the US, people can discuss (for example) banning hand guns or abortion - but its a fruitless conversation as these things are not up to simple majority rule.
And thats a Good Thing.
Of course it's up for majority rule, if the majority is large enough. The US Constitution isn't set in stone, ordained by God. You just need a Constitutional Amendment, which requires majorities of a certain number of states. But Americans don't feel strongly enough about banning hand guns or abortion.
"We live in 'Merica. Fuck Yeah!"
Did you ever notice that it's OK to mock "red state" speech patterns
It's mocking an attitude, a reference to the source material: Team America, which reserved it hatred equally for the left and the right.
Kind of like how it's OK to mock Christianity, but Islam has to be held up as a "beautiful religion of peace".
I don't know of anyone, besides actual Muslims (and often the fundamentalists) who hold that value. Now there ARE liberals who hate Christianity and like to mock it (and usually other religions). And there ARE also liberals who think that Islam should be held up as a "beautiful religion of peace." But they're not the same people. Neither liberals nor conservatives are monocultures.
It's almost as if liberals despise success and greatness, and appreciate failure.
Too stupid to adequately respond to.
Most don't know about civil forfeiture, and that's truly unfortunate. However, I think you would find that a majority of Americans, while perhaps a bit uncomfortable with some parts of the PATRIOT act, are generally for it, as well as the TSA. Or at least, they find it better than the alternatives. There are plenty of folks on the far far left and far far right and of course on Slashdot that will rant and rail about it (I certainly have), but it's hardly something that is forced on them by a dictatorship.