I disagree with most of your points, but a few in particular:
Thirdly, Gore was a multi-term senator before he became a vice-president, which is very relevant experience toward being president.
Uh, many senators can make this claim. Simply getting elected as senator does not mean you're competent. I can't think of anything particular impressive which Gore accomplished.
Fourthly, Gore is obviously an intelligent person, who can read and write and debate and author legislation. What has George Bush done? The man proudly claims that he doesn't even like to read.
What has Gore done? Bush never proudly claimed he doesn't like to read, you're mislead.
Fifthly, like it or not, the nation's economy is doing quite well. The vast majority of the credit here goes to the policies architected by both Clinton and his cabinet, which includes the VP. Budget surplus? What do Republicans know about budget surpluses? Reagan would have squandered it on some hare-brained scheme like Star Wars
Sure, the economy is doing well. However, that has between little and nothing to do with Clinton. The president has little control over the economy, beyond his control over taxes, going to war, and a few other significant acts, none of which Clinton has really executed. You'll be hard pressed to find any respected economist, even though they're mostly liberals, that will back Clinton's assertions. In all reality, the state of the economy has more to do with the Greenspan, technology, and arguably Reagan's tough stance against taxes and union abuse.
Sixthly, which is more disgraceful? A president who had the audacity to have sexual liaisons with a White House intern ( oh, yeah, that's never happened before), or a president who sets up clandestine slush funds to train mercenaries and death squads in Central America from the proceeds of cocaine sales after the congress *explicitly forbade* him to do it?
Don't confuse your Bushes.
So there's the real deal kiddo. Go ahead. Vote Bush. See if he's all you're hoping for. I doubt that he is.
You know, it's funny you compare him to Reagan as if that's a bad thing. I actually consider that a good thing. Not so much because I think Reagan's policies should be implimented now, but because I view Reagan as being an effective leader, who was misjudged, much like Bush Jr.
Uh yeah, it's written right there in republican doctrine that you must hate everyone that all non-6 figure/WASPs . That's how they get elected. Uh wait, that doesn't add up. Far more people vote than that (though the numbers are low).
...Did it ever occur to you that two people can have the same end in mind, but a totally different means. The democrats way might be a welfare state, but that doesn't mean they care any more. Hell, that doesn't even mean they care. Remember, they too are trying to get elected?
Since when is a candidates personality irrelevant? First, it affects the election outcomes greatly. That, in and of itself, makes it newsworthy. Second, a president's personality (or lack thereof) can have an effect on his ability to get the job done--much of the president's power comes not from his direct authority, but rather from his ability to get the ball rolling. An impersonal president who can do nothing but spit out luke-warm words of fear and promise, isn't going to be a particularly effective candidate for any interested party. Bush, whether or not you like his particular policies, has clearly demonstrated the ability to persuade others in the state of Texas.
That being said, i'm not a huge fan of the media either.
First, The New York Times, if anything, is more anti-Bush than anti-Gore. If you read it on a regular basis, you'd know this. I dare you to count the number of negative Bush articles and compare them with Gore.
Secondly, Gore is boring and that is an election issue. It is not necessarily irrelevant for a reporter to point out that Gore's speech is utterly uninspiring. Do you deny that Gore being boring can affect the election? Or do you deny the fact that the election outcome is newsworthy? Face it, it is news.
Thirdly, there is _no_ evidence Bush did anything other than smoke a little bit of weed. Almost all of his friends and classmates attest to the fact that he was quite clean cut.
Fourth, Gore has no experience "running" this country. The vice-president's job is to fly around the country and shake hands. I don't call that experience nor his previous jobs necessary proof that he has any of the requisite experience to run an executive office effectively (or even safely).
Fifth, you complain about the media editorializing "news", yet you proclaim that propoganda URL as factual. HAH.
...oh well. You'll just have to wait till Bush gets elected. Have fun kiddo!
I agree, MySQL has its uses. It is, in some instances, a vastly superior tool to the alternatives. MySQL's problem, however, is largely created by themselves and their zealots. They have effectively billed MySQL as a replacement for commercial RDBMSs. That is equivelent to marketing a swiss army knife as a be all and end all replacement for every tool it offers. Yes, it looks something like it. It functions something like it. But that doesn't mean it is it. Nor does it mean that the swiss army knife has even 1/10th the engineering as the devices it replaces. That is essentially what MySQL is, an overglorified swiss army knife where people _might_ want to use an RDBMS....It's lighter, it's cheaper, it's quicker in some cases...but that doesn't mean people haven't made horrible mistakes by employing it. I can understand how many developers and database types get a bit annoyed with this....
PS: What exactly does "improving at open source speed" mean? If it means that you think MySQL, or for that matter any truely open source developed RDBMS, will ever be able to go toe to toe with the likes of Oracle or Sybase, then I'd take your bet any day. No previous Open Source project has ever taken on something of this size and complexity, and come out on top. So please don't tell me about this much fabled "open source speed" until it is a reality.
It would be great if this device could be modified to support a system of micropayments (since it is already periodically networked). I would be all too happy to pay in cash more than whatever my eyeballs' advertising contribution is to the networks. First, it would allow me to skip ads. This feature alone would be more than worthwhile to me, since I value my time more than the relatively nominal money that my usage raises. Second, I could see it having the ultimate effect of promoting the quality of television. One of the greatest ailments of television is the way in which is generates revenues through advertising dollars. In my view, they target the lowest common denominator and try to keep them in their seats as long as possible by seperating "good" stuff and filling junk in its place. This leads to a sort of corrupting cycle, as is seen in professional football, both in the duration of half time and other breaks, and in the excessive presense of marketing.
I could envision a sort of parallel system. For those who are unwilling to put up with crap and for those who can afford it, simply modify these TIVO/replay devices to pay the parties that provide the content. They would work directly with the industry to filter out 100% of the ads and create relatively contiguous programming. Just stagger the "show times" such that the TIVO viewing is offset by ~30 minutes... It would not achieve my second goal (atleast not instantly), but it would allow and encourage the producers of these shows to support a new system without having to entirely ditch the old. In time, and with luck, the new system would phase out the old....good riddance;)
Just like the doctor has to face a suit and higher insurance rates the cop who made a mistake has to pay for it. Either by being sued or being reprimanded by the dept.
Um, many excellent doctors with flawless records have to pay high malpractice insurance rates, it is no laughing matter. The problem is, much like with cops, that people want to take the easy way out. Just as there are people out there who only want to sue doctors to make money, there are people out there who want to do the same with cops. Yet other patients are theoretically honest, and when they get hurt, lawsuits happen; it _has_ to be someone's fault, because that's just the way our litigous society works. I support punishment where it makes sense, but this system is all too often wrong, and puts the costs where they are least needed.
If a protester actually assaulted a police officer they will most likely suffer horribly.
Oh you mean like those protestors who spat on the officers? Sorry, but they haven't paid and the city isn't about to take them to court either. It doesn't make much sense. Yet you know damn well if the cop were to do the same thing, even in retaliation, that you and other individuals would be all over them like white on rice.
I am not even asking that the police who assaulted people pay the same penalty as the people who assault the police but they should suffer the same consequence as any other "ordinary" assault.
Well no, you're not really. The police aren't just anyone. Sometimes when they use force, it is in the best interest of society. Sometimes accidents will happen when this force is applied, no matter how well trained these officers are. It makes little sense to hold either the individual officer or the police force responsible to an impossible standard (i.e., No amount of training will entirely prevent all types of accidents). Likewise, it makes little sense to hold the police responsible to an elite standard, when the tax payer (including yourself, who pays "too much") is not willing to foot the bill.
In essence, my position is this: We needed the police there to prevent even more injuries, even though we could only expect some injuries on the part of the police. You seem to say: "Well there were injuries, and those are necessarily wrong and unacceptable. The fault must lie on the part of the police, they must 'pay'." I say these injuries are to be expected, and until I see evidence to the contrary (especially when I personally witnessed excellent policework) I hold them free of any personal responsibility. The police are a tool for society. Do we hold the tool responsible for misapplication, especially when we know it may weaken the tool? No, only where they fail to execute as can be reasonably expected.
So let me get this straight, you'd rather waste cycles than do something that at least will help a few dying children? Even though you seem resigned to the fact that only one of these "biomedical profiteers" have the means to accomplish this? Even though you're not risking anything other than a few nearly worthless CPU cyles, you expect them to split the payment down the middle?
As a medical student, perhaps you'd like to tell me just how many key devices and medicines have been developed without the involvement of these "biomedical profiteers"? Now how many with? I thought so. Look, I'm not saying the world is always fair. I'm not saying everyone in the field is ethical (though I do personally know some very principled people in it). I'm not even saying this particular project is worthwhile, but I'd rather produce positive results for humanity in my lifetime than cling to some utopian notions in my dreams.
While I'm not sure I'm for school vouchers, "fixing the schools" is easier said than done. The teachers' unions are firmly entrenched. The schools' administration's hands are tied in numerous ways. i.e., the inability to expel certain kids, the inability to meaningfully punish them, requirements to have so and so many "advisors" and "administrators", etc. There exists a general apathy and a lack of appreciation for "decent education." If school vouchers could shake things up a bit, it just might be worth it.
As for taxes, I don't believe that funding is really the issue here per se. Public school teachers make substantially more money than private school teachers on average. Public schools demand things like "teaching" degrees, which are essentially meaningless pieces of paper (i'd far rather see a college graduate as a teacher with a meaningfull degree). What's more, the funding differential between your average private school (minus sports programs and the like) and public school is quite small (and even LESS if you include parochial schools) despite drastic outperformance on the part of private schools. Furthermore, did you know that we spend more money on public education than most of the developed world, yet see some of the worst results.
In my opinion, the public schools just need to be shook up--starting with the unions--then with overregulation--then with testing standards....
You don't seem to get it. It is the job of a police officer to restrain people.
That is just one task among many.
If a police officer can not perform this task then they don't belong on the street
You are blind to three major issues here:
A) We need the police, and we needed the police to contain those protests.
B) In this particular case the police DID do their job and quite admirably. Of the thousands of protesters the police dealt with we only have a few confirmed reports of injuries. This is quite good by any measure, and particularly when you put them in context, other than the one which you pull out of your ass.
C) Fiscal and social restraints. It is a pretty crappy job. If the city _needs_ 5k officers, and only 7k apply, how "elite" can you realistically expect them to be? Sure, you can cut 9 of 10 of them out till you only have the best, but they can't perform the job in its entirity.
Even if you assume it possible select and train officers to the point where there are zero accidents, it simply is not feasible. As bad as it might taste to you, we're better off having 5k somewhat flawed officers controlling a crowd in force than 10 ninjas--believe it or not. Furthermore, even in the most elite of military units (e.g., Navy Seals, Delta, etc.), despite all the training they have, they still have a couple accidents every year where they shoot each other when working in close quarters. These are the best of the best, and they still mess up. While such accidents may be reduced by intensive training, the fruits they bear are not necessarily worthwhile for everything. Hence, the bulk of the armed forces is still made up of Joe Averages, where the word friendly fire is all too common. Yet we have millions of officers whose training you're not willing to pay for, and you're unable to stomach the fact that accidents will happen.
Finally, a few quick remarks, surgeons too have accidents, despite all those years of training. I don't hear you lumping them all together. As for liability, when is the last time you looked at medical mal-practice insurance? I know many doctors who'll gladly show you. If you think getting sued is just for the guilty, you're wrong...
And what about the injuries inflicted on the officers by the protestors? Why is it that you can accept no injuries on the part of the officers, yet all of them on the part of the protesters? Why, when the protestors clearly show the capacity for violence, do you act like we have the luxary of using police? Get real.
I'm sorry, but you're simply talking out of your ass. You talk to any policeman, FBI agent, etc. worth is salt and he'll tell you the same thing: It's extremely difficult to restrain someone without hurting them at all. Add to this:
a) A possible large weight advantage
b) A possibly active/violent subject
c) Possible training in how to resist arrest
d) Noisy and chaotic surroundings
e) Potentially dangerous crowd situation....
then you try and move this person.
A little of any martial art does not qualify you as an expert, especially when all you know is the classroom. If you really believe your mock struggle is the same as that of an enraged man, then you need a few more lessons.
Furthermore, even if you assume that you are right here, where are these great officers supposed to come from? I don't see you volunteering. I don't see you volunteering your tax dollars either. Nor are you willing to give the policemen respect or the benefit of the doubt. So what is your contribution here, other than Monday morning armchair quarterbacking (quite literally I might add)?
I'm am not a lawyer, but I can tell you from experience that it's not nearly this cut and dry. No warning and no contract is that iron clad these days, even when holding the manufacturer liable is simply ridiculous. Look at silicon breast implants. They simply aren't sold these days. They're not banned per se. The FDA has even declared them safe (yes, some leakage did occur, but it's been shown to be quite safe). What's more, it's been well established in the medical community that they're safe. Yet, no one sells them. The risks have been proven to be too great, witness Dow Cornings loss. What's more, I have discovered first hand that medical device companies can't even get these manufacturers to provide silicon for implantable devices (not breast implants, but just coverings and the like), not even through a distributor. Companies which attempt to purchase it are sent a very strongly worded letter, from the original manufacturer, threatening all kinds of legal action if their product is used.
Both big and small businesses are scared silly of tort lawsuits. Don't kid yourself.
Frankly, I don't have any particular loyalty to the Philadelphia police. I am a transplant, and I technically live outside of Philadelphia. However, I am pragmatic. I realize that their job is important and necessary. From my own eyes, the ACLU's, and the media's, I neither saw or heard anything wrong in the way in which the Philadelphia police handled themselves. There may, or may not, have been a few excesses on the part of individual officers, but this does not mean they should be sidelined. This does not mean they should even be reprimanded as a group. What is the point? If you accept that there is little they could have done, what purpose does attacking the police serve, other than to scare away good officers? The dangers and the costs of on an unregulated mob far exceed those presented by sending the Philadelphia police in that way that they were. If I were in their shoes, I would have done the same thing.
As for the specific accusations, what do you really know? To say that 2600 has an agenda is an understatement. The same goes for the rest of these protestors. The ACLU, who I personally feel oversteps "rights" many times, was there officially and they even had few complaints. The local media filmed much of this, they would love nothing more than to film these supposedly outrageous police abuses which would have brought them in much revenue--they have no reason to "lie". Furthermore, I personally witnessed a fair amount of the protests. I saw many of these protestors blatanly lie about "abuse", when only moments before I saw them assaulting officers (i.e., spitting on them, throwing stuff at them, etc.). Why is it that I should suddenly believe them, and not extend the police the benefit of the doubt? Because they're mostly white upper middle class suburban kids? Sorry, but they too have an agenda, most of which is to simply make trouble. This is particularly true when what most of the protestors want MOST is to get media attention through accusations of police brutality.
As for arresting people who claim to have been merely walking and talking on the phone/radio, the police are allowed the arrest you IF they suspect you have organizing these illegal acts.
We need police officers. Policemen perform a basic and essential function in modern society, in case you didn't realize. Show me a prosperous society without effective policing, and I might have a bridge to sell you....
That being said, policemen are human. They will make mistakes. What's more, we do little, as a society, to improve the situation--to make their jobs desirable--to a point where we can really afford to be picky. We pay them poorly. Most work pretty aweful hours. Few get respect in their communities, and in many they're hated. But we still expect them to perform. When they don't do their jobs, we complain even louder. Yet, when they perform a tough job like this, we can't stomach any of the inevitable fallout.
We, as a society, need to grow up. Yes, there are some corrupt and violent officers out there--and they SHOULD be routed out. But to use this as an excuse for inaction is just plain stupid.
While I concede that the police efforts during the WTO were poorly MANAGED and thus resulted in unnecessary strife, I can't say this for the Philadelphia police efforts during the Republican convention. I happen to live in Philly, and witnessed a fair amount of these "protests", I can tell you with my own eyes that they were extremely calm, well organized, and safe. I've seen policemen act poorly before, but this is not one of those times. In my opinion, there is NOTHING more that the Philadelphia police could have reasonably done to prevent those few mishaps. What happenened was simply inevitable. A number of the protesters did things that left the police with no option other than force. They took it--and generally did so reasonably. But this is not the movies boys and girls--the police are not supermen and hence, not everything can go off without a hitch all the time.
It is very unfair to play Monday morning armchair quarterback and talk about the things they could have done. You were not in the middle of the situation. What is just a "minor crime" on paper may very well have been a potential danger to hundreds of people.
I'm not so sure that that is an accurate statistic. I doubt napster even keeps logs of transfers, or if they're even capable of doing that due to the protocol. I could easily see that 13% as being the 13% of the songs OFFERED on napster as being legitimate. Perhaps RIAA chose to quote this number, because it was the only firm number they could provide. Even if Napster was the provider of that data, it still demonstrates for RIAA that napster is overwhelming used for piracy.
However, even if that number is entirely accurate, that does not necessarily mean napster offers a 13% compelling benefit for society. i.e., It's possible that the vast majority of the 13% are people who come to napster for pirated songs, but while they're there download legitimate items on impulse or simply because it's more convenient than using an alternative method at THAT instant. Much in the same sense that a beer store that sells booze to minors may make 20% of their revenues selling snacks and other munchies, heh.
Yes, I know that, I was slightly inattentive with my words. However, I was right in spirit, whereas you just seem to know a few key words. It is obvious and well known that RMS has an axe to grind with more than just the concept of intellectual property. He hates the notion of closed source/proprietary code in general. They are not one in the same, and if you care, I'm sure you could find many statements of RMS to that effect.
The GPL explicitly extends beyond the mere lack copyright protection on that code, and even on the whole world in general. Put it this way: If I were to use a piece of GPL code in an IP-less society for a product that I sell, I would be required to distribute that source code. There is nothing inherent in the lack of IP that naturally incorporates the idealistic sharing that RMS envisioned. Afterall, well before formal intectually property rights really existed, many craftsman and artists relied on a variety of trade secrets.
I suggest that you go look at the intentions of both the original poster and RMS.
That's not entirely true. The GPL, atleast, tries to restrain the user from more than just claiming ownership over the source code. It prevents the user from extending and making their own private modifications of it, whether or not they file for IP protection...RMS evidently felt that the dangers of IP lurk not just in intellectual property protection.
So yes, RMS might very well disagree with you here.
First of all, Napster is more than just software, a type of "device". Napster's success hinges on their centralization of servers--it is a SERVICE. It is this service that has made napster so easy for the average user to use, unlike IRC, ftp, usenet, and what have you. You type in the text of the songs or artists you want, and it delivers a half-decent host which serves it. It is precisely that service that RIAA has been attacking.
Many still argue, that, although they are a service, they have legitimate uses and should be left alone. Let us be honest here. Today, something like 99.99% napster traffic is used for downloading materials illegally. While many of napster's supporters talk about all the supposed benefits of napster to the "indy" artist, they remain extremely vague. Just how is napster supposed to help in this department?
Napster is certainly not a promotion vehicle. All you can do on napster is text searches. These searches are only good if you know what you're looking for. What then is their substantial contribution to society? Distribution? One cannot honestly claim this is a decent method, let alone a superior method, of distribution for the "indy" artist. There is no hardly any shortage of alternative means. There are hundreds of websites and services which would be all too happy to get this "indy" business. Mp3.com? Certainly. Geocities, certainly...there remain many others. What's more they can PROMOTE and MARKET material. These alternatives means can deliver the "right" material to the "right" person and faster than napster could ever hope to.
For those who pine for a napster-like, dumbed down interface, where you might get "random" (but still legitimate) music, napster themselves could offer it (RIAA has even stated that they'd drop the lawsuit if napster just got rid of the infringing material) if they weren't afraid to kill their sacred jaurez cash cow to-be. For one, they could offer a proof-positive service, where artists can register their materials as being "legit". If that seems too draconian, napster could employ other methods to simply be more responsive to complaints by the artists, and assure prompt removal of all discovered materials. Napster might even, if they actually desired and were intelligent enough (a big IF), employ some sort of checksumming scheme to atleast filter GUARANTEED copyrighted music out.
But napster does none of that. Why? Because they're not a non-profit organization who is out there to help the "indy" artist or any other cause, napster is a for-profit corporation that simply wants to profit. Napster profits whether or not the materials are illegal. While all they want is eyeballs (so they can be used as a marketing platform), the means to deliver those eyeballs is in providing the one thing that these more acceptable services do not provide, pirated music in large and accessible quantities. It is simply not in their interest to do anything other than continuing to facilate the piracy of music.
The question for the courts and society comes down to cost versus benefit. While there still may remain one scintilla of benefit outside the scope of the alternatives, weigh them against the costs--or atleast their illegality if you don't agree with "big music", copyright law, or what have you.
...to drag this out a bit more. A more realistic comparison for napster is if they offered to be a directory of...well let's say guns for hire--hitmen. Only this service costs a lot, far more than the yellow pages. What's more, it's generally a pain in the ass to use for any legitimate uses, say, for bodyguards. The one thing the service does provide is a degree of anonymity where law enforcement cannot reach it effectively. If this services has indirectly contributed to the murders of hundreds of people, and has virtually never been used by anyone other than a thugs, would you still support it even if all they do is push information around? Why should society shoulder these immense costs when the benefits are between slim and none?
First of all, Napster is more than just software, a type of "device". Napster's success hinges on their centralization of servers--it is a SERVICE. It is this service that has made napster so easy for the average user to use, unlike IRC, ftp, usenet, and what have you. You type in the text of the songs or artists you want, and it delivers a half-decent host which serves it. It is precisely that service that RIAA has been attacking.
Many still argue, that, although they are a service, they have legitimate uses and should be left alone. Let us be honest here. Today, something like 99.99% napster traffic is used for downloading materials illegally. While many of napster's supporters talk about all the supposed benefits of napster to the "indy" artist, they remain extremely vague. Just how is napster supposed to help in this department?
Napster is certainly not a promotion vehicle. All you can do on napster is text searches. These searches are only good if you know what you're looking for. What then is their substantial contribution to society? Distribution? One cannot honestly claim this is a decent method, let alone a superior method, of distribution for the "indy" artist. There is no hardly any shortage of alternative means. There are hundreds of websites and services which would be all too happy to get this "indy" business. Mp3.com? Certainly. Geocities, certainly...there remain many others. What's more they can PROMOTE and MARKET material. These alternatives means can deliver the "right" material to the "right" person and faster than napster could ever hope to.
For those who pine for a napster-like, dumbed down interface, where you might get "random" (but still legitimate) music, napster themselves could offer it (RIAA has even stated that they'd drop the lawsuit if napster just got rid of the infringing material) if they weren't afraid to kill their sacred jaurez cash cow to-be. For one, they could offer a proof-positive service, where artists can register their materials as being "legit". If that seems too draconian, napster could employ other methods to simply be more responsive to complaints by the artists, and assure prompt removal of all discovered materials. Napster might even, if they actually desired and were intelligent enough (a big IF), employ some sort of checksumming scheme to atleast filter GUARANTEED copyrighted music out.
But napster does none of that. Why? Because they're not a non-profit organization who is out there to help the "indy" artist or any other cause, napster is a for-profit corporation that simply wants to profit. Napster profits whether or not the materials are illegal. While all they want is eyeballs (so they can be used as a marketing platform), the means to deliver those eyeballs is in providing the one thing that these more acceptable services do not provide, pirated music in large and accessible quantities. It is simply not in their interest to do anything other than continuing to facilate the piracy of music.
The question for the courts and society comes down to cost versus benefit. While there still may remain one scintilla of benefit outside the scope of the alternatives, weigh them against the costs--or atleast their illegality if you don't agree with "big music", copyright law, or what have you.
...to drag this out a bit more. A more realistic comparison for napster is if they offered to be a directory of...well let's say guns for hire--hitmen. Only this service costs a lot, far more than the yellow pages. What's more, it's generally a pain in the ass to use for any legitimate uses, say, for bodyguards. The one thing the service does provide is a degree of anonymity where law enforcement cannot reach it effectively. If this services has indirectly contributed to the murders of hundreds of people, and has virtually never been used by anyone other than a thugs, would you still support it even if all they do is push information around? Why should society shoulder these immense costs when the benefits are between slim and none?
PS: Minor detail: Bomb making instructions are not published in the encyclopedia, at least not in any major one. It's covered loosely and conceptually--not enough to actually build one. However, it is covered extensively elsewhere, much of it may well be available in your local library. Certainly any competent student of electrical engineering could build one if they had the materials.
I'm lucky enough to have a projection screen at home. While I haven't played Quake, or other computer FPS shooters on it in ages, I have played various console games with 3d perspective on it. I.e., Golden Eye on N64, various racing games on Dreamcast, etc. I've never had the slightest problem with it, nor have my friends ever complained. However, I only play such games once in a blue moon and for limited periods of time.
Uh no. California doesn't even begin to approach France here. France's problems are due to government interference, not a direct economic problem. In France you see this in many industries--even for relatively skilled jobs. Many of these illegals get paid relatively well, the difference is that the employer avoids the numerous government taxes and restrictions. In a market where you see such high unemployment, you would expect to see people fill those jobs, but the government prevents that.
What little problems of this order that California has has very little to do with government involvement (perhaps the lack of it to some degree). It is primarily due to social and economic considerations at the very bottom rung of employment. I.e., picking strawberries and other agricultural functions. The job sucks. The pay sucks because the market isn't willing to pay that much for strawberries. This encourages the use of immigrants.
The difference between the two is not that subtle. On these same types of construction jobs in the US it is rare to see illegal labor. The benefits are slim--because the government doesn't make employment artificially costly to the employer. The risks are great.
I can't refer you to any particular statistics offhand, but it is generally well known. Previous generations simply didn't feel the need. They didn't have these pop psychogists and the like telling them how they should parent. Furthermore, whether or not people today admit it, their lives were tougher--they had less time to commit in that fashion. You certainly didn't see nearly as many parents at sports events in the past as you do today. This insistence on parents becoming involved in their kids lives is a new thing, which previous generations simply didn't feel the need for. This was certainly true for fathers. It was the rare father of my father's generation and older which were closely involved in their kids lives.
That being said, I do feel that in truely poor communities there is little to no involvement of parents in their kids lives. While I suspect few people on slashdot are truely in the thick of this environment, and thus they're really not referring to problems there, I certainly do feel this is contributory to the many problems exibited amongst the poor. However, it'd be less than honest to pin the blame squarly on too much work/not enough free time. For one, I don't believe involvement is strictly a function of a parent's time--as much as it is an emphasis on what is important. i.e., the necessity to get good grades. Secondly the professionals with which I'm mostly familiar with work longer hours on average (a well documented fact. This is not to say that things are "fair" though)
Both my parents worked. What's more, both of them worked very very hard starting up their own companies. While my situation is unusual, in that my parents are/were highly succesfull, I know I am not alone when I tell you that I did not suffer from lack of love. I am not a potsmoker, or anything remotely similar.
Granted, my parent's never played the role of soccer mom/dad, but I really don't feel I'm lesser for it. They attended my games and social functions that counted. In fact, I've observed something of the opposite phenemon. Parents with too much time on their hands, with nothing going for them other than their kids, tend to become overinvolved in their kids lives.
The fact of the matter is that, contrary to popular belief, parents have become MORE involved (especially amongst middle/upper-middle/upper class parents) in their kids lives than ever before.
While I agree that there has been an increase in "bratty" and selfish kids, I disagree with your leveling the blame on this economic arrangement. Realistically, the problem has less to do with the amount of time spent with the kids, then the quality of that time, both around the parents and not, and how the parents used it.
I view the growth of the consumer culture, MTV, radio, TV, nintendo, etc as being far far more destructive. Kids need to be bored sometimes. They need to find ways to entertain themselves, rather than have this elaborate program. These problems are by no means monopolized by your stressed out dual income family; rather, they appear to be distributed across many walks of society.
Yes, the French economy is so good that hardly anything gets built without illegal/immigrant labor. Why else do you think it is that every large construction project in Paris is performed by a multitude of sub-contractors...at the bottom of which the illegals work? Because these corporations can just "evaporate" when they run affoul of the government!
The costs put on the employer are completely intolerable. Not because France is overemployed (unemployment is still very high), but because your beloved psuedo-socialist government makes such projects prohibitely expensive. You tax the employer horribly. You tie them up in all sorts of red tape. You won't let the employer hire and fire employees reasonably....
Furthermore, France's nominal improvements have been proportional and largely correlated to the decrease in protectionist and socialist policies.
A socialist France (both in government and in mind) will never be a world leader. Period.
2. We have ridiculous legal constraints. Face it, we're sue happy
When some rich prick runs you over with his Lexus SUV, you'll be thinking alot differently
Or wait until you try to run any form of sizable business and get sued for doing nothing. Do you honestly believe that we're that much better off in the US because of our ludicrously litigious society? The answer is: we're not.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, many senators can make this claim. Simply getting elected as senator does not mean you're competent. I can't think of anything particular impressive which Gore accomplished.
What has Gore done? Bush never proudly claimed he doesn't like to read, you're mislead.
Sure, the economy is doing well. However, that has between little and nothing to do with Clinton. The president has little control over the economy, beyond his control over taxes, going to war, and a few other significant acts, none of which Clinton has really executed. You'll be hard pressed to find any respected economist, even though they're mostly liberals, that will back Clinton's assertions. In all reality, the state of the economy has more to do with the Greenspan, technology, and arguably Reagan's tough stance against taxes and union abuse.
Don't confuse your Bushes.
You know, it's funny you compare him to Reagan as if that's a bad thing. I actually consider that a good thing. Not so much because I think Reagan's policies should be implimented now, but because I view Reagan as being an effective leader, who was misjudged, much like Bush Jr.
Uh yeah, it's written right there in republican doctrine that you must hate everyone that all non-6 figure/WASPs . That's how they get elected. Uh wait, that doesn't add up. Far more people vote than that (though the numbers are low).
...Did it ever occur to you that two people can have the same end in mind, but a totally different means. The democrats way might be a welfare state, but that doesn't mean they care any more. Hell, that doesn't even mean they care. Remember, they too are trying to get elected?
..anyways, fight flames with flames. good night.
Since when is a candidates personality irrelevant? First, it affects the election outcomes greatly. That, in and of itself, makes it newsworthy. Second, a president's personality (or lack thereof) can have an effect on his ability to get the job done--much of the president's power comes not from his direct authority, but rather from his ability to get the ball rolling. An impersonal president who can do nothing but spit out luke-warm words of fear and promise, isn't going to be a particularly effective candidate for any interested party. Bush, whether or not you like his particular policies, has clearly demonstrated the ability to persuade others in the state of Texas.
That being said, i'm not a huge fan of the media either.
First, The New York Times, if anything, is more anti-Bush than anti-Gore. If you read it on a regular basis, you'd know this. I dare you to count the number of negative Bush articles and compare them with Gore.
Secondly, Gore is boring and that is an election issue. It is not necessarily irrelevant for a reporter to point out that Gore's speech is utterly uninspiring. Do you deny that Gore being boring can affect the election? Or do you deny the fact that the election outcome is newsworthy? Face it, it is news.
Thirdly, there is _no_ evidence Bush did anything other than smoke a little bit of weed. Almost all of his friends and classmates attest to the fact that he was quite clean cut.
Fourth, Gore has no experience "running" this country. The vice-president's job is to fly around the country and shake hands. I don't call that experience nor his previous jobs necessary proof that he has any of the requisite experience to run an executive office effectively (or even safely).
Fifth, you complain about the media editorializing "news", yet you proclaim that propoganda URL as factual. HAH.
...oh well. You'll just have to wait till Bush gets elected. Have fun kiddo!
I agree, MySQL has its uses. It is, in some instances, a vastly superior tool to the alternatives. MySQL's problem, however, is largely created by themselves and their zealots. They have effectively billed MySQL as a replacement for commercial RDBMSs. That is equivelent to marketing a swiss army knife as a be all and end all replacement for every tool it offers. Yes, it looks something like it. It functions something like it. But that doesn't mean it is it. Nor does it mean that the swiss army knife has even 1/10th the engineering as the devices it replaces. That is essentially what MySQL is, an overglorified swiss army knife where people _might_ want to use an RDBMS. ...It's lighter, it's cheaper, it's quicker in some cases...but that doesn't mean people haven't made horrible mistakes by employing it. I can understand how many developers and database types get a bit annoyed with this....
PS: What exactly does "improving at open source speed" mean? If it means that you think MySQL, or for that matter any truely open source developed RDBMS, will ever be able to go toe to toe with the likes of Oracle or Sybase, then I'd take your bet any day. No previous Open Source project has ever taken on something of this size and complexity, and come out on top. So please don't tell me about this much fabled "open source speed" until it is a reality.
It would be great if this device could be modified to support a system of micropayments (since it is already periodically networked). I would be all too happy to pay in cash more than whatever my eyeballs' advertising contribution is to the networks. First, it would allow me to skip ads. This feature alone would be more than worthwhile to me, since I value my time more than the relatively nominal money that my usage raises. Second, I could see it having the ultimate effect of promoting the quality of television. One of the greatest ailments of television is the way in which is generates revenues through advertising dollars. In my view, they target the lowest common denominator and try to keep them in their seats as long as possible by seperating "good" stuff and filling junk in its place. This leads to a sort of corrupting cycle, as is seen in professional football, both in the duration of half time and other breaks, and in the excessive presense of marketing.
;)
I could envision a sort of parallel system. For those who are unwilling to put up with crap and for those who can afford it, simply modify these TIVO/replay devices to pay the parties that provide the content. They would work directly with the industry to filter out 100% of the ads and create relatively contiguous programming. Just stagger the "show times" such that the TIVO viewing is offset by ~30 minutes... It would not achieve my second goal (atleast not instantly), but it would allow and encourage the producers of these shows to support a new system without having to entirely ditch the old. In time, and with luck, the new system would phase out the old....good riddance
Um, many excellent doctors with flawless records have to pay high malpractice insurance rates, it is no laughing matter. The problem is, much like with cops, that people want to take the easy way out. Just as there are people out there who only want to sue doctors to make money, there are people out there who want to do the same with cops. Yet other patients are theoretically honest, and when they get hurt, lawsuits happen; it _has_ to be someone's fault, because that's just the way our litigous society works. I support punishment where it makes sense, but this system is all too often wrong, and puts the costs where they are least needed.
Oh you mean like those protestors who spat on the officers? Sorry, but they haven't paid and the city isn't about to take them to court either. It doesn't make much sense. Yet you know damn well if the cop were to do the same thing, even in retaliation, that you and other individuals would be all over them like white on rice.
Well no, you're not really. The police aren't just anyone. Sometimes when they use force, it is in the best interest of society. Sometimes accidents will happen when this force is applied, no matter how well trained these officers are. It makes little sense to hold either the individual officer or the police force responsible to an impossible standard (i.e., No amount of training will entirely prevent all types of accidents). Likewise, it makes little sense to hold the police responsible to an elite standard, when the tax payer (including yourself, who pays "too much") is not willing to foot the bill.
In essence, my position is this: We needed the police there to prevent even more injuries, even though we could only expect some injuries on the part of the police. You seem to say: "Well there were injuries, and those are necessarily wrong and unacceptable. The fault must lie on the part of the police, they must 'pay'." I say these injuries are to be expected, and until I see evidence to the contrary (especially when I personally witnessed excellent policework) I hold them free of any personal responsibility. The police are a tool for society. Do we hold the tool responsible for misapplication, especially when we know it may weaken the tool? No, only where they fail to execute as can be reasonably expected.
So let me get this straight, you'd rather waste cycles than do something that at least will help a few dying children? Even though you seem resigned to the fact that only one of these "biomedical profiteers" have the means to accomplish this? Even though you're not risking anything other than a few nearly worthless CPU cyles, you expect them to split the payment down the middle?
As a medical student, perhaps you'd like to tell me just how many key devices and medicines have been developed without the involvement of these "biomedical profiteers"? Now how many with? I thought so. Look, I'm not saying the world is always fair. I'm not saying everyone in the field is ethical (though I do personally know some very principled people in it). I'm not even saying this particular project is worthwhile, but I'd rather produce positive results for humanity in my lifetime than cling to some utopian notions in my dreams.
While I'm not sure I'm for school vouchers, "fixing the schools" is easier said than done. The teachers' unions are firmly entrenched. The schools' administration's hands are tied in numerous ways. i.e., the inability to expel certain kids, the inability to meaningfully punish them, requirements to have so and so many "advisors" and "administrators", etc. There exists a general apathy and a lack of appreciation for "decent education." If school vouchers could shake things up a bit, it just might be worth it.
As for taxes, I don't believe that funding is really the issue here per se. Public school teachers make substantially more money than private school teachers on average. Public schools demand things like "teaching" degrees, which are essentially meaningless pieces of paper (i'd far rather see a college graduate as a teacher with a meaningfull degree). What's more, the funding differential between your average private school (minus sports programs and the like) and public school is quite small (and even LESS if you include parochial schools) despite drastic outperformance on the part of private schools. Furthermore, did you know that we spend more money on public education than most of the developed world, yet see some of the worst results.
In my opinion, the public schools just need to be shook up--starting with the unions--then with overregulation--then with testing standards....
That is just one task among many.
You are blind to three major issues here:
A) We need the police, and we needed the police to contain those protests.
B) In this particular case the police DID do their job and quite admirably. Of the thousands of protesters the police dealt with we only have a few confirmed reports of injuries. This is quite good by any measure, and particularly when you put them in context, other than the one which you pull out of your ass.
C) Fiscal and social restraints. It is a pretty crappy job. If the city _needs_ 5k officers, and only 7k apply, how "elite" can you realistically expect them to be? Sure, you can cut 9 of 10 of them out till you only have the best, but they can't perform the job in its entirity.
Even if you assume it possible select and train officers to the point where there are zero accidents, it simply is not feasible. As bad as it might taste to you, we're better off having 5k somewhat flawed officers controlling a crowd in force than 10 ninjas--believe it or not. Furthermore, even in the most elite of military units (e.g., Navy Seals, Delta, etc.), despite all the training they have, they still have a couple accidents every year where they shoot each other when working in close quarters. These are the best of the best, and they still mess up. While such accidents may be reduced by intensive training, the fruits they bear are not necessarily worthwhile for everything. Hence, the bulk of the armed forces is still made up of Joe Averages, where the word friendly fire is all too common. Yet we have millions of officers whose training you're not willing to pay for, and you're unable to stomach the fact that accidents will happen.
Finally, a few quick remarks, surgeons too have accidents, despite all those years of training. I don't hear you lumping them all together. As for liability, when is the last time you looked at medical mal-practice insurance? I know many doctors who'll gladly show you. If you think getting sued is just for the guilty, you're wrong...
And what about the injuries inflicted on the officers by the protestors? Why is it that you can accept no injuries on the part of the officers, yet all of them on the part of the protesters? Why, when the protestors clearly show the capacity for violence, do you act like we have the luxary of using police? Get real.
I'm sorry, but you're simply talking out of your ass. You talk to any policeman, FBI agent, etc. worth is salt and he'll tell you the same thing: It's extremely difficult to restrain someone without hurting them at all. Add to this:
a) A possible large weight advantage
b) A possibly active/violent subject
c) Possible training in how to resist arrest
d) Noisy and chaotic surroundings
e) Potentially dangerous crowd situation....
then you try and move this person.
A little of any martial art does not qualify you as an expert, especially when all you know is the classroom. If you really believe your mock struggle is the same as that of an enraged man, then you need a few more lessons.
Furthermore, even if you assume that you are right here, where are these great officers supposed to come from? I don't see you volunteering. I don't see you volunteering your tax dollars either. Nor are you willing to give the policemen respect or the benefit of the doubt. So what is your contribution here, other than Monday morning armchair quarterbacking (quite literally I might add)?
I'm am not a lawyer, but I can tell you from experience that it's not nearly this cut and dry. No warning and no contract is that iron clad these days, even when holding the manufacturer liable is simply ridiculous. Look at silicon breast implants. They simply aren't sold these days. They're not banned per se. The FDA has even declared them safe (yes, some leakage did occur, but it's been shown to be quite safe). What's more, it's been well established in the medical community that they're safe. Yet, no one sells them. The risks have been proven to be too great, witness Dow Cornings loss. What's more, I have discovered first hand that medical device companies can't even get these manufacturers to provide silicon for implantable devices (not breast implants, but just coverings and the like), not even through a distributor. Companies which attempt to purchase it are sent a very strongly worded letter, from the original manufacturer, threatening all kinds of legal action if their product is used.
Both big and small businesses are scared silly of tort lawsuits. Don't kid yourself.
Frankly, I don't have any particular loyalty to the Philadelphia police. I am a transplant, and I technically live outside of Philadelphia. However, I am pragmatic. I realize that their job is important and necessary. From my own eyes, the ACLU's, and the media's, I neither saw or heard anything wrong in the way in which the Philadelphia police handled themselves. There may, or may not, have been a few excesses on the part of individual officers, but this does not mean they should be sidelined. This does not mean they should even be reprimanded as a group. What is the point? If you accept that there is little they could have done, what purpose does attacking the police serve, other than to scare away good officers? The dangers and the costs of on an unregulated mob far exceed those presented by sending the Philadelphia police in that way that they were. If I were in their shoes, I would have done the same thing.
As for the specific accusations, what do you really know? To say that 2600 has an agenda is an understatement. The same goes for the rest of these protestors. The ACLU, who I personally feel oversteps "rights" many times, was there officially and they even had few complaints. The local media filmed much of this, they would love nothing more than to film these supposedly outrageous police abuses which would have brought them in much revenue--they have no reason to "lie". Furthermore, I personally witnessed a fair amount of the protests. I saw many of these protestors blatanly lie about "abuse", when only moments before I saw them assaulting officers (i.e., spitting on them, throwing stuff at them, etc.). Why is it that I should suddenly believe them, and not extend the police the benefit of the doubt? Because they're mostly white upper middle class suburban kids? Sorry, but they too have an agenda, most of which is to simply make trouble. This is particularly true when what most of the protestors want MOST is to get media attention through accusations of police brutality.
As for arresting people who claim to have been merely walking and talking on the phone/radio, the police are allowed the arrest you IF they suspect you have organizing these illegal acts.
We need police officers. Policemen perform a basic and essential function in modern society, in case you didn't realize. Show me a prosperous society without effective policing, and I might have a bridge to sell you....
That being said, policemen are human. They will make mistakes. What's more, we do little, as a society, to improve the situation--to make their jobs desirable--to a point where we can really afford to be picky. We pay them poorly. Most work pretty aweful hours. Few get respect in their communities, and in many they're hated. But we still expect them to perform. When they don't do their jobs, we complain even louder. Yet, when they perform a tough job like this, we can't stomach any of the inevitable fallout.
We, as a society, need to grow up. Yes, there are some corrupt and violent officers out there--and they SHOULD be routed out. But to use this as an excuse for inaction is just plain stupid.
While I concede that the police efforts during the WTO were poorly MANAGED and thus resulted in unnecessary strife, I can't say this for the Philadelphia police efforts during the Republican convention. I happen to live in Philly, and witnessed a fair amount of these "protests", I can tell you with my own eyes that they were extremely calm, well organized, and safe. I've seen policemen act poorly before, but this is not one of those times. In my opinion, there is NOTHING more that the Philadelphia police could have reasonably done to prevent those few mishaps. What happenened was simply inevitable. A number of the protesters did things that left the police with no option other than force. They took it--and generally did so reasonably. But this is not the movies boys and girls--the police are not supermen and hence, not everything can go off without a hitch all the time.
It is very unfair to play Monday morning armchair quarterback and talk about the things they could have done. You were not in the middle of the situation. What is just a "minor crime" on paper may very well have been a potential danger to hundreds of people.
I'm not so sure that that is an accurate statistic. I doubt napster even keeps logs of transfers, or if they're even capable of doing that due to the protocol. I could easily see that 13% as being the 13% of the songs OFFERED on napster as being legitimate. Perhaps RIAA chose to quote this number, because it was the only firm number they could provide. Even if Napster was the provider of that data, it still demonstrates for RIAA that napster is overwhelming used for piracy.
However, even if that number is entirely accurate, that does not necessarily mean napster offers a 13% compelling benefit for society. i.e., It's possible that the vast majority of the 13% are people who come to napster for pirated songs, but while they're there download legitimate items on impulse or simply because it's more convenient than using an alternative method at THAT instant. Much in the same sense that a beer store that sells booze to minors may make 20% of their revenues selling snacks and other munchies, heh.
Yes, I know that, I was slightly inattentive with my words. However, I was right in spirit, whereas you just seem to know a few key words. It is obvious and well known that RMS has an axe to grind with more than just the concept of intellectual property. He hates the notion of closed source/proprietary code in general. They are not one in the same, and if you care, I'm sure you could find many statements of RMS to that effect.
The GPL explicitly extends beyond the mere lack copyright protection on that code, and even on the whole world in general. Put it this way: If I were to use a piece of GPL code in an IP-less society for a product that I sell, I would be required to distribute that source code. There is nothing inherent in the lack of IP that naturally incorporates the idealistic sharing that RMS envisioned. Afterall, well before formal intectually property rights really existed, many craftsman and artists relied on a variety of trade secrets.
I suggest that you go look at the intentions of both the original poster and RMS.
That's not entirely true. The GPL, atleast, tries to restrain the user from more than just claiming ownership over the source code. It prevents the user from extending and making their own private modifications of it, whether or not they file for IP protection...RMS evidently felt that the dangers of IP lurk not just in intellectual property protection.
So yes, RMS might very well disagree with you here.
First of all, Napster is more than just software, a type of "device". Napster's success hinges on their centralization of servers--it is a SERVICE. It is this service that has made napster so easy for the average user to use, unlike IRC, ftp, usenet, and what have you. You type in the text of the songs or artists you want, and it delivers a half-decent host which serves it. It is precisely that service that RIAA has been attacking.
Many still argue, that, although they are a service, they have legitimate uses and should be left alone. Let us be honest here. Today, something like 99.99% napster traffic is used for downloading materials illegally. While many of napster's supporters talk about all the supposed benefits of napster to the "indy" artist, they remain extremely vague. Just how is napster supposed to help in this department?
Napster is certainly not a promotion vehicle. All you can do on napster is text searches. These searches are only good if you know what you're looking for. What then is their substantial contribution to society? Distribution? One cannot honestly claim this is a decent method, let alone a superior method, of distribution for the "indy" artist. There is no hardly any shortage of alternative means. There are hundreds of websites and services which would be all too happy to get this "indy" business. Mp3.com? Certainly. Geocities, certainly...there remain many others. What's more they can PROMOTE and MARKET material. These alternatives means can deliver the "right" material to the "right" person and faster than napster could ever hope to.
For those who pine for a napster-like, dumbed down interface, where you might get "random" (but still legitimate) music, napster themselves could offer it (RIAA has even stated that they'd drop the lawsuit if napster just got rid of the infringing material) if they weren't afraid to kill their sacred jaurez cash cow to-be. For one, they could offer a proof-positive service, where artists can register their materials as being "legit". If that seems too draconian, napster could employ other methods to simply be more responsive to complaints by the artists, and assure prompt removal of all discovered materials. Napster might even, if they actually desired and were intelligent enough (a big IF), employ some sort of checksumming scheme to atleast filter GUARANTEED copyrighted music out.
But napster does none of that. Why? Because they're not a non-profit organization who is out there to help the "indy" artist or any other cause, napster is a for-profit corporation that simply wants to profit. Napster profits whether or not the materials are illegal. While all they want is eyeballs (so they can be used as a marketing platform), the means to deliver those eyeballs is in providing the one thing that these more acceptable services do not provide, pirated music in large and accessible quantities. It is simply not in their interest to do anything other than continuing to facilate the piracy of music.
The question for the courts and society comes down to cost versus benefit. While there still may remain one scintilla of benefit outside the scope of the alternatives, weigh them against the costs--or atleast their illegality if you don't agree with "big music", copyright law, or what have you.
...to drag this out a bit more. A more realistic comparison for napster is if they offered to be a directory of...well let's say guns for hire--hitmen. Only this service costs a lot, far more than the yellow pages. What's more, it's generally a pain in the ass to use for any legitimate uses, say, for bodyguards. The one thing the service does provide is a degree of anonymity where law enforcement cannot reach it effectively. If this services has indirectly contributed to the murders of hundreds of people, and has virtually never been used by anyone other than a thugs, would you still support it even if all they do is push information around? Why should society shoulder these immense costs when the benefits are between slim and none?
First of all, Napster is more than just software, a type of "device". Napster's success hinges on their centralization of servers--it is a SERVICE. It is this service that has made napster so easy for the average user to use, unlike IRC, ftp, usenet, and what have you. You type in the text of the songs or artists you want, and it delivers a half-decent host which serves it. It is precisely that service that RIAA has been attacking.
Many still argue, that, although they are a service, they have legitimate uses and should be left alone. Let us be honest here. Today, something like 99.99% napster traffic is used for downloading materials illegally. While many of napster's supporters talk about all the supposed benefits of napster to the "indy" artist, they remain extremely vague. Just how is napster supposed to help in this department?
Napster is certainly not a promotion vehicle. All you can do on napster is text searches. These searches are only good if you know what you're looking for. What then is their substantial contribution to society? Distribution? One cannot honestly claim this is a decent method, let alone a superior method, of distribution for the "indy" artist. There is no hardly any shortage of alternative means. There are hundreds of websites and services which would be all too happy to get this "indy" business. Mp3.com? Certainly. Geocities, certainly...there remain many others. What's more they can PROMOTE and MARKET material. These alternatives means can deliver the "right" material to the "right" person and faster than napster could ever hope to.
For those who pine for a napster-like, dumbed down interface, where you might get "random" (but still legitimate) music, napster themselves could offer it (RIAA has even stated that they'd drop the lawsuit if napster just got rid of the infringing material) if they weren't afraid to kill their sacred jaurez cash cow to-be. For one, they could offer a proof-positive service, where artists can register their materials as being "legit". If that seems too draconian, napster could employ other methods to simply be more responsive to complaints by the artists, and assure prompt removal of all discovered materials. Napster might even, if they actually desired and were intelligent enough (a big IF), employ some sort of checksumming scheme to atleast filter GUARANTEED copyrighted music out.
But napster does none of that. Why? Because they're not a non-profit organization who is out there to help the "indy" artist or any other cause, napster is a for-profit corporation that simply wants to profit. Napster profits whether or not the materials are illegal. While all they want is eyeballs (so they can be used as a marketing platform), the means to deliver those eyeballs is in providing the one thing that these more acceptable services do not provide, pirated music in large and accessible quantities. It is simply not in their interest to do anything other than continuing to facilate the piracy of music.
The question for the courts and society comes down to cost versus benefit. While there still may remain one scintilla of benefit outside the scope of the alternatives, weigh them against the costs--or atleast their illegality if you don't agree with "big music", copyright law, or what have you.
...to drag this out a bit more. A more realistic comparison for napster is if they offered to be a directory of...well let's say guns for hire--hitmen. Only this service costs a lot, far more than the yellow pages. What's more, it's generally a pain in the ass to use for any legitimate uses, say, for bodyguards. The one thing the service does provide is a degree of anonymity where law enforcement cannot reach it effectively. If this services has indirectly contributed to the murders of hundreds of people, and has virtually never been used by anyone other than a thugs, would you still support it even if all they do is push information around? Why should society shoulder these immense costs when the benefits are between slim and none?
PS: Minor detail: Bomb making instructions are not published in the encyclopedia, at least not in any major one. It's covered loosely and conceptually--not enough to actually build one. However, it is covered extensively elsewhere, much of it may well be available in your local library. Certainly any competent student of electrical engineering could build one if they had the materials.
I'm lucky enough to have a projection screen at home. While I haven't played Quake, or other computer FPS shooters on it in ages, I have played various console games with 3d perspective on it. I.e., Golden Eye on N64, various racing games on Dreamcast, etc. I've never had the slightest problem with it, nor have my friends ever complained. However, I only play such games once in a blue moon and for limited periods of time.
Uh no. California doesn't even begin to approach France here. France's problems are due to government interference, not a direct economic problem. In France you see this in many industries--even for relatively skilled jobs. Many of these illegals get paid relatively well, the difference is that the employer avoids the numerous government taxes and restrictions. In a market where you see such high unemployment, you would expect to see people fill those jobs, but the government prevents that.
What little problems of this order that California has has very little to do with government involvement (perhaps the lack of it to some degree). It is primarily due to social and economic considerations at the very bottom rung of employment. I.e., picking strawberries and other agricultural functions. The job sucks. The pay sucks because the market isn't willing to pay that much for strawberries. This encourages the use of immigrants.
The difference between the two is not that subtle. On these same types of construction jobs in the US it is rare to see illegal labor. The benefits are slim--because the government doesn't make employment artificially costly to the employer. The risks are great.
I can't refer you to any particular statistics offhand, but it is generally well known. Previous generations simply didn't feel the need. They didn't have these pop psychogists and the like telling them how they should parent. Furthermore, whether or not people today admit it, their lives were tougher--they had less time to commit in that fashion. You certainly didn't see nearly as many parents at sports events in the past as you do today. This insistence on parents becoming involved in their kids lives is a new thing, which previous generations simply didn't feel the need for. This was certainly true for fathers. It was the rare father of my father's generation and older which were closely involved in their kids lives.
That being said, I do feel that in truely poor communities there is little to no involvement of parents in their kids lives. While I suspect few people on slashdot are truely in the thick of this environment, and thus they're really not referring to problems there, I certainly do feel this is contributory to the many problems exibited amongst the poor. However, it'd be less than honest to pin the blame squarly on too much work/not enough free time. For one, I don't believe involvement is strictly a function of a parent's time--as much as it is an emphasis on what is important. i.e., the necessity to get good grades. Secondly the professionals with which I'm mostly familiar with work longer hours on average (a well documented fact. This is not to say that things are "fair" though)
Both my parents worked. What's more, both of them worked very very hard starting up their own companies. While my situation is unusual, in that my parents are/were highly succesfull, I know I am not alone when I tell you that I did not suffer from lack of love. I am not a potsmoker, or anything remotely similar.
Granted, my parent's never played the role of soccer mom/dad, but I really don't feel I'm lesser for it. They attended my games and social functions that counted. In fact, I've observed something of the opposite phenemon. Parents with too much time on their hands, with nothing going for them other than their kids, tend to become overinvolved in their kids lives.
The fact of the matter is that, contrary to popular belief, parents have become MORE involved (especially amongst middle/upper-middle/upper class parents) in their kids lives than ever before.
While I agree that there has been an increase in "bratty" and selfish kids, I disagree with your leveling the blame on this economic arrangement. Realistically, the problem has less to do with the amount of time spent with the kids, then the quality of that time, both around the parents and not, and how the parents used it.
I view the growth of the consumer culture, MTV, radio, TV, nintendo, etc as being far far more destructive. Kids need to be bored sometimes. They need to find ways to entertain themselves, rather than have this elaborate program. These problems are by no means monopolized by your stressed out dual income family; rather, they appear to be distributed across many walks of society.
Yes, the French economy is so good that hardly anything gets built without illegal/immigrant labor. Why else do you think it is that every large construction project in Paris is performed by a multitude of sub-contractors...at the bottom of which the illegals work? Because these corporations can just "evaporate" when they run affoul of the government!
The costs put on the employer are completely intolerable. Not because France is overemployed (unemployment is still very high), but because your beloved psuedo-socialist government makes such projects prohibitely expensive. You tax the employer horribly. You tie them up in all sorts of red tape. You won't let the employer hire and fire employees reasonably....
Furthermore, France's nominal improvements have been proportional and largely correlated to the decrease in protectionist and socialist policies.
A socialist France (both in government and in mind) will never be a world leader. Period.
Or wait until you try to run any form of sizable business and get sued for doing nothing. Do you honestly believe that we're that much better off in the US because of our ludicrously litigious society? The answer is: we're not.