>>>not least the weight and bulk of the disk and caddy.
True - of course VCRs of the late 70s/early 80s were pretty bulky too. Remember those old top-loaders which were about twice the size of a desktop PC chassis?
BTW I was wrong about the needle hovering over the videorecord. It touches the groove for purposes of tracking, and is moved by tiny motors... kinda similar to how a floppy head is moved back-and-forth.
That's because you're willing to except mediocrity and call it "pretty solid" whereas I'm not and only consider the first two songs to be worthy of purchase. (points to 45s on shelf)
>>>What about Zoso? Dark Side of the Moon? Tommy? Van Halen I? Bookends? Electric Ladyland? Brothers in Arms? 2112?
Those are nice exceptions, but not the norm. Give me a list for an album that is less than a year old, and where every song is great, and therefore worth ~$15 to purchase. (thinks). Nothing comes to mind. ----- That's why I prefer singles. I just buy the 2-3 songs per album that I like and thereby save money.
>>>>>"if they had been good, they would have played on the radio" >> >>you're joking, right?
No. Not everyone has the same tastes. While you may like music that has "deep meaning" and makes a person want to say, "Why bother?" and slit his/her wrist in despair, I prefer the bubblegum pop music on the radio because it's FUN. Nothing wrong with enjoying something fun, especially when the rest of your life is crappy. Music for me is escapist - I don't want serious depressing shit.
Also:
I could think of many examples where virtually the whole album was released to the radio. Like Depeche Mode's Violator CD where all but one song was released as singles to the radio. Contrast that with the more typical album where only 1-2 songs are good enough to get radioplay, and the rest are inferior. "If they (the singles) had been good, they would have played on the radio."
It just sounds like RIAA's lawyers are whining like babies. I read about a similar case where a private individual created a "fan website" for a local mall that was being built. It included preliminary maps, list of future stores, et cetera. When the mall was finished the owners demanded the fan website be yanked, and the ISP complied. The mall's lawyers acted in a manner that I certainly consider "vexatious" such as providing *thousands* of pages in documents, when the individual simply asked for ONE piece of paper during the discovery phase of the trial. He was forced to try to sort through all this trash, and eventually turned to the ACLU for help.
The case eventually reached the SCOTUS who sided with the fan's right to free speech and owning a personal fan website. They also ordered the mall's lawyers to pay the bills incurred.
To this day they still haven't paid.
Why? They claim since the ACLU represented the individual he has no costs (which is flat wrong - he incurred about $1000 prior to the ACLU arrivng to help). This is the way lawyers act - like toadies - not even bothering to follow a clear directive from the Supreme Court. RIAA's whining is nothing more than two-year-olds throwing temper tantrums. What NYCL did was represent his plaintiff, as he's *required* to do per the law, and he acted no differently than how RIAA's own lawyers act in their vigorous defenses of copyright for their clients (including mailing-out vexatious "Pay us $5000 or else" letter to citizens).
I can't believe they would bring a case like this. Or that they send-out fear-inducing "Pay us $5000 or we'll drag you to court for millions in fines" extortionate letters.
RIAA's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy, or King Louis of France, or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.
I didn't mean "caught" as in arrested - I just meant the police will provide information on how to get free help to break the addiction. You don't have to take the help if you don't want it.
>>>Do you think they should be able to use the dogs once probable cause has been established through other means?
Sure. If an officer SEES a drug, then he has probable cause and can use whatever tools are available to help in his search. But a dog, or anonymous call from a neighbor, or any other non-officer should NOT be used for probable cause. Only the officer's own eyes, as afirmed by oath in front of a judge, can should be used.
Else you have abuses like the Professor Gates cased (illegal entrance of his home with cause). Or this one (paster gets beaten after dog "smells" drugs that did not exist) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A
>>>voiding saying yes is much harder then you would think as police practice how to get you to say yes without really thinking through what you've done.
Right. Which is why silence is the best policy. You can't make mistakes or accidently volunteer information if you're mouth is closed. Don't Talk To Police video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc .
>>>border crossings or airports. The courts have mostly held that you have pretty much no rights in those places.
You still have rights in airports if your travel was inside the U.S. For example there was a Congressman Ron Paul volunteer flying from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and detailed because the security guards wanted to know why he was carrying several thousand in cash. The guards have no right to ask that question if you have not crossed an international border. Video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM (starts at 1 minute)
In my opinion this guy talked too much. He should have shut his mouth rather than interact with the officers.
>>>then I fail to see how another state could blast me for coming from a state that does not have a similar requirement.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." - One of the oldest legal precedents, and it basically means you are required to follow the laws of whichever state you're currently in. For example: Non-smoking laws inside a restaurant. Even if that's legal in Texas, it's not legal in most of the Northeast or Pacific states. If you have a kind judge he'll let you go, but he doesn't have to. State law is state law and ignorance of the law is not a defense.
>>>Before governments existed, people killed each other for food, shelter or anything. Don't blame it on governments.
Yes but when one person killed another person, it was just ONE person that was left dead. When a government official sets-out to kill, he can kill millions thanks to the power he wields. That's why government can not be trusted with any real power, and needs to be restrained with limits (i.e. a constitution of enumerated powers).
As for corporations they too need to be restrained, by laws.
Apparently you can not read. Let me repeat - "Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them." I hate corporations; I just hate government more. Even before corporations existed, governments were going-round killing people. Look at Nero and the old Roman Republic.
Anyone who believes they can trust government, after the thousands of years of history showing you can not, is a fool.
>>>there is nothing preventing the FBI from asking kindly for access.
That's good news. It means the state government can say "no" and shoo the FBI away. My state run by Democrats will probably cooperate, but hopefully my future home in the Free State Project (New Hampshire) will say "frak off" and close the door to Washington D.C.'s intrusions.
>>>If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission.
What I hate is when they use a dog. The U.S. Constitution required an oath before a judge, and since dogs cannot take oaths, they shouldn't be able to establish probable cause either.
>>>Any interaction with police not involving a motor vehicle should involve primarily these phrases: "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?"
I think even that's too much. I prefer to give my name, my address (if asked), and then silence. I might say something like "According to my Miranda Rights and the 5th Amendment I'm not required to answer," but most times I just keep silent.
I've seen too many videos where people repeat "Am I detained" and "Am I free to go" as if they are having a verbal fight with the officer. No good can come of that. It merely escalates the tension of the encounter, whereas silence tends to be calming and de-escalate.
Spain has legalized drugs. Now if you're caught rather than being arrested, you may ask for free medical assistance to break the habit. Or continue on your merry way.
What an enlightened policy. Don't punish people - help them.
The U.S. Supreme Court over-turned those laws as illegal searches. You're required to provide basic information like your name, address, but not required to show a photo ID. You need not carry anything on your body.
I'm glad Hitler didn't have this photo-filtering technology in 1935. He would have skipped all the nonsense of registration and yellow armbands, and just gone directly to drivers' licenses to find and round-up all the Jews (and other enemies). This new efficient technology would have allowed him to succeed in his goal virtually overnight. Oh yes I know. Godwin's Theory. I don't care - history is history and those who ignore history are fools.
Or just read the book Fatherland -
- "The setting is Berlin, 1964, some 20 years after the Third Reich's victory in World War II. Germany and the U.S. the world's two superpowers, find themselves in a cold war resulting from a nuclear stalemate; but U.S. President Joe Kennedy is soon to visit Berlin for an historic summit meeting with Hitler, clearing the way for detente. Meanwhile, cynical police detective Xavier March finds hard evidence of the wartime extermination of Europe's Jews..."
At least when the Comcast monopoly or other corporations come-round demanding money, I can tell them to "Fuck off; I don't want your service." Try doing that with the U.S. or State government sometime. There are three possibilities: (1) Suck the money directly from your paycheck. (2) Jail. (3) Get shipped to Afghanistan, Vietnam or some other place where we are currently fighting.
Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them. I can't ignore Congress because they keep pushing their way through my front door, trying to run every piece of my life.
For those like me who don't normally read linked articles, here's a summary:
Obama, Biden, and other executive officers have spent 75% of their time in states that put them into office. i.e. The blue states. AND these trips are publicly funded, according to this Associated Press article. They are solidifying their base in preparation for the next election. (Apparently the red states can go to hell as they get ignored.) Dubya Bush did the same thing, spending a lot of time in red and "purple" states.
Quote: "The vice president has made five stimulus trips just to Pennsylvania, a must-win state in 2008 that never faded from Obama's political planning meetings. All told, administration officials have been to the Keystone state more than three dozen times since January."
>>>Is the claim then that the fact that a private individual owns the solar system
But in New Jersey the individual only pays around 50% of the cost, so I would argue he is only entitled to half the generated electricity. The other 50% should be split off the solar panels and dumped directly to the publicly-owned wires for the benefit of other neighbors who paid the other half of the bill. That would be fair.
The 4500 watt only benefits that ONE homeowner who is getting $0 or near-zero monthly bills while us poor slobs still pay $300 a month. I frankly don't see why I should have to pay higher taxes to fund the subsidy for your $0 a month privilege. Sorry if that sounds selfish but it's also honest.
Whereas a 4500 watt installed at the central plant or other company-owned property benefits ALL the citizens with reduced bills.
The latter example provides for the improvement of the general welfare... all benefit, not just one.
In a quest for fairness we should stop subsidizing. Period. After an initial period of government-promoted research and invention, devices should stand or sink on their own merits. Like the internet has done.
The Cash for Clunkers is a good example. First off, cars are a mature technology and don't need subsidization. They should have received ZERO assistance.
Second this was a FAILED program, because all it did was promote exchanging one pullutemobile for another pollutemobile that was a mere 1-2 points higher on the http://greenercars.org/ scorecard. BFD. Also it shifted future demand (people buying new cars circa 2015) to the present (2009). It didn't create any new demand, but it did put us a few billion deeper in debt to our Chinese landlords. Bloody stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>not least the weight and bulk of the disk and caddy.
True - of course VCRs of the late 70s/early 80s were pretty bulky too. Remember those old top-loaders which were about twice the size of a desktop PC chassis?
BTW I was wrong about the needle hovering over the videorecord. It touches the groove for purposes of tracking, and is moved by tiny motors... kinda similar to how a floppy head is moved back-and-forth.
That's because you're willing to except mediocrity and call it "pretty solid" whereas I'm not and only consider the first two songs to be worthy of purchase. (points to 45s on shelf)
>>>What about Zoso? Dark Side of the Moon? Tommy? Van Halen I? Bookends? Electric Ladyland? Brothers in Arms? 2112?
Those are nice exceptions, but not the norm. Give me a list for an album that is less than a year old, and where every song is great, and therefore worth ~$15 to purchase. (thinks). Nothing comes to mind. ----- That's why I prefer singles. I just buy the 2-3 songs per album that I like and thereby save money.
>>>>>"if they had been good, they would have played on the radio"
>>
>>you're joking, right?
No. Not everyone has the same tastes. While you may like music that has "deep meaning" and makes a person want to say, "Why bother?" and slit his/her wrist in despair, I prefer the bubblegum pop music on the radio because it's FUN. Nothing wrong with enjoying something fun, especially when the rest of your life is crappy. Music for me is escapist - I don't want serious depressing shit.
Also:
I could think of many examples where virtually the whole album was released to the radio. Like Depeche Mode's Violator CD where all but one song was released as singles to the radio. Contrast that with the more typical album where only 1-2 songs are good enough to get radioplay, and the rest are inferior. "If they (the singles) had been good, they would have played on the radio."
Whatever.
It just sounds like RIAA's lawyers are whining like babies. I read about a similar case where a private individual created a "fan website" for a local mall that was being built. It included preliminary maps, list of future stores, et cetera. When the mall was finished the owners demanded the fan website be yanked, and the ISP complied. The mall's lawyers acted in a manner that I certainly consider "vexatious" such as providing *thousands* of pages in documents, when the individual simply asked for ONE piece of paper during the discovery phase of the trial. He was forced to try to sort through all this trash, and eventually turned to the ACLU for help.
The case eventually reached the SCOTUS who sided with the fan's right to free speech and owning a personal fan website. They also ordered the mall's lawyers to pay the bills incurred.
To this day they still haven't paid.
Why? They claim since the ACLU represented the individual he has no costs (which is flat wrong - he incurred about $1000 prior to the ACLU arrivng to help). This is the way lawyers act - like toadies - not even bothering to follow a clear directive from the Supreme Court. RIAA's whining is nothing more than two-year-olds throwing temper tantrums. What NYCL did was represent his plaintiff, as he's *required* to do per the law, and he acted no differently than how RIAA's own lawyers act in their vigorous defenses of copyright for their clients (including mailing-out vexatious "Pay us $5000 or else" letter to citizens).
I can't believe they would bring a case like this. Or that they send-out fear-inducing "Pay us $5000 or we'll drag you to court for millions in fines" extortionate letters.
RIAA's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy, or King Louis of France, or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.
My favorite lawyer is Judge Napolitano.
I love his daily show and how he explains the laws - http://freedomwatchonfox.com/
I didn't mean "caught" as in arrested - I just meant the police will provide information on how to get free help to break the addiction. You don't have to take the help if you don't want it.
>>>Do you think they should be able to use the dogs once probable cause has been established through other means?
Sure. If an officer SEES a drug, then he has probable cause and can use whatever tools are available to help in his search. But a dog, or anonymous call from a neighbor, or any other non-officer should NOT be used for probable cause. Only the officer's own eyes, as afirmed by oath in front of a judge, can should be used.
Else you have abuses like the Professor Gates cased (illegal entrance of his home with cause). Or this one (paster gets beaten after dog "smells" drugs that did not exist) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A
>>>voiding saying yes is much harder then you would think as police practice how to get you to say yes without really thinking through what you've done.
Right. Which is why silence is the best policy. You can't make mistakes or accidently volunteer information if you're mouth is closed. Don't Talk To Police video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
.
>>>border crossings or airports. The courts have mostly held that you have pretty much no rights in those places.
You still have rights in airports if your travel was inside the U.S. For example there was a Congressman Ron Paul volunteer flying from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and detailed because the security guards wanted to know why he was carrying several thousand in cash. The guards have no right to ask that question if you have not crossed an international border. Video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM (starts at 1 minute)
In my opinion this guy talked too much. He should have shut his mouth rather than interact with the officers.
>>>then I fail to see how another state could blast me for coming from a state that does not have a similar requirement.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." - One of the oldest legal precedents, and it basically means you are required to follow the laws of whichever state you're currently in. For example: Non-smoking laws inside a restaurant. Even if that's legal in Texas, it's not legal in most of the Northeast or Pacific states. If you have a kind judge he'll let you go, but he doesn't have to. State law is state law and ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Sorry.
>>>Before governments existed, people killed each other for food, shelter or anything. Don't blame it on governments.
Yes but when one person killed another person, it was just ONE person that was left dead. When a government official sets-out to kill, he can kill millions thanks to the power he wields. That's why government can not be trusted with any real power, and needs to be restrained with limits (i.e. a constitution of enumerated powers).
As for corporations they too need to be restrained, by laws.
Apparently you can not read. Let me repeat - "Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them." I hate corporations; I just hate government more. Even before corporations existed, governments were going-round killing people. Look at Nero and the old Roman Republic.
Anyone who believes they can trust government, after the thousands of years of history showing you can not, is a fool.
>>>there is nothing preventing the FBI from asking kindly for access.
That's good news. It means the state government can say "no" and shoo the FBI away. My state run by Democrats will probably cooperate, but hopefully my future home in the Free State Project (New Hampshire) will say "frak off" and close the door to Washington D.C.'s intrusions.
You saying people with glasses are unflattering? Hmph. (walks off)
>>>If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission.
What I hate is when they use a dog. The U.S. Constitution required an oath before a judge, and since dogs cannot take oaths, they shouldn't be able to establish probable cause either.
>>>Any interaction with police not involving a motor vehicle should involve primarily these phrases: "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?"
I think even that's too much. I prefer to give my name, my address (if asked), and then silence. I might say something like "According to my Miranda Rights and the 5th Amendment I'm not required to answer," but most times I just keep silent.
I've seen too many videos where people repeat "Am I detained" and "Am I free to go" as if they are having a verbal fight with the officer. No good can come of that. It merely escalates the tension of the encounter, whereas silence tends to be calming and de-escalate.
Spain has legalized drugs. Now if you're caught rather than being arrested, you may ask for free medical assistance to break the habit. Or continue on your merry way.
What an enlightened policy. Don't punish people - help them.
The U.S. Supreme Court over-turned those laws as illegal searches. You're required to provide basic information like your name, address, but not required to show a photo ID. You need not carry anything on your body.
>>>Governments can't be trusted.
I'm glad Hitler didn't have this photo-filtering technology in 1935. He would have skipped all the nonsense of registration and yellow armbands, and just gone directly to drivers' licenses to find and round-up all the Jews (and other enemies). This new efficient technology would have allowed him to succeed in his goal virtually overnight. Oh yes I know. Godwin's Theory. I don't care - history is history and those who ignore history are fools.
Or just read the book Fatherland -
- "The setting is Berlin, 1964, some 20 years after the Third Reich's victory in World War II. Germany and the U.S. the world's two superpowers, find themselves in a cold war resulting from a nuclear stalemate; but U.S. President Joe Kennedy is soon to visit Berlin for an historic summit meeting with Hitler, clearing the way for detente. Meanwhile, cynical police detective Xavier March finds hard evidence of the wartime extermination of Europe's Jews..."
At least when the Comcast monopoly or other corporations come-round demanding money, I can tell them to "Fuck off; I don't want your service." Try doing that with the U.S. or State government sometime. There are three possibilities: (1) Suck the money directly from your paycheck. (2) Jail. (3) Get shipped to Afghanistan, Vietnam or some other place where we are currently fighting.
Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them. I can't ignore Congress because they keep pushing their way through my front door, trying to run every piece of my life.
For those like me who don't normally read linked articles, here's a summary:
Obama, Biden, and other executive officers have spent 75% of their time in states that put them into office. i.e. The blue states. AND these trips are publicly funded, according to this Associated Press article. They are solidifying their base in preparation for the next election. (Apparently the red states can go to hell as they get ignored.) Dubya Bush did the same thing, spending a lot of time in red and "purple" states.
Quote: "The vice president has made five stimulus trips just to Pennsylvania, a must-win state in 2008 that never faded from Obama's political planning meetings. All told, administration officials have been to the Keystone state more than three dozen times since January."
>>>Is the claim then that the fact that a private individual owns the solar system
But in New Jersey the individual only pays around 50% of the cost, so I would argue he is only entitled to half the generated electricity. The other 50% should be split off the solar panels and dumped directly to the publicly-owned wires for the benefit of other neighbors who paid the other half of the bill. That would be fair.
The 4500 watt only benefits that ONE homeowner who is getting $0 or near-zero monthly bills while us poor slobs still pay $300 a month. I frankly don't see why I should have to pay higher taxes to fund the subsidy for your $0 a month privilege. Sorry if that sounds selfish but it's also honest.
Whereas a 4500 watt installed at the central plant or other company-owned property benefits ALL the citizens with reduced bills.
The latter example provides for the improvement of the general welfare... all benefit, not just one.
In a quest for fairness we should stop subsidizing. Period. After an initial period of government-promoted research and invention, devices should stand or sink on their own merits. Like the internet has done.
The Cash for Clunkers is a good example. First off, cars are a mature technology and don't need subsidization. They should have received ZERO assistance.
Second this was a FAILED program, because all it did was promote exchanging one pullutemobile for another pollutemobile that was a mere 1-2 points higher on the http://greenercars.org/ scorecard. BFD. Also it shifted future demand (people buying new cars circa 2015) to the present (2009). It didn't create any new demand, but it did put us a few billion deeper in debt to our Chinese landlords. Bloody stupid.