I can simulate a week of a Clearchannel station with a mini-CDR in a player set to deterministic shuffle.
Alternatively, one could save the cost of the CDR and still generate a passable simulation of a Clearchannel station, by beating oneself over the head with a stick for a few hours.
Massachusetts law making it a felony to record a conversation without prior consent of all parties) binding on a Federal Court?
I live in Mass, and all the time when I call customer service centers -- some of which I know are located in this state -- I am usually told "this call may be recorded for quality and training purposes". At no point have I ever been asked for my consent.
The court -- that is to say a bunch of lawyers, who are not exactly known as an ethical lot -- wants to exercise absolute control over the information jurors are allowed to consider. While it's certainly desirable that the jury not have decided their opinion of the case before the trial begins, I am not sure keeping them ignorant (and ignorant of court proceedings, no less) is the right way to achieve that.
You realize that plenty of (civilian) members of the national security establishment might also carry such papers. Would you also have them detained by airport security? How about a writer with a script describing Dr Horrific's new Super-Mega-Ultra Bomb(tm), with which he plans to destroy the world!! Should he be detained for carrying that, too?
Not everyone who prefers a free country over a police state is an anarchist. Shall I call you a fascist, just because you value security much more than liberty? It is tempting -- but calling names does nothing to advance understanding.
Oh, and speaking of growing up, your arguments remind me of my own thoughts back when I was an undergrad fresh from the 'burbs. Then I spent a decade living in central cities (you know, places like West Oakland, with real crime) and realized how useless the police are for protecting decent citizens from everyday crime; and how corruption, caprice, and abuse of power are more the norm than the exception among law enforcement officers.
Almost all people favor the use of state-sponsored violence to prevent physical violence against themselves and others. Many people, particularly those who own some property (as opposed to those who must pay tribute to the property holders), favor state violence to maintain the system of private property and the financial class system.
However, as I'm sure you know, there are in most nations a vast multitude of laws that neither protect individuals against physical violence from others, nor protect citizens' property against seizure. Such laws cover taxation, how one is allowed to dress, the permitted uses of a given piece of land, banned sexual practices, restrictions on speech & political activity, whether one is forbidden or required to racially discriminate, the approved manner of driving a vehicle, and a whole host of other topics on which 90+% of people do not agree.
When you say "criminal", I suspect from the context of your other posts that you mean "anyone who has violated the letter of the law of the jurisdiction(s) in which they reside". While that is the real definition of criminal, that is not what most people have in mind when they think of "get tough on crime". The mass of people want murders, robbers, rapists, muggers, & the like kept in check
Indeed, by that legalistic standard, if you are an American, you are most likely some sort of criminal -- owing to the prodigious size, boundless scope, and arbitrary caprice of American law. Perhaps you could dig into that a bit, then save us taxpayers some money by persecuting yourself?
Likewise, you might just change your tune should you fall victim to an unjust law, or even to the everyday needless brutality of the police apparatus.
I will not chide you to "grow up", since you seem already to be a (prematurely?) crotchety old geezer. However, a resounding "get real" seems appropriate.
You just possibly might have a feeling of embarrassment. Embarrassment doesn't really rank along the demonstrable positive sides of such cameras, for example the numerous cases of murderers being caught with CCTV evidence.
Why do I suspect that you secretly (or not-so-secretly) delight in the persecution of those whose moral values differ from yours?
Many live in persecution; only a few have the courage to openly resist the State. Greater surveillance means the regime has a tighter grip with which to suffocate liberty.
Did anyone really think they were going to give away their content for free forever?
I use Hulu because it's a lot more convenient than locating and downloading a liberated copy of the same content. As the price for that convenience, I am willing to tolerate advertisements inserted into the content.
However, the moment they start charging money, that calculus will change. If the price is low enough, and comes with advertising removed, the balance might still favor Hulu. But if the price is too high, or the advertising is not removed, most likely I'll go back to watching only liberated video content.
It literally takes me 5 seconds to park. My company has its own lot. Free of charge.
Guess it all depends where you are going. At my workplace (in Boston's main hospital district), parking costs over a hundred dollars a month, and is available only at a remote lot served by shuttle buses. Otoh, the train stops two short blocks from the front door.
Trains/buses average a mere 25mpg for each person carried
While I suspect they probably wouldn't use the wrench in the UK - yet
True -- using a wrench would be far too cost-effective and reliable for government use. Now if it were a $25,000 wrench that only worked half the time, that might be an option.
Slashdot Mirror
an an actual free country
Where would you suggest? Seriously -- I'm curious.
I can simulate a week of a Clearchannel station with a mini-CDR in a player set to deterministic shuffle.
Alternatively, one could save the cost of the CDR and still generate a passable simulation of a Clearchannel station, by beating oneself over the head with a stick for a few hours.
It would kinda rock if the RIAA demanded damages that exceeded US (or world) GDP.
Massachusetts law making it a felony to record a conversation without prior consent of all parties) binding on a Federal Court?
I live in Mass, and all the time when I call customer service centers -- some of which I know are located in this state -- I am usually told "this call may be recorded for quality and training purposes". At no point have I ever been asked for my consent.
in all but sexual cases, the prosecution should be in favor of an open trial
Why are secret kangaroo courts acceptable for sex-related trials -- many of which involve "crimes" against prudish, religion-based moral codes.
I would argue that any trial which cannot be conducted in full public view, involves a law which does not deserve to be obeyed.
The court -- that is to say a bunch of lawyers, who are not exactly known as an ethical lot -- wants to exercise absolute control over the information jurors are allowed to consider. While it's certainly desirable that the jury not have decided their opinion of the case before the trial begins, I am not sure keeping them ignorant (and ignorant of court proceedings, no less) is the right way to achieve that.
Buy them out and try to turn them into some legitimate website?
A legitimate music sales site is illegitimate as a music sharing site.
You realize that plenty of (civilian) members of the national security establishment might also carry such papers. Would you also have them detained by airport security? How about a writer with a script describing Dr Horrific's new Super-Mega-Ultra Bomb(tm), with which he plans to destroy the world!! Should he be detained for carrying that, too?
I hunted a spammer down and ratted him out to his own mother
Let me buy this man a beer!
Police state. LOL.
Everything's been said already. You don't think you'll grow out of it. But you will.
Nice... You managed to boil your own argument down to a single statement, "you'll grow out of it", that's both smugly ignorant and patronizing.
Not everyone who prefers a free country over a police state is an anarchist. Shall I call you a fascist, just because you value security much more than liberty? It is tempting -- but calling names does nothing to advance understanding.
Oh, and speaking of growing up, your arguments remind me of my own thoughts back when I was an undergrad fresh from the 'burbs. Then I spent a decade living in central cities (you know, places like West Oakland, with real crime) and realized how useless the police are for protecting decent citizens from everyday crime; and how corruption, caprice, and abuse of power are more the norm than the exception among law enforcement officers.
Almost all people favor the use of state-sponsored violence to prevent physical violence against themselves and others. Many people, particularly those who own some property (as opposed to those who must pay tribute to the property holders), favor state violence to maintain the system of private property and the financial class system.
However, as I'm sure you know, there are in most nations a vast multitude of laws that neither protect individuals against physical violence from others, nor protect citizens' property against seizure. Such laws cover taxation, how one is allowed to dress, the permitted uses of a given piece of land, banned sexual practices, restrictions on speech & political activity, whether one is forbidden or required to racially discriminate, the approved manner of driving a vehicle, and a whole host of other topics on which 90+% of people do not agree.
When you say "criminal", I suspect from the context of your other posts that you mean "anyone who has violated the letter of the law of the jurisdiction(s) in which they reside". While that is the real definition of criminal, that is not what most people have in mind when they think of "get tough on crime". The mass of people want murders, robbers, rapists, muggers, & the like kept in check
Indeed, by that legalistic standard, if you are an American, you are most likely some sort of criminal -- owing to the prodigious size, boundless scope, and arbitrary caprice of American law. Perhaps you could dig into that a bit, then save us taxpayers some money by persecuting yourself?
Likewise, you might just change your tune should you fall victim to an unjust law, or even to the everyday needless brutality of the police apparatus.
I will not chide you to "grow up", since you seem already to be a (prematurely?) crotchety old geezer. However, a resounding "get real" seems appropriate.
At least you are honest enough to admit that you favor persecution.
Do you hold the law, or justice, in higher esteem? It is not always, or even usually, the case that they two are the same.
You just possibly might have a feeling of embarrassment. Embarrassment doesn't really rank along the demonstrable positive sides of such cameras, for example the numerous cases of murderers being caught with CCTV evidence.
Why do I suspect that you secretly (or not-so-secretly) delight in the persecution of those whose moral values differ from yours?
Many live in persecution; only a few have the courage to openly resist the State. Greater surveillance means the regime has a tighter grip with which to suffocate liberty.
You win the ToTD award, sir.
Tard of The Day?
Only your customers have the right to access the source code.
Riiiight.. but they can then proceed to give it away, and the GPL prevents you from imposing any restrictions on them that would prevent that.
I think you need to come to terms that free is not gratis.
I have yet to see a viable business plan for selling free software (not to be confused with software-related services, including bespoke development).
I don't think Novell has quite come to terms with the idea of Free Software yet...
Did anyone really think they were going to give away their content for free forever?
I use Hulu because it's a lot more convenient than locating and downloading a liberated copy of the same content. As the price for that convenience, I am willing to tolerate advertisements inserted into the content.
However, the moment they start charging money, that calculus will change. If the price is low enough, and comes with advertising removed, the balance might still favor Hulu. But if the price is too high, or the advertising is not removed, most likely I'll go back to watching only liberated video content.
especially if there is little to no advertising in the paid content
That seems quite unlikely...
It literally takes me 5 seconds to park. My company has its own lot. Free of charge.
Guess it all depends where you are going. At my workplace (in Boston's main hospital district), parking costs over a hundred dollars a month, and is available only at a remote lot served by shuttle buses. Otoh, the train stops two short blocks from the front door.
Trains/buses average a mere 25mpg for each person carried
Citation please?
The more people on the train, the more passenger-miles per gallon it gets.
While I suspect they probably wouldn't use the wrench in the UK - yet
True -- using a wrench would be far too cost-effective and reliable for government use. Now if it were a $25,000 wrench that only worked half the time, that might be an option.
And under Mac OS X I use a file vault.
It's safe to assume that all commercial encryption software has a back door for police access.