Why don't those suggestions ever come from within the legal profession itself?
The criminal law industry earns its living by trying people and tossing them in jail, not by serving the abstract concept of "justice". We should not be surprised, then, if the industry resists any innovation that might reduce the rate of prosecution or conviction.
I'm all for keeping religion out of public schools -- any kind of religion. When adherents of a theory, even a good theory, start demanding that contrary opinions be silenced, I smell the sickly sweet odor of blind faith.
I have heard that claim before, that published obscenity encourages actual obscene behavior -- but I don't think I have ever seen or heard actual evidence
The school officials didn't make her strip to get their jollies, they made her strip in the overzealous application of school policy.
Most of the thugs who enforce these draconian laws don't do so because they really believe the inane moralistic BS underpinning said laws. Rather, they do so because they are bullies who get their rocks off by hurting other people.
See, the immigrants don't care that much about a living wage, because they aren't citizens and they don't plan to stay. Poverty-level US wages make a nice nest egg when sent back home to a Third World country. So the model goes, come to the US, work here a few years while living in relative destitution, then go back home and live a good life.
My proposed solution: make getting citizenship as easy for today's immigrants as it was for my (Irish) ancestors. Once that is done, and only once it's done, make it more or less impossible to work legally without citizenship, and see that the law is enforced. America wants and needs immigrants -- but we need them to be part of our country and build it up, not siphon off what's left of our wealth then jump ship after a couple years.
I bet you like carrying around that HP boat anchor just because its huge and cumbersome. Hey, if it floats your boat, more power to you -- but it's definitely not for me. I'll take my Thinkpad X60 any day...
In a large, fairly open government such as the United States has, there will be many interested parties, each with their own agenda and base of power. It is a mistake to think these agendas will all be the same, or even compatible with one another. A single faction may gain control of a department, or of several key departments, but gaining control of the entire government is much harder.
Thus keeping the task of information control and monitoring dispersed among several agencies is a protection, but not a guarantee, against tyranny.
From Mr Beckstrom's resignation letter: "In addition, the threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly or indirectly."
I've always been under the impression that the cops are constantly understaffed, but it looks like this particular sheriff's department has people with too much time on their hands.
Over-funded and -staffed police departments may be more common than our comrades in the FOP would have us believe, if the amount of resources many police departments squander on victimless "crimes" is any indication.
Making a compelling argument for the outcome of gun control in the short term is different from recognizing the ultimate outcome should a democratic government fall. I understand that good arguments can be made for it, but only so long as one is willing to understand the overall price that must be paid for taking a short-term view of the issue.
One argument I often heard presented to counter the claim that gun control exposes society to the risk of totalitarian takeover, is that civilians with guns are no match for a trained army with tanks and missiles, so widespread gun ownership won't be effective at preserving liberty. If we're doomed to servitude guns or no guns, then gun control looks a lot more attractive. This argument intuitively seems wrong, but I haven't quite worked out a good counter to it. Any suggestions?
I have always drawn the line however at violence against people. If you cannot convince them by peaceful means then trying to force your opinions on them is no better than them forcing their opinions on you.
Non-violence works great, so long as it is backed up by the threat (silent or open) of imminent mass violence. Without that threat, a commitment to non-violence is effectively the same as a commitment to the status quo.
The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.
I tend to think of people who pay money for CDs as retards. That's probably a bit harsh, but they are certainly stuck in the past. I do make exception for buying CD direct from the musician -- because that's more like making a donation than buying a product.
As far as your walmart analogy, i make it a point to do business with the local mom and pop shops in my area. Local quality over mega convenience. Even if it costs me a little more in dollars and time, its the right thing to do.
The local mom & pop shops in my neighborhood are cluttered, sometimes dirty, overpriced, and have inconvenient hours. They survive because there is limited commercial space in the neighborhood, and thus they have no local competition. If 7/11 were to find a spot to open a store nearby, I would never shop at those shitty little mom & pop stores again.
And it all doesn't matter that they're new fans because given the music's available for free on YouTube/Kazaa/whatever, they don't bother buying any copies.
Ever try to download an entire album by an obscure, unknown band from P2P? Usually, you can't. File sharing is only going to have a significant impact on a musician's album sales once they have already reached a certain level of fame, popularity, & success.
Any musician who has attained sufficient success that his music is easily available on P2P, will in all likelihood be able to support himself (in greater or lesser comfort) from making music. Is he going to make as much money as an old-media rockstar? Probably not. But is he going to give up making music so he can ear more money doing "real work"? Again, probably not. End result: plenty of music still gets made, and more people get to enjoy it.
And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.
Know what the difference is between a song or a movie versus clean drinking water, electricity, light bulbs, and similar goods? You can make as many copies of a movie as you want, for damn near free. Try doubling your supply of potable water for free, and let me know how that works out for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't those suggestions ever come from within the legal profession itself?
The criminal law industry earns its living by trying people and tossing them in jail, not by serving the abstract concept of "justice". We should not be surprised, then, if the industry resists any innovation that might reduce the rate of prosecution or conviction.
I'm all for keeping religion out of public schools -- any kind of religion. When adherents of a theory, even a good theory, start demanding that contrary opinions be silenced, I smell the sickly sweet odor of blind faith.
Militant evolutionists, much like militant creationists, are creatures of faith.
I have heard that claim before, that published obscenity encourages actual obscene behavior -- but I don't think I have ever seen or heard actual evidence
The school officials didn't make her strip to get their jollies, they made her strip in the overzealous application of school policy.
Most of the thugs who enforce these draconian laws don't do so because they really believe the inane moralistic BS underpinning said laws. Rather, they do so because they are bullies who get their rocks off by hurting other people.
and they have much more rational reasons than "morality" to do it.
Such as?
Concerned? Nah, not really.
The current incumbents are so fekking incapable they would struggle to work out which end of a USB stick goes where.
Assuming one's enemy is incompetent is a good way to end up dead or enslaved.
Pragmatically, this means only that those who would like to transform the USA into a totalitarian state just need to be more patient.
Hasn't this already been, for the most part, accomplished?
See, the immigrants don't care that much about a living wage, because they aren't citizens and they don't plan to stay. Poverty-level US wages make a nice nest egg when sent back home to a Third World country. So the model goes, come to the US, work here a few years while living in relative destitution, then go back home and live a good life.
My proposed solution: make getting citizenship as easy for today's immigrants as it was for my (Irish) ancestors. Once that is done, and only once it's done, make it more or less impossible to work legally without citizenship, and see that the law is enforced. America wants and needs immigrants -- but we need them to be part of our country and build it up, not siphon off what's left of our wealth then jump ship after a couple years.
We don't have anyone willing to use a shovel anymore to do real work.
Here, let me correct that for you:
"We don't have anyone willing to use a shovel anymore to do real work for less than a living wage."
I bet you like carrying around that HP boat anchor just because its huge and cumbersome. Hey, if it floats your boat, more power to you -- but it's definitely not for me. I'll take my Thinkpad X60 any day...
In a large, fairly open government such as the United States has, there will be many interested parties, each with their own agenda and base of power. It is a mistake to think these agendas will all be the same, or even compatible with one another. A single faction may gain control of a department, or of several key departments, but gaining control of the entire government is much harder.
Thus keeping the task of information control and monitoring dispersed among several agencies is a protection, but not a guarantee, against tyranny.
Clean up your fucking country already.
Some of us are trying to do just that...
From Mr Beckstrom's resignation letter: "In addition, the threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly or indirectly."
Amen, brother.
I've always been under the impression that the cops are constantly understaffed, but it looks like this particular sheriff's department has people with too much time on their hands.
Over-funded and -staffed police departments may be more common than our comrades in the FOP would have us believe, if the amount of resources many police departments squander on victimless "crimes" is any indication.
Sometimes this is how public policy changes.
mod -1 obvious
Making a compelling argument for the outcome of gun control in the short term is different from recognizing the ultimate outcome should a democratic government fall. I understand that good arguments can be made for it, but only so long as one is willing to understand the overall price that must be paid for taking a short-term view of the issue.
One argument I often heard presented to counter the claim that gun control exposes society to the risk of totalitarian takeover, is that civilians with guns are no match for a trained army with tanks and missiles, so widespread gun ownership won't be effective at preserving liberty. If we're doomed to servitude guns or no guns, then gun control looks a lot more attractive. This argument intuitively seems wrong, but I haven't quite worked out a good counter to it. Any suggestions?
I have always drawn the line however at violence against people. If you cannot convince them by peaceful means then trying to force your opinions on them is no better than them forcing their opinions on you.
Non-violence works great, so long as it is backed up by the threat (silent or open) of imminent mass violence. Without that threat, a commitment to non-violence is effectively the same as a commitment to the status quo.
Thirty bucks for the "right" to use some shitty pop song as the background to an amateur video? You've got to be kidding. Thirty cents, maybe....
The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.
I tend to think of people who pay money for CDs as retards. That's probably a bit harsh, but they are certainly stuck in the past. I do make exception for buying CD direct from the musician -- because that's more like making a donation than buying a product.
As far as your walmart analogy, i make it a point to do business with the local mom and pop shops in my area. Local quality over mega convenience. Even if it costs me a little more in dollars and time, its the right thing to do.
The local mom & pop shops in my neighborhood are cluttered, sometimes dirty, overpriced, and have inconvenient hours. They survive because there is limited commercial space in the neighborhood, and thus they have no local competition. If 7/11 were to find a spot to open a store nearby, I would never shop at those shitty little mom & pop stores again.
When will internet companies treat customers like customers rather than criminals?
I know there's a "In Soviet Amerika..." joke in here somewhere....
And it all doesn't matter that they're new fans because given the music's available for free on YouTube/Kazaa/whatever, they don't bother buying any copies.
Ever try to download an entire album by an obscure, unknown band from P2P? Usually, you can't. File sharing is only going to have a significant impact on a musician's album sales once they have already reached a certain level of fame, popularity, & success.
Any musician who has attained sufficient success that his music is easily available on P2P, will in all likelihood be able to support himself (in greater or lesser comfort) from making music. Is he going to make as much money as an old-media rockstar? Probably not. But is he going to give up making music so he can ear more money doing "real work"? Again, probably not. End result: plenty of music still gets made, and more people get to enjoy it.
And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.
Know what the difference is between a song or a movie versus clean drinking water, electricity, light bulbs, and similar goods? You can make as many copies of a movie as you want, for damn near free. Try doubling your supply of potable water for free, and let me know how that works out for you.
It's evil to follow the law?
It is evil to follow evil laws. I'm not quite sure the DMCA counts as evil -- but certainly it is culturally destructive.