In NA, it happens only in serious cases, and this would probably qualify. Of course, the "consequences" would probably be a couple weeks' suspension without pay. Nothing would happen to the prosecutor, since he's just relying on the evidence given by the police. 15 months still seems excessive, though.
It's Mercury colliding with other planets, not Earth, and I read the article on Ars Technica yesterday, and you're right, the collision isn't the focus, it's the ability to use more complex equations using variables previously ignored due to that complexity in modelling, coupled with similarity of some previous work, apparently. What's more, they ran 2500 simulations, and less than 1% had Mercury colliding with a planet.
No, the reason a jail term is considered justice is because we, as a society, agree to abide by certain rules with the understanding that the protection afforded by those rules is offered to all members equally (though I don't need to point out that this is an ideal).
I'm not certain if you wilfully misinterpreted my point or not. Your post is saying "we have punishments because society has rules." That's completely not my point.
I'm saying that jail time itself, the act of putting people in jail, is only seen as justice because that's how society's done it for ages. If society's rules were traditionally enforced by public shamings, or by doing an allotment of community volunteer work based on the damage to society by the crime, then those would be justice. In other words, the way the punishment is enforced is at issue, not the fact of a punishment at all. If the current methods of punishment no longer work for society (punishments which don't deter crime, etc), then society needs to come up with new methods of punishment. But the Legal System (not justice system) won't do that, because there's too much business to be made in prisons. Alternative methods of punishment are often filed under "cruel and unusual," thus making them impossible to enforce. Is it really adding value to a society to imprison people convicted of non-violent crimes, when they're perfectly capable of performing tasks? I'm fine with society's rules, but what's the point of closing up a shoplifter in a tiny room for a few years? Work on enforcement, society! Expand your mind! Options are possible!!!!!!!!!!!111!1
A story about how people were pissed off that a mother received second-degree murder for killing her kid. If you poke around, another mother got 5 years house arrest.
But at the very same time, you'll see people getting pissed off about people getting low jail times for crimes of killing adults, but with similar circumstances, ie. extreme emotional disturbance. How is that justice?
Remember, the only reason a jail term is considered justice is because a bunch of people a long time ago said it was. If we were a society with a system of punishment that was based on repayment to the community through service, with ostracism as a penalty for refusal, throwing someone in prison would strike us as barbaric.
Actually, a jibe is part of a boat. And "jives" would make sense in the usage presented, as "jives poorly" would mean it doesn't go well together, since two people dancing badly together would be "jiving poorly." Thus "jives well" means it goes together well.
I don't think it's blazingly hilarious, but if the system's letting anyone change anyone else's name because they're not bothering to check identities, then the system is broken. Simple as that. Better it's abused in such a fashion now, rather than something more serious, so that it can be fixed.
Frankly, if no one tries for sanctions after this, I'll be very surprised. The judge may not grant it, but I'm sure there will at least be a motion for sanctions for wasting the court's time
I don't think he was trolling. It really is standard economics. The system will only support the price people are willing to pay, in the form people are willing to pay. But if no one pays, then nothing's likely to be made, as few people are willing to work for free consistently.
For example, simply because you open a shop selling something doesn't mean that product has an inherent value. Just because you've said your shiny coaster is worth $20 doesn't mean it is. It's only worth $20 if people actually start paying that $20. If people decide that the shiny coaster isn't worth $20, since they can get a wicker coaster down the block for $5 that does everything your shiny coaster does, with no downsides, then your coasters have no value.
But if you sell your shiny coasters for $10, and they don't mildew ever, but the $5 wicker coasters do, if they get wet, then some people might decide that extra $5 is worth it. Now your product has value, since people are willing to give that money.
To bring this back to the actual music industry, they're trying to charge money for something they can't prove is better than what someone else is giving away for free, aka label artists vs. independent artists. And they don't want to bother proving their product is better by letting anyone have samples (free, good quality downloads), and in fact, they want to charge you for every possible "coaster" use you want. You can't just use your computer to get the music off the CD, and then put it on any device you want. That's like the coaster company saying that you need to buy a different coaster for each room in your house, you're not allowed to move it from the dining room to the living room. And I'm getting really far afield of what's actually covered in your posts, so I'll just finish by saying you're right, economics is chiefly driven by the laziness of people, and the fact that if one company doesn't deliver, another will, either by making a product cheaper or easier, as long as they can still turn a bit of profit in the doing.
But it's not 75 years. It's life of the artist + 70 years. If copyright is supposed to compensate the artist for the energy and effort put in to making their work, why should it go past the life of the artist at all? Why does a record company get to benefit from the work of a dead person more than half a century ago?
And what right do the artist's children have to collect new money on the effort of their ancestor? If a company was started and handed down, it's still making money because effort is still being put in. Something in copyright doesn't require new effort to make new money. Shouldn't society benefit of use of something before it becomes irrelevant?
The trick is that you actually have to work and keep writing new songs and doing shows and such instead of writing one hit and sitting on your ass collecting a toll every time someone listens to it somewhere.
Wait. Is that supposed to be the downside for the public?
Hardly self-defeating. You are aware that getting things on to iTunes or Amazon is incredibly easy if you're independent, correct? Even going through an aggregator isn't that difficult. And the RIAA et al aren't doing much in the way of promotion any more. Most artists don't get music videos unless the song's already popular, since the music video channels don't run many videos any more, unless the artist is popular. Most people don't listen to regular radio, but either speciality stations or internet radio, again, both can have independent music submitted to them. The only time it would be useful is if you're playing large (stadium-type) concerts, and most artists never get that far. Record companies as they currently exist aren't there for the little artist. They're focused on the stuff they *know* can make them money. They don't wanna promote something that might tank.
By "iPhone-like devices," they usually mean "thing with no actual keyboard." I don't want one like that. I like physical keys. Because they actually work. You've always been able to get apps by searching around a bit for Windows Mobile based phones, and probably for others as well, so the App Store idea is just collecting and monetizing them. Frankly, an iPhone isn't that special, beyond the large touch-screen. Everything about it had been done before in one manner or another. Apple just gathered it in to one place and shellacked it. I will grant they did it well, and it's pushing other companies to include greater number of features, but does a phone really NEED an accelerometer? How about we start getting phones with a good vibrate feature so that I can feel it while it's on my belt?
No you don't. Not in Canada, anyway. They evaluate what treatment has the best success rate vs. the type of cancer you have, yes, which means you won't always be given the bleeding edge treatment, because if one has an 80% remission rate, why go for the treatment with no track record?
Also, it isn't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE, so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...
You have GOT to be kidding me. If anything, MS would have a vested interest in ensuring Firefox behaves NOTHING like Firefox. Because if there's things only IE can do, they keep their market share! Don't let your MS-hate blind you.
I have a very decent track record in terms of not getting infected with malware.
Lesse. You're excessively paranoid (arguably, anyways) about your security, and you have a "very decent track record."
Whereas I have all that running pretty much whenever it wants, and the only virus I've ever gotten was from my roommate's Windows ME machine. And that was 6 years ago. I'd call mine an "excellent" track record.
One could easily argue that a program not supporting.net IS a.net application issue. Seriously, this thing doesn't compromise security, it makes it so that some of those "IE only" sites aren't quite as IE only. It's a step towards moving away from IE as a dominant force on the internet.
I can easily imagine that this is the way the conversation went at MS:
Coder: Hey, we've got the.net update ready to push out, and the Firefox extension's ready too. Should we release them separately?
Manager: Nah. Make them the same bundle. One less thing for people to deal with on the list of patches.
Coder: What if they don't want it?
Manager: You put the disable button in it?
Coder: Yeah.
Manager: If they don't want it, then they can turn it off. Big whoop. Let's go for lunch now. I'm hungry.
Holy shit. +4 Insightful for "malicious OS"? You do realize that users are set up with limited rights now because that's how people bitched at them to make it, right? It's now malicious to make a product how people are screaming for it to be made? Go ahead, mod me troll, flamebait, whatever, but screaming about an OS acting how the user wanted it, using a facet of the browser that was *known* about previously (Sun's extension, for example) is stupid. If people are so anti-.net, why did they install the update in the first place? It's _optional_..net can be removed. It's not even hard.
Slashdot Mirror
In NA, it happens only in serious cases, and this would probably qualify. Of course, the "consequences" would probably be a couple weeks' suspension without pay. Nothing would happen to the prosecutor, since he's just relying on the evidence given by the police. 15 months still seems excessive, though.
It's Mercury colliding with other planets, not Earth, and I read the article on Ars Technica yesterday, and you're right, the collision isn't the focus, it's the ability to use more complex equations using variables previously ignored due to that complexity in modelling, coupled with similarity of some previous work, apparently. What's more, they ran 2500 simulations, and less than 1% had Mercury colliding with a planet.
"Out of the 2,500 runs that were performed, only about one percent resulted in a major disruptions in Mercury's orbit. This result is in agreement with prior works that had not taken general relativity or the lunar effects into account" http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/06/kicking-a-planet-out-of-the-solar-system-physically.ars
http://www.cracked.com/article_17445_6-best-2012-apocalypse-theories-are-all-bullshit.html
*cough cough*
No, the reason a jail term is considered justice is because we, as a society, agree to abide by certain rules with the understanding that the protection afforded by those rules is offered to all members equally (though I don't need to point out that this is an ideal).
I'm not certain if you wilfully misinterpreted my point or not. Your post is saying "we have punishments because society has rules." That's completely not my point.
I'm saying that jail time itself, the act of putting people in jail, is only seen as justice because that's how society's done it for ages. If society's rules were traditionally enforced by public shamings, or by doing an allotment of community volunteer work based on the damage to society by the crime, then those would be justice. In other words, the way the punishment is enforced is at issue, not the fact of a punishment at all. If the current methods of punishment no longer work for society (punishments which don't deter crime, etc), then society needs to come up with new methods of punishment. But the Legal System (not justice system) won't do that, because there's too much business to be made in prisons. Alternative methods of punishment are often filed under "cruel and unusual," thus making them impossible to enforce. Is it really adding value to a society to imprison people convicted of non-violent crimes, when they're perfectly capable of performing tasks? I'm fine with society's rules, but what's the point of closing up a shoplifter in a tiny room for a few years? Work on enforcement, society! Expand your mind! Options are possible!!!!!!!!!!!111!1
Another problem is that, rather than a punishment that fits the crime, lynch mobs issue a punishment that fits their rage. That is not justice.
There's a large portion of the population in Canada that suggests the current punishments for serious crimes aren't justice either.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Edmonton_Journal_Revisiting_Canadas_infanticide_law_12NOV06.aspx
A story about how people were pissed off that a mother received second-degree murder for killing her kid. If you poke around, another mother got 5 years house arrest.
But at the very same time, you'll see people getting pissed off about people getting low jail times for crimes of killing adults, but with similar circumstances, ie. extreme emotional disturbance. How is that justice?
Remember, the only reason a jail term is considered justice is because a bunch of people a long time ago said it was. If we were a society with a system of punishment that was based on repayment to the community through service, with ostracism as a penalty for refusal, throwing someone in prison would strike us as barbaric.
Actually, a jibe is part of a boat. And "jives" would make sense in the usage presented, as "jives poorly" would mean it doesn't go well together, since two people dancing badly together would be "jiving poorly." Thus "jives well" means it goes together well.
easy, people click, then get scared of all the words, and run away. But they still access the page.
I don't think it's blazingly hilarious, but if the system's letting anyone change anyone else's name because they're not bothering to check identities, then the system is broken. Simple as that. Better it's abused in such a fashion now, rather than something more serious, so that it can be fixed.
There was a scene almost like that in an episode of Law and Order, only it was Jack McCoy talking to a US Attorney. Still funny as hell.
a bottomless empty pit that has no bottom.
The Redundancy Department of Redundancy Department?
Frankly, if no one tries for sanctions after this, I'll be very surprised. The judge may not grant it, but I'm sure there will at least be a motion for sanctions for wasting the court's time
RIAA: uhm...think of the children?
Ha! Best laugh I've had all week.
Not if it's a penalty and reset, you don't need to make progress.
I believe this new guy is working pro bono, yes. The previous attorney was working billable, but not the current one.
I don't think he was trolling. It really is standard economics. The system will only support the price people are willing to pay, in the form people are willing to pay. But if no one pays, then nothing's likely to be made, as few people are willing to work for free consistently.
For example, simply because you open a shop selling something doesn't mean that product has an inherent value. Just because you've said your shiny coaster is worth $20 doesn't mean it is. It's only worth $20 if people actually start paying that $20. If people decide that the shiny coaster isn't worth $20, since they can get a wicker coaster down the block for $5 that does everything your shiny coaster does, with no downsides, then your coasters have no value.
But if you sell your shiny coasters for $10, and they don't mildew ever, but the $5 wicker coasters do, if they get wet, then some people might decide that extra $5 is worth it. Now your product has value, since people are willing to give that money.
To bring this back to the actual music industry, they're trying to charge money for something they can't prove is better than what someone else is giving away for free, aka label artists vs. independent artists. And they don't want to bother proving their product is better by letting anyone have samples (free, good quality downloads), and in fact, they want to charge you for every possible "coaster" use you want. You can't just use your computer to get the music off the CD, and then put it on any device you want. That's like the coaster company saying that you need to buy a different coaster for each room in your house, you're not allowed to move it from the dining room to the living room. And I'm getting really far afield of what's actually covered in your posts, so I'll just finish by saying you're right, economics is chiefly driven by the laziness of people, and the fact that if one company doesn't deliver, another will, either by making a product cheaper or easier, as long as they can still turn a bit of profit in the doing.
But it's not 75 years. It's life of the artist + 70 years. If copyright is supposed to compensate the artist for the energy and effort put in to making their work, why should it go past the life of the artist at all? Why does a record company get to benefit from the work of a dead person more than half a century ago?
And what right do the artist's children have to collect new money on the effort of their ancestor? If a company was started and handed down, it's still making money because effort is still being put in. Something in copyright doesn't require new effort to make new money. Shouldn't society benefit of use of something before it becomes irrelevant?
The trick is that you actually have to work and keep writing new songs and doing shows and such instead of writing one hit and sitting on your ass collecting a toll every time someone listens to it somewhere.
Wait. Is that supposed to be the downside for the public?
Hardly self-defeating. You are aware that getting things on to iTunes or Amazon is incredibly easy if you're independent, correct? Even going through an aggregator isn't that difficult. And the RIAA et al aren't doing much in the way of promotion any more. Most artists don't get music videos unless the song's already popular, since the music video channels don't run many videos any more, unless the artist is popular. Most people don't listen to regular radio, but either speciality stations or internet radio, again, both can have independent music submitted to them. The only time it would be useful is if you're playing large (stadium-type) concerts, and most artists never get that far. Record companies as they currently exist aren't there for the little artist. They're focused on the stuff they *know* can make them money. They don't wanna promote something that might tank.
By "iPhone-like devices," they usually mean "thing with no actual keyboard." I don't want one like that. I like physical keys. Because they actually work. You've always been able to get apps by searching around a bit for Windows Mobile based phones, and probably for others as well, so the App Store idea is just collecting and monetizing them. Frankly, an iPhone isn't that special, beyond the large touch-screen. Everything about it had been done before in one manner or another. Apple just gathered it in to one place and shellacked it. I will grant they did it well, and it's pushing other companies to include greater number of features, but does a phone really NEED an accelerometer? How about we start getting phones with a good vibrate feature so that I can feel it while it's on my belt?
No you don't. Not in Canada, anyway. They evaluate what treatment has the best success rate vs. the type of cancer you have, yes, which means you won't always be given the bleeding edge treatment, because if one has an 80% remission rate, why go for the treatment with no track record?
>
Also, it isn't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE, so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...
You have GOT to be kidding me. If anything, MS would have a vested interest in ensuring Firefox behaves NOTHING like Firefox. Because if there's things only IE can do, they keep their market share! Don't let your MS-hate blind you.
I have a very decent track record in terms of not getting infected with malware.
Lesse. You're excessively paranoid (arguably, anyways) about your security, and you have a "very decent track record."
Whereas I have all that running pretty much whenever it wants, and the only virus I've ever gotten was from my roommate's Windows ME machine. And that was 6 years ago. I'd call mine an "excellent" track record.
One could easily argue that a program not supporting .net IS a .net application issue. Seriously, this thing doesn't compromise security, it makes it so that some of those "IE only" sites aren't quite as IE only. It's a step towards moving away from IE as a dominant force on the internet.
I can easily imagine that this is the way the conversation went at MS:
Coder: Hey, we've got the .net update ready to push out, and the Firefox extension's ready too. Should we release them separately?
Manager: Nah. Make them the same bundle. One less thing for people to deal with on the list of patches.
Coder: What if they don't want it?
Manager: You put the disable button in it?
Coder: Yeah.
Manager: If they don't want it, then they can turn it off. Big whoop. Let's go for lunch now. I'm hungry.
Holy shit. +4 Insightful for "malicious OS"? You do realize that users are set up with limited rights now because that's how people bitched at them to make it, right? It's now malicious to make a product how people are screaming for it to be made? Go ahead, mod me troll, flamebait, whatever, but screaming about an OS acting how the user wanted it, using a facet of the browser that was *known* about previously (Sun's extension, for example) is stupid. If people are so anti-.net, why did they install the update in the first place? It's _optional_. .net can be removed. It's not even hard.
It's already installed. Just no one told you about it. But you won't be able to remove it if you don't care. Sorry.