>That would cause criminals to think ten times before breaking into something, crime levels would be lower, prisons would be less populated, taxpayer money would be saved, and a whole host of other problems would be solved.
However, it doesn't.
Let's compare Michigan (a state that outlaws deadly force to protect property) and Texas (a state that legalizes deadly force to protect property).
We can see that in the state of Texas there are 906.3 burglaries per 100,000 persons.
We can also see that in the state of Michigan there are 702.2 burglaries per 100,000 persons.
In fact, of all statistics that would be "protected" by guns in Texas but not in Michigan, the ONLY lower statistic for Texas is vehicle theft.
Being allowed to shoot unarmed robbers shows no link to decreased robbery rates.
>Not to mention that the VICTIMS of an ILLEGAL CRIME
Are there any other kinds of crimes?;-)
I don't disagree on your point that burglars that harm themselves in the process of robbing a place have no right to claim for damages, though. I only disagree on the point that the right to shoot burglars makes for a safer society.
For a thoughtful debate on this, watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode on creationism (why do these things keep popping up? do none of you watch thought provoking TV?) Actually, I'd swear you've watched it, because those sites you link to are exactly the bullshit they disprove.
There may be debate as to wether evolution is the best scientific model, and if there are mistakes in it, it will be revised through the aforementioned scientific process. There, however, is positively no serious debate as to whether we were cherry picked by aliens or not.
I have a question, though. Why does "intelligent design" require a Noah's Ark?
Riddle me that, and riddle me why an alien with an awesome spaceship would use a shitty wooden boat to transport animals instead of some matter-energy transporter?
Either that or tell me why it is impossible that the "intelligent designer" was an alien.
If you can do neither, then your theory is really pathetic, because I am but a lowly slashdotter, and certainly not a scholar, yet I was able to disprove it.
And learning Kanji would let us fit so much more information in a smaller space, save trees, etc, etc.
Why doesn't everyone go out and learn it?
Oh, yeah, because it's hard to learn, and hard to find in most of the world.
Also, english doesn't limit me, and the inefficiencies are worthy of my time to speak to more people on the planet.
Same thing with QWERTY. 75 WPM+ is enough speed for me.
Re:Ventillation Shaft, not for a million dollars
on
Cheap Video Sniffing
·
· Score: 1
>Perhaps Americans with their usual concern for energy wastage haven't discovered insulation yet.
From what I've seen on my cabling adventures, we in North America insulate them on the outside, if we bother to do so.:)
But the rivets every few feet, yeah, they'd be a bitch. But with some thick jeans and a leather jacket and perhaps you might feel safe enough to deal with them.
Of course, what the stupid burglar won't realise is that the straps for the venting are only designed to hold the venting up. 180 lbs. of robber would surely tear the system from its mounts.
>If you mean the people who developed DV... probably because the codec you describe was not developed when DV was.
Yeah, I do mean the developers of DV, however this doesn't appear to be the most complex codec to build in the world (if only the author's website was still up) -- I was just wondering why they never thought of this. Then again, at a decade old, I doubt any hardware could have handled it in realtime, so it makes sense that even if they had thought of this scheme they would have dropped it.
>You can bet the farm on DV's data rate and that is VERY important when writing to tape.
Ahhh, good point. Didn't think about that one. Thanks.
Don't talk about things like this unless you have a clue.
>Same thing with parking tickets, disturbing the peace, driving without a license or without insurance, that kind of thing.
Huh? Protestors are jailed for disturbing the peace all the time. You are really talking out of your ass. Joe the Turk, for instance, was arrested 57 times for disturbing the peace.
I'm not even going to bother with your other points, since none of them are serious enough to warrant arrest anyways. A police officer would have to be honestly insane to book someone for parking their car, considering we have tow trucks and cops are allowed to use them.
>If you seriously think "just about everyone I know" constitutes a useful sample of society, then you're even dumber than I thought.
Okay, apart from yourself, tell me someone who HASN'T violated copyright law?
I'm waiting...
>So what you're saying is that because the laws fail to deter EVERYONE, we should get rid of the laws. Right?
No, he's saying, like me, that laws that don't work require reform. He didn't say anything like what you're saying. In fact, I'd go as far as to say you're now libelling that poor slashdotter.
>Yup. Even dumber than I thought.
Yup, you are.
>Hell, I'll bet you wouldn't even know how to break the DMCA if you wanted to. Seriously. Do you know what the DMCA prohibits? Do you know how to break it?
Let's see, it prohibits me from using my DVD player on my expensive projection TV. To break it, I would load the hack CD into my Apex DVD player to turn off macrovision.
>Most people drive safely most of the time
My point exactly (and I said it a LONG time ago). The fact that the speed limits are too low are an indication of a broken the law.
>Since we have records that clearly illustrate that highway fatalities are linked to speed limits
We do? Show me them.
Oh, that's right, they'll illustrate that high speed driving is linked with highway fatalities, not speed limits. Can you not see the difference between a reccomended/lawful limit and a person's free will? You sound like a dictator.
Next thing you'll say is that computers cause heart attacks. It isn't the computer, it's the lazy ass operating it.
You continue to commit the fallacy of correlation. Read about it and please stop doing it, because it's annoying the hell out of us. Plus you're looking childish when you do it.
>So now you're saying that we need stricter laws (or stricter enforcement of existing laws) to deal with the IP theft problem. Man, you're just all over the map here.
I think he's saying we need reformed laws. That doesn't mean stricter, it means better. How difficult is that to understand.
And stop saying that someone is saying something when they haven't said it in their quote. It's libel, and more importantly, it really makes you look like an idiot.
>But it is theft. It's taking something without the consent of the owner. That's stealing. We all learned that in grade school.
Allow me to inform you of the difference.
First of all, the definition of theft that would most apply to copyright violation requires removal of property.
When you copy something, the original author loses no property.
Next, and most importantly, the courts do not recognize theft as analogous to copyright violation.
Last, why not see that the FSF has to say about it?
Copyright Violation is only theft if you walk into a store and shoplift software. That way the owner loses property (his CDs) and you violate copyright (you have a CD of you aren't licensed to own). There may be other examples, but they all involve a loss of property. Downloading from KaZaa (for instance) doesn't count, unless the other user's data is deleted when you've downloaded it (the RIAA would, in fact, love data thieves if this is how it worked).
>Let's talk about "en masse" for a second. If EVERYBODY ignored the law, you MIGHT have an argument. (You'd still be wrong, but you'd have an argument.) But in this case, EVERYBODY is not ignoring the law. The vast majority of folks are law-abiding citizens who buy their music instead of stealing it.
??? Even my 60 year old dad is a pirate (borrowed CDs from friends at work and had me copy them for him prior to the Canadian CD levy). I honestly don't know a SINGLE person who hasn't broken copyright. Ever. Period. Even my insane teacher who would go on constantly about how copyright violation == theft, I'm almost 100% sure he was violating the license for novell netware.
You're going to have to show me a stronger case than "that's the way it is", because, as you can see, most people are like me, and know virtually nobody who hasn't violated copyright at some point.
>We have a word for groups like that: mob. If such a mob turns violent, we often refer to it as a riot. This situation isn't a riot to the extent that it's not violent. But it shares a lot of the properties of a riot: a group of people are collectively ignoring the rule of law, and by doing so in proximity to each other are reinforcing their will to lawlessness.
So, do we call fast drivers who have accidents a riot?
No, we don't. You make no sense.
>No normal person would consider throwing a brick through a window and stealing a TV.
No normal person would perform break and enter, tresspass, and robbery to get their music. I've not heard of a single case of piracy where a window was broken, never mind B&E + robbery. Can you find me a case? I can't find one.
>Generally speaking, the people who are stealing music would never in a million years consider breaking into a record store and hauling off a truckload of CD's.
I see, you can't. You're just spreading FUD.
>But the covertness of the act combined with the "everybody is doing it" perception makes it easier for otherwise normal people to get confused about what's right and what's wrong. It's the mob mentality distributed over the Internet. The present epidemic of piracy is the world's biggest and slowest looter riot.
Oh, so you're equating violent violations of the peace with piracy. Well, in that case, I suppose parking in a handicapped space is equivalent to sawing off someone's leg.
>Drunks drink because they're unable to stop. Are you saying that stealing music can be addictive? I'm not sure if I would agree with that, but it's an interesting idea.
Perhaps I am. It wasn't the best analogy, but piracy does tend to beget more piracy. Because wether you do it once or a million times, you're still liable for exactly the same amount of jail time. Not that this is a particularly effective way of stopping piracy or anything.
>Most people don't get into barfights because they understand the consequenc
Unless people obey the speed limits (in general, I know of very few people, save sunday drivers, that usually do) it won't make any difference.
If the speed limits are set ridiculously low in an attempt to find the maximum people are willing to break them by, the result is people totally ignore them.
Example: My college's main street has a speed limit of 15 km/h. 90% of traffic does over 60 km/h on the street, because that's what is safe to do. Yet few of those drivers would think of doing 85 km/h in a residential zone, where the speed limits are 40 km/h, because they know that isn't safe. Rather, in some busy residential areas, drivers are seen doing below the speed limit.
>no need to start up about causality, it is too damn straightforward for that
It isn't, though, because I personally don't know of anyone who doesn't regularly break the speed limits. Everyone I know of (except lucky me) has had at least 2 or 3 tickets, and we're all under 24. What's written on the sign is more of a guide than a law people take notice of. Have you ever watched the passing lane on a highway? I've never seen anyone do the speed limit on it unless there's a traffic jam.
Speed limits are nothing more than a way to extract a form of extra police taxes from citizens. That's why police often have quotas they need to meet for tickets, and that's why they'll somtimes give tickets out for the lamest offences (eg: Doing 5-10 km/h over the limit). Oh, and it's also why you see the most speed traps the start or end of the month.
>I am completely opposed to the death penalty. The most glaring reason is because sometimes, justice is inaccurate. If we lock a guy up for 10 years and find out we did wrong, we can't give him his 10 years back, but we can set him free and clear his record.
I am also, but the fact it is barbaric and wrong doesn't take away the fact it is effective. You could also substitute regular beatings for effectiveness (not that they are particularly better). Most times a violent punishment is most effective (in the short term). In the case of beatings, it tends to either cause the criminal to reform (and have psychological difficulties for life), or get extremely defiant. Either way, I'm very set against any punishment of this type.
The death penalty is abolished in my country, and fortunately is in many US states, AFAIK.
>or the culture is going to shift and people are going to start paying for things again instead of stealing them (net result: good for everybody).
The culture isn't going to shift until people such as yourself stop referring to simple copyright violation as such a heinous crime as theft.
In society, when a law is ignored en masse, it shows a flaw in the system. For exmaple, take speed limits. They never prevented a fast driver from causing an accident (don't believe me? Check your newspaper for the next high-speed deadly street racing collision -- only a driver's judgement prevents accidents), and it would take draconian measures to the point of absurdity for the law to be successful.
Or, for example, take the fact that time shifting was illegal in the US prior to the BetaMax ruling. The fact it was illegal made no difference to anyone commiting the crime.
Some would suggest increasing punishments will stop people from commiting the crimes. Current drug laws prove this is a fallacy. The fact that downloading an MP3 makes you vulnerable to 5 years of pound-me-in-the-ass penetentiary rather than the few days it really should be (if jail is needed) hasn't made any difference. Does a night in the slammer stop a drunk from drinking? Does losing a job stop a barfight? Do satellite raids and cease and desist letters keep pirated TV off the streets? Does risking your marriage keep people from visiting whores?
No.
Most of the time people follow their own rules in a free society, despite whatever the laws state, unless they feel sure to be caught (draconian society, usually) or that the consequences are so extreme the risk isn't worth it (I suppose a minimum death penalty for certain crimes without any option for parole fits in here, because most lifers never thought they'd be there for life). Fortunately, the vast majority of people are adverse to physical harming each other, and wouldn't dare steal anything much more than some pens from work (and does the possibility of losing your job and spending the night in jail make you want to stop?)
Patch the flaw and regrow the economy. It's about time. Artists deserve so much more for their hard work than what today's failed laws give them.
And, part of the patch is to note that people are much more likely to treat others nicely if they're treated well. It's a two way street, and laws like these proposals put 10 ft. sinkholes in that street.
>Whether an additional safety feature will make people even more confident is hard to say and more of a psychology question than an economics question.
The question is, will the additional safety feature be used as intended, or will it have another purpose.
What I'm thinking here is seatbelts. Slow drivers wear them either because they're forced to, or because they don't want to die. Fast drivers wear them as restraints to keep them from sliding about in the seat and in front of the wheel.
Same thing with ABS. The slow driver gets it so they can stop without thinking in case of an impending accident. The fast driver gets it in case they're rounding a curve at too high a velocity and need to turn while braking (not that physics of the two mix whatsoever in this case).
With programmers, an exec shield will be used by cautious programmers as an enchanced security measure, whereas bad programmers will see it as a way out of their programming hell that won't get them fired (easily). All IMHO, of course.
As long as it isn't mandatory, it isn't a problem. I'm happy to have a car without ABS -- I need the shorter stopping distance conventional brakes provide me in the snow more than the ability to skid and swerve.
>How do you shield a plane? Doesn't shielding need earth ground to be effective?
No, it simply needs to be referenced to the ground of the equipment it is protecting.
For example, your car is somewhat shielded (notice how in a bad service area your phone usually cuts out when you enter the car) yet your car has no electrical contact with the ground (unless it's raining, or you installed those wacky earthing straps).
Re:For the non-hacker, how can you help this cause
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 1
www.ati.com used to sell and mail Artificial Turds (inc), until ATi found their price and bought the domain. Unfortunately, no record of them exists on google, but a search of old companies in the US would probably bring them up.:-)
>Crashing the OS? I didn't see that in the article, and when I tried it on my machine, it only killed the browser. In fact, it only killed the new window that I'd opened up, leaving my other Explorer windows functioning normally.
According to Microsoft Intenet Explorer is part of the OS. Therefore, if MSIE crashes, your OS has crashed. Bill Gates said it, not me. Complain to him if you think it's wrong! He made your OS!
You can't lie to a judge and not expect to be picked apart on it for life.
>people are up in arms over this because it's an ms blunder. It does nothing more than simply halt your browser.
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but if you believe Microsoft, this bug doesn't crash your browser. It's crashes your OS.
That's REALLY bad when a single line of HTML code can crash your OS. I can think of no other OS that has this problem, where a simple text file can crash your system.
>Perhaps you're in one of the pockets that don't have it yet?
Bingo!:-)
Actually, I'm a little out of the way of there, but I still do know parts of KW don't have it, which is sorta inexcusable considering we have one of the premier CS universities in the world!
Oh well... I'd rather it take less than 2 weeks to get my phone line fixed before I get high-speed internet on it.
In that case, I guess you'd best be cutting off their connection (as a sysadmin), refunding them the unused portion of their internet fees, and telling them to get cable modem (or whatever else is availble).
Oh well. I guess that explains why I hate college administration so much.
Why not just forward the message to the student, and tell the RIAA (with a form letter) you've informed them of the complaint, but that you consider yourself a common carrier and that you'll take no action on behalf of the RIAA.
Seems a fair way to do it to me. Anything else might be underhanded, and would make more work for you.:-)
>Everybody in eastern Canada (At least Quebec and Ontario) have access to 1mbit DSL (1.2mbit minus overhead).
If only. Bell hasn't even finished rolling it out in major Tech cities like Kitchener Waterloo yet.
Perhaps in 2005 or 2006 it might be here. 'Till then I'm stuck with a choice of wireless or US satellite internet (sorry, I can't afford $600 a year for Canadian satellite internet).
>Of course who uses a monochrome monitor these days?
Anyone with a projection TV...:-)
>Only if it's a color CRT (which, even with modern designs, generates a non-trivial amount of soft X-rays due to the electrons slamming into the shadow-mask).
Well, that and you need to be licking the monitor 24/7. The law of squares pretty much guarantees your exposure to the TV or (most) monitors is going to be less than what you get from going outside.
>Companies do not make efforts, they are *coherced* to do the environment good. THATS the difference. If the government didn't regulate the environment, businesses would throw their toxic matters directly on your lawn. And they wouldn't care.
??? They would?
You would buy their products if they are ruining your lawn?
You see, only *YOU* have the power to change things (assming you live in a free country). When you get the government to do it for you, you are giving away your power to make change. Governments _rarely_ increase your rights, they almost always take them away.
When you ask your government to regulate, you are giving up your rights.
Take them back. Be the change you want to see in the world. Stop letting your government abuse you.
a) The government regulates companies, so they are involved. b) The government relies on companies to keep the environment "clean" c) The government relies on companies to provide them with actual results, unlike certain other government entities (Health Canada and the EPA) that lie through their teeth in reports to the point that judges have to revoke their right to make claims.
Without companies you'd be living in a hut burning wood and hunting for food.
In fact, of all people, those working for the government are the least "protected", considering that a government worker in my country normally has to follow almost _no_ environmental laws whatsoever.
But I am itching to hear your explanation of how environmental proction works without involving companies. Perhaps you can enlighten me!
Slashdot Mirror
>That would cause criminals to think ten times before breaking into something, crime levels would be lower, prisons would be less populated, taxpayer money would be saved, and a whole host of other problems would be solved.
;-)
However, it doesn't.
Let's compare Michigan (a state that outlaws deadly force to protect property) and Texas (a state that legalizes deadly force to protect property).
We can see that in the state of Texas there are 906.3 burglaries per 100,000 persons.
We can also see that in the state of Michigan there are 702.2 burglaries per 100,000 persons.
In fact, of all statistics that would be "protected" by guns in Texas but not in Michigan, the ONLY lower statistic for Texas is vehicle theft.
Being allowed to shoot unarmed robbers shows no link to decreased robbery rates.
>Not to mention that the VICTIMS of an ILLEGAL CRIME
Are there any other kinds of crimes?
I don't disagree on your point that burglars that harm themselves in the process of robbing a place have no right to claim for damages, though. I only disagree on the point that the right to shoot burglars makes for a safer society.
You're are very right.
BTW: The "intelligent designer" was an alien.
If Christians believe what you say (intelligent design) then there's no reason why we weren't placed on earth by aliens.
You see, here's the difference between your theory, and the truth:
The process of science:
Observation -> Hypothesis -> Testing -> Debate
The process of religion (intelligent design, ie: Genesis, without God):
Fiction -> Asserting -> Insisting -> Twisting Fact -> Torturing
For a thoughtful debate on this, watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode on creationism (why do these things keep popping up? do none of you watch thought provoking TV?) Actually, I'd swear you've watched it, because those sites you link to are exactly the bullshit they disprove.
There may be debate as to wether evolution is the best scientific model, and if there are mistakes in it, it will be revised through the aforementioned scientific process. There, however, is positively no serious debate as to whether we were cherry picked by aliens or not.
I have a question, though. Why does "intelligent design" require a Noah's Ark?
Riddle me that, and riddle me why an alien with an awesome spaceship would use a shitty wooden boat to transport animals instead of some matter-energy transporter?
Either that or tell me why it is impossible that the "intelligent designer" was an alien.
If you can do neither, then your theory is really pathetic, because I am but a lowly slashdotter, and certainly not a scholar, yet I was able to disprove it.
And learning Kanji would let us fit so much more information in a smaller space, save trees, etc, etc.
Why doesn't everyone go out and learn it?
Oh, yeah, because it's hard to learn, and hard to find in most of the world.
Also, english doesn't limit me, and the inefficiencies are worthy of my time to speak to more people on the planet.
Same thing with QWERTY. 75 WPM+ is enough speed for me.
>Perhaps Americans with their usual concern for energy wastage haven't discovered insulation yet.
:)
From what I've seen on my cabling adventures, we in North America insulate them on the outside, if we bother to do so.
But the rivets every few feet, yeah, they'd be a bitch. But with some thick jeans and a leather jacket and perhaps you might feel safe enough to deal with them.
Of course, what the stupid burglar won't realise is that the straps for the venting are only designed to hold the venting up. 180 lbs. of robber would surely tear the system from its mounts.
>If you mean the people who developed DV... probably because the codec you describe was not developed when DV was.
Yeah, I do mean the developers of DV, however this doesn't appear to be the most complex codec to build in the world (if only the author's website was still up) -- I was just wondering why they never thought of this. Then again, at a decade old, I doubt any hardware could have handled it in realtime, so it makes sense that even if they had thought of this scheme they would have dropped it.
>You can bet the farm on DV's data rate and that is VERY important when writing to tape.
Ahhh, good point. Didn't think about that one. Thanks.
Why didn't they use something like Huffyuv for DV?
Just wondering, because I find it often gives me a 3:1 compression ratio without any data loss at all.
The difference certainly would have been worth it for a perfect video stream.
>You can be arrested for a crime, but you can't be arrested for a violation.
BULLSHIT.
Which American president was ARRESTED for speeding?
I'll hint you one: Ulysses S. Grant.
Don't talk about things like this unless you have a clue.
>Same thing with parking tickets, disturbing the peace, driving without a license or without insurance, that kind of thing.
Huh? Protestors are jailed for disturbing the peace all the time. You are really talking out of your ass. Joe the Turk, for instance, was arrested 57 times for disturbing the peace.
I'm not even going to bother with your other points, since none of them are serious enough to warrant arrest anyways. A police officer would have to be honestly insane to book someone for parking their car, considering we have tow trucks and cops are allowed to use them.
>If you seriously think "just about everyone I know" constitutes a useful sample of society, then you're even dumber than I thought.
Okay, apart from yourself, tell me someone who HASN'T violated copyright law?
I'm waiting...
>So what you're saying is that because the laws fail to deter EVERYONE, we should get rid of the laws. Right?
No, he's saying, like me, that laws that don't work require reform. He didn't say anything like what you're saying. In fact, I'd go as far as to say you're now libelling that poor slashdotter.
>Yup. Even dumber than I thought.
Yup, you are.
>Hell, I'll bet you wouldn't even know how to break the DMCA if you wanted to. Seriously. Do you know what the DMCA prohibits? Do you know how to break it?
Let's see, it prohibits me from using my DVD player on my expensive projection TV. To break it, I would load the hack CD into my Apex DVD player to turn off macrovision.
>Most people drive safely most of the time
My point exactly (and I said it a LONG time ago). The fact that the speed limits are too low are an indication of a broken the law.
>Since we have records that clearly illustrate that highway fatalities are linked to speed limits
We do? Show me them.
Oh, that's right, they'll illustrate that high speed driving is linked with highway fatalities, not speed limits. Can you not see the difference between a reccomended/lawful limit and a person's free will? You sound like a dictator.
Next thing you'll say is that computers cause heart attacks. It isn't the computer, it's the lazy ass operating it.
You continue to commit the fallacy of correlation. Read about it and please stop doing it, because it's annoying the hell out of us. Plus you're looking childish when you do it.
>So now you're saying that we need stricter laws (or stricter enforcement of existing laws) to deal with the IP theft problem. Man, you're just all over the map here.
I think he's saying we need reformed laws. That doesn't mean stricter, it means better. How difficult is that to understand.
And stop saying that someone is saying something when they haven't said it in their quote. It's libel, and more importantly, it really makes you look like an idiot.
>But it is theft. It's taking something without the consent of the owner. That's stealing. We all learned that in grade school.
Allow me to inform you of the difference.
First of all, the definition of theft that would most apply to copyright violation requires removal of property.
When you copy something, the original author loses no property.
Next, and most importantly, the courts do not recognize theft as analogous to copyright violation.
Last, why not see that the FSF has to say about it?
Copyright Violation is only theft if you walk into a store and shoplift software. That way the owner loses property (his CDs) and you violate copyright (you have a CD of you aren't licensed to own). There may be other examples, but they all involve a loss of property. Downloading from KaZaa (for instance) doesn't count, unless the other user's data is deleted when you've downloaded it (the RIAA would, in fact, love data thieves if this is how it worked).
>Let's talk about "en masse" for a second. If EVERYBODY ignored the law, you MIGHT have an argument. (You'd still be wrong, but you'd have an argument.) But in this case, EVERYBODY is not ignoring the law. The vast majority of folks are law-abiding citizens who buy their music instead of stealing it.
??? Even my 60 year old dad is a pirate (borrowed CDs from friends at work and had me copy them for him prior to the Canadian CD levy). I honestly don't know a SINGLE person who hasn't broken copyright. Ever. Period. Even my insane teacher who would go on constantly about how copyright violation == theft, I'm almost 100% sure he was violating the license for novell netware.
You're going to have to show me a stronger case than "that's the way it is", because, as you can see, most people are like me, and know virtually nobody who hasn't violated copyright at some point.
>We have a word for groups like that: mob. If such a mob turns violent, we often refer to it as a riot. This situation isn't a riot to the extent that it's not violent. But it shares a lot of the properties of a riot: a group of people are collectively ignoring the rule of law, and by doing so in proximity to each other are reinforcing their will to lawlessness.
So, do we call fast drivers who have accidents a riot?
No, we don't. You make no sense.
>No normal person would consider throwing a brick through a window and stealing a TV.
No normal person would perform break and enter, tresspass, and robbery to get their music. I've not heard of a single case of piracy where a window was broken, never mind B&E + robbery. Can you find me a case? I can't find one.
>Generally speaking, the people who are stealing music would never in a million years consider breaking into a record store and hauling off a truckload of CD's.
I see, you can't. You're just spreading FUD.
>But the covertness of the act combined with the "everybody is doing it" perception makes it easier for otherwise normal people to get confused about what's right and what's wrong. It's the mob mentality distributed over the Internet. The present epidemic of piracy is the world's biggest and slowest looter riot.
Oh, so you're equating violent violations of the peace with piracy. Well, in that case, I suppose parking in a handicapped space is equivalent to sawing off someone's leg.
>Drunks drink because they're unable to stop. Are you saying that stealing music can be addictive? I'm not sure if I would agree with that, but it's an interesting idea.
Perhaps I am. It wasn't the best analogy, but piracy does tend to beget more piracy. Because wether you do it once or a million times, you're still liable for exactly the same amount of jail time. Not that this is a particularly effective way of stopping piracy or anything.
>Most people don't get into barfights because they understand the consequenc
>Lower speed limits, less casualties
How?
Unless people obey the speed limits (in general, I know of very few people, save sunday drivers, that usually do) it won't make any difference.
If the speed limits are set ridiculously low in an attempt to find the maximum people are willing to break them by, the result is people totally ignore them.
Example: My college's main street has a speed limit of 15 km/h. 90% of traffic does over 60 km/h on the street, because that's what is safe to do. Yet few of those drivers would think of doing 85 km/h in a residential zone, where the speed limits are 40 km/h, because they know that isn't safe. Rather, in some busy residential areas, drivers are seen doing below the speed limit.
>no need to start up about causality, it is too damn straightforward for that
It isn't, though, because I personally don't know of anyone who doesn't regularly break the speed limits. Everyone I know of (except lucky me) has had at least 2 or 3 tickets, and we're all under 24. What's written on the sign is more of a guide than a law people take notice of. Have you ever watched the passing lane on a highway? I've never seen anyone do the speed limit on it unless there's a traffic jam.
Speed limits are nothing more than a way to extract a form of extra police taxes from citizens. That's why police often have quotas they need to meet for tickets, and that's why they'll somtimes give tickets out for the lamest offences (eg: Doing 5-10 km/h over the limit). Oh, and it's also why you see the most speed traps the start or end of the month.
>I am completely opposed to the death penalty. The most glaring reason is because sometimes, justice is inaccurate. If we lock a guy up for 10 years and find out we did wrong, we can't give him his 10 years back, but we can set him free and clear his record.
I am also, but the fact it is barbaric and wrong doesn't take away the fact it is effective. You could also substitute regular beatings for effectiveness (not that they are particularly better). Most times a violent punishment is most effective (in the short term). In the case of beatings, it tends to either cause the criminal to reform (and have psychological difficulties for life), or get extremely defiant. Either way, I'm very set against any punishment of this type.
The death penalty is abolished in my country, and fortunately is in many US states, AFAIK.
>or the culture is going to shift and people are going to start paying for things again instead of stealing them (net result: good for everybody).
The culture isn't going to shift until people such as yourself stop referring to simple copyright violation as such a heinous crime as theft.
In society, when a law is ignored en masse, it shows a flaw in the system. For exmaple, take speed limits. They never prevented a fast driver from causing an accident (don't believe me? Check your newspaper for the next high-speed deadly street racing collision -- only a driver's judgement prevents accidents), and it would take draconian measures to the point of absurdity for the law to be successful.
Or, for example, take the fact that time shifting was illegal in the US prior to the BetaMax ruling. The fact it was illegal made no difference to anyone commiting the crime.
Some would suggest increasing punishments will stop people from commiting the crimes. Current drug laws prove this is a fallacy. The fact that downloading an MP3 makes you vulnerable to 5 years of pound-me-in-the-ass penetentiary rather than the few days it really should be (if jail is needed) hasn't made any difference. Does a night in the slammer stop a drunk from drinking? Does losing a job stop a barfight? Do satellite raids and cease and desist letters keep pirated TV off the streets? Does risking your marriage keep people from visiting whores?
No.
Most of the time people follow their own rules in a free society, despite whatever the laws state, unless they feel sure to be caught (draconian society, usually) or that the consequences are so extreme the risk isn't worth it (I suppose a minimum death penalty for certain crimes without any option for parole fits in here, because most lifers never thought they'd be there for life). Fortunately, the vast majority of people are adverse to physical harming each other, and wouldn't dare steal anything much more than some pens from work (and does the possibility of losing your job and spending the night in jail make you want to stop?)
Patch the flaw and regrow the economy. It's about time. Artists deserve so much more for their hard work than what today's failed laws give them.
And, part of the patch is to note that people are much more likely to treat others nicely if they're treated well. It's a two way street, and laws like these proposals put 10 ft. sinkholes in that street.
>Whether an additional safety feature will make people even more confident is hard to say and more of a psychology question than an economics question.
The question is, will the additional safety feature be used as intended, or will it have another purpose.
What I'm thinking here is seatbelts. Slow drivers wear them either because they're forced to, or because they don't want to die. Fast drivers wear them as restraints to keep them from sliding about in the seat and in front of the wheel.
Same thing with ABS. The slow driver gets it so they can stop without thinking in case of an impending accident. The fast driver gets it in case they're rounding a curve at too high a velocity and need to turn while braking (not that physics of the two mix whatsoever in this case).
With programmers, an exec shield will be used by cautious programmers as an enchanced security measure, whereas bad programmers will see it as a way out of their programming hell that won't get them fired (easily). All IMHO, of course.
As long as it isn't mandatory, it isn't a problem. I'm happy to have a car without ABS -- I need the shorter stopping distance conventional brakes provide me in the snow more than the ability to skid and swerve.
>How do you shield a plane? Doesn't shielding need earth ground to be effective?
No, it simply needs to be referenced to the ground of the equipment it is protecting.
For example, your car is somewhat shielded (notice how in a bad service area your phone usually cuts out when you enter the car) yet your car has no electrical contact with the ground (unless it's raining, or you installed those wacky earthing straps).
www.ati.com used to sell and mail Artificial Turds (inc), until ATi found their price and bought the domain. Unfortunately, no record of them exists on google, but a search of old companies in the US would probably bring them up. :-)
>Crashing the OS? I didn't see that in the article, and when I tried it on my machine, it only killed the browser. In fact, it only killed the new window that I'd opened up, leaving my other Explorer windows functioning normally.
Je me souviens.
According to Microsoft Intenet Explorer is part of the OS. Therefore, if MSIE crashes, your OS has crashed. Bill Gates said it, not me. Complain to him if you think it's wrong! He made your OS!
You can't lie to a judge and not expect to be picked apart on it for life.
>people are up in arms over this because it's an ms blunder. It does nothing more than simply halt your browser.
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but if you believe Microsoft, this bug doesn't crash your browser. It's crashes your OS.
That's REALLY bad when a single line of HTML code can crash your OS. I can think of no other OS that has this problem, where a simple text file can crash your system.
>Perhaps you're in one of the pockets that don't have it yet?
:-)
Bingo!
Actually, I'm a little out of the way of there, but I still do know parts of KW don't have it, which is sorta inexcusable considering we have one of the premier CS universities in the world!
Oh well... I'd rather it take less than 2 weeks to get my phone line fixed before I get high-speed internet on it.
That sucks.
In that case, I guess you'd best be cutting off their connection (as a sysadmin), refunding them the unused portion of their internet fees, and telling them to get cable modem (or whatever else is availble).
Oh well. I guess that explains why I hate college administration so much.
>So why is it that I, a non-trekie, loves Enterprise yet the faithful despise it?
Let's analyse, shall we?
>The characters are well-developed
Well, see, there's problem #1. Watch TOS and see if you can even figure out what part of earth the characters were born in!
>the acting is impressive
Again, another problem. Remember -- this -- is -- Kirk -- master -- of -- the -- undramatic -- pause -- -- -- right?
>the story lines are not nearly as predicatable as TNG.
We don't want to think when we're watching TV!
>Oh, and last night's episode was the first one I can recall where there wasn't any ass-kicking at all! None of that sissy Picard diplomacy crap.
Breaking from the old stuff again! Bad, bad, bad.
>is it because the story predates what people are familiar with?
>is it not faithful to the Trek universe?
Yes, and oh God yes. Yes in so many ways. I don't even know where to begin on this.
>I am genuinely curious why do you all hate it so much?
Because they went with "f.r.i.e.n.d.s" for the theme, rather than REAL FREAKING classical-style music or crazy whacked-out screamy-whiny stuff.
Why not just forward the message to the student, and tell the RIAA (with a form letter) you've informed them of the complaint, but that you consider yourself a common carrier and that you'll take no action on behalf of the RIAA.
:-)
Seems a fair way to do it to me. Anything else might be underhanded, and would make more work for you.
I'm pretty sure any lawyer that helped you with this would be charged with barratry, or for vexatious litigation.
:)
I'm not sure if individuals can be charged with something similar. You'd have to look it up.
Note that the charges you are laying can still have some merit, but doing them in an attempt to subdue the defence isn't legal.
>Everybody in eastern Canada (At least Quebec and Ontario) have access to 1mbit DSL (1.2mbit minus overhead).
If only. Bell hasn't even finished rolling it out in major Tech cities like Kitchener Waterloo yet.
Perhaps in 2005 or 2006 it might be here. 'Till then I'm stuck with a choice of wireless or US satellite internet (sorry, I can't afford $600 a year for Canadian satellite internet).
>Of course who uses a monochrome monitor these days?
:-)
Anyone with a projection TV...
>Only if it's a color CRT (which, even with modern designs, generates a non-trivial amount of soft X-rays due to the electrons slamming into the shadow-mask).
Well, that and you need to be licking the monitor 24/7. The law of squares pretty much guarantees your exposure to the TV or (most) monitors is going to be less than what you get from going outside.
>Companies do not make efforts, they are *coherced* to do the environment good. THATS the difference. If the government didn't regulate the environment, businesses would throw their toxic matters directly on your lawn. And they wouldn't care.
??? They would?
You would buy their products if they are ruining your lawn?
You see, only *YOU* have the power to change things (assming you live in a free country). When you get the government to do it for you, you are giving away your power to make change. Governments _rarely_ increase your rights, they almost always take them away.
When you ask your government to regulate, you are giving up your rights.
Take them back. Be the change you want to see in the world. Stop letting your government abuse you.
>Nope, the government does that.
It does?
Explain how without involving companies.
Oh, wait, you can't, because:
a) The government regulates companies, so they are involved.
b) The government relies on companies to keep the environment "clean"
c) The government relies on companies to provide them with actual results, unlike certain other government entities (Health Canada and the EPA) that lie through their teeth in reports to the point that judges have to revoke their right to make claims.
Without companies you'd be living in a hut burning wood and hunting for food.
In fact, of all people, those working for the government are the least "protected", considering that a government worker in my country normally has to follow almost _no_ environmental laws whatsoever.
But I am itching to hear your explanation of how environmental proction works without involving companies. Perhaps you can enlighten me!