Whats REALLY ironic is that your popup-killer sig is exactly the same as piracy. In order for sites to remain profitable, you have to view the ad. You're using technological means to cheat the provider out of revenue for the infromation they provide you. Thats piracy.. you're saying 'too bad for serving me the content in a format which I can cheat. and because I can cheat it, I will'. How will the writers/artists get paid for providing you with the content you come across on the web?
Ah, no, young grasshopper. Try using the software before critcizing it, next time. My software, just like Mozilla's popup-blocker, only blocks popups. It doesn't block banner ads, interstitials, flash ads, and all the other forms of online advertising. It blocks pop-ups, because I find them annoying. However, unlike Mozilla, you're given a choice on whether or not you want to allow popups from a site, or to a particular site (ie, filter on source or destination of a pop-up). If you have a site that uses pop-ups, and you particularly like the site and want to support them, great -- allow pop-ups from that site. If you have a certain pop-up you don't like, like X10's crap, then kill only that popup. In either case, the popup ad still has to load (just long enough to get the destination URL), so any advertiser paying by views rather than clicks will count the ad as "seen".
In other words, no hypocrisy here at all. My software only blocks one form of online advertising, and allows you to let that through for specific sites, if you want.
Then explain why radar detectors can be sold. They are only used to avoid cops so that people can speed in peace. Any 'legit' use is minimal.. I mostly see them on the 'decks of imports that are probably going above the speedlimit for 80% of their street life.
Because radar detectors are only illegal in a few backwards places, like D.C. and Virginia. And just so you know, people with high-performance domestic cars (say, a Mustang GT, or a Corvette, for example) also tend to have radar detectors where they're legal. It just makes sense -- sometimes you're going faster than you think. Ever driven a true performance car? No, that Honda Civic with the big-ass wing is not a performance car. If you've driven a real, true high-performance car (domestics like a Mustang GT or a Corvette, imports like any of the Porsche line, the sportier Mercedes and Bimmers, etc), you'll know that they can get going a lot faster than you expect, and when you're going 20 over, you really don't feel like you're gong 20 over. Therefore, a radar detector helps you keep that in check, by chirping at you when it detects something, causing you to slow down.
Of course, that's still an apples v. oranges comparison, because modchips are illegal as copyright circumvention devices, and radar detectors are not.
That's because you have to use component input for progressive scan, not because of progressive scan itself. The better detail and movement you mentioned is due to progressive scan, however.
Not all games support progressive out, but if they do, they will look like a new game.
Which is a real crock. All XBox games support progressive scan. It's not something the game developers do, it's a function of the console itself. If you have your XBox connected via the HD A/V pack to a TV that supports progressive scan, and you tell the XBox it does, then you get progressive scan automatically. Why the Gamecube doesn't do it this way I never understood.
Ok here's the deal: There are private APIs in OSX. They are undocumented and marked that way- these frameworks are in the private- frameworks folder.
Apple isn't deliberately breaking peoples products, it is changing internal APIs.
Can you say "double standard"? When Microsoft has undocumented, private, internal APIs, everyone cries "Foul!" and accuses them of hiding these APIs from developers. When they then change those internal APIs, everyone again cries "Foul!" and accuses them of breaking these internal APIs intentionally. But when Apple does this, it's okay? I guess I just don't get it.
Actually the Radeon 9700 Pro comes with a standard set of component cables (feed off the TV-out) that can work at 480i/480p/720p/1040i on a TV capable of receiving HD resolutions.
Ah, yes, ATI's component convertor. Sure, it was only $30, but most people who have one have reported flakiness and problems (check out places like the Home Theater Spot or AVS Forum).
The overscan issue seems to have been from the cable conversion the AIW Radeon 8500's had & the fact your using a non-Ati device to do the same on a AIW Radeon 7500.
No, the overscan is an issue of how TVs work -- all TVs have some amount of overscan, and TV broadcasts are designed to compensate for this. Even after having my RPTV professionally calibrated, I still have the recommended ~5% overscan on all sides (anything less and you start getting into geometry and convergence issues). nVidia graphics cards support any custom resolution you can define (within their hardware capabilities, of course, but 1080i doesn't even make nVidia cards break a sweat) , and thus you can define a custom resolution that compensates for overscan (you'll need something like EnTech's PowerStrip for this, of course). ATI cards are much less flexible in terms of custom resolutions (or, at least, the 7500 was, and I believe the 8500 was as well). Thus, my wishlist is that ATI would at least come up to the level of nVidia and properly handle custom resolutions.
Unfortunately thier is still no component in though... I could make use of that as well...
Immersive's Holo3DGraph video processor card does have component inputs, but those only accept SD interlaced inputs (480i, basically), not HD or progressive scan inputs (480p, which isn't HD, or 740p or 1080i). I've heard mention of DirecTV units that can be captured from via coax input (something about the box will output whatever channel it happens to be on through channel 3 or 4 of the coax, so you'll need an HD tuner card in your PC to pick up the signal from the STB), but I haven't researched this very much, and I have no idea if AT&T will do something similar (they're bringing HDTV to digital cable in my area sometime in the next few months). If that doesn't work, then I'm SOL with my HTPC once HDTV gets here (and I'll definitely at least try the HDTV feed, because I've been pining for it for over a year).
However, I don't think sitting at a desk in front of a computer with a TV tuner card and a monitor will be able to replace the comfort and convenience of plopping down on the couch to watch TV.
Agreed. And here's the answer: a VGA to Component transcoder. Use that HD-compatible TV as a monitor for your computer. Now the only issue is whether or not ATI has added better custom resolution support for the 9700. The 7500 AIW I have sucks quite hard, as I can't get a custom resolution that gets rid of excessive overscan. nVidia can do it, so why can't ATI?
And as long as I'm making a wishlist, how about somebody make a VIVO card that accepts HD signals via YPrPb component input? I'd pay good money for that.
The future of gaming is what every NES/atari/old school gamer has dreamed of. They always complain that games today are just copies of what is popular (how many quake/fps copycats can you name?).
The funny thing about the NES/atari/old school gamer crowd is that even back then there were a lot of clones. How many different clones of Pong were made? Of Breakout? How many side-scrolling platformers were made based on the popularity of Super Mario Bros.? You don't remember the clones, except maybe one or two that were exceptionally good, or one or two that were exceptionally bad. When you look back in ten years, you'll remember Quake, Half-Life (a Quake clone, but an exceptionally good one), and Daikatana (another Quake clone, but this time exceptionally bad). You'll forget all about the other clones, like SiN, because they were forgettable. Then, you'll pine for the "good old days", never remembering that there was just as much tripe then as there is now.
People have selective memories. The past is always better, because you remember it as being better. That doesn't mean it really was better, just that you have some idealized conception of it being better.
Have you forgotten how hard it is being a college student? Or was everything just given to you and you didn't need to get a job until you graduated?
I was lucky enough to have my parents cover my tuition (which really wasn't that much, since I went to a state school), but I had a job to pay living expenses and other expenses. So no, I didn't have everything just given to me.
Not everyone just has $20 laying around whenever they need it to go pick up a CD at the local record store.
Please note I was not advocating going to Tower Records. I was talking about smaller shops, carrying small-label artists (which are usually sold cheaper) and used CDs (again, cheaper). A college student may not be able to afford $20 for a CD, but $10 is quite doable. Maybe you'll have to skip a beer or two next time you go out, but waaa.
Just because you can get away with something doesn't make it OK. I hear shoplifting is pretty easy.
Ah, but getting caught shoplifting will normally leave you with a criminal record (wiped away when you turn 18, or permanent afterwards), and community service. Speeding leaves you with a fine and an increased insurance premium. As I mentioned in another post, either make speeding a true crime, or acknowledge it for what it is (a way to make money) and stop penalizing me with things like increased insurance rates. Treat it like parking tickets -- you pay them, you go on, no big deal. So long as the current status quo holds (speeding is technically a criminal offense, but you're never going to see jail time or a criminal record until you step into the realm of reckless driving, which is not defined by me; but speeding is also a grand way to make money, both from writing tickets and grants from insurance companies like Geicko that have a vested interest in seeing more speeders, because that means they can charge higher premiums), I'll use all the legal options available to me to fight bullshit speeding tickets. Make speeding a real crime, and then the money's not there anymore, which means speed limits will generally be increased to sane levels, and so fewer people will truly be speeding. Make it into a pure profit-gathering phenomenon sans insurance hikes, and I'd just pay the fine. So long as there's a legal recourse (because it's technically a crime), then I'll use that recourse. Anybody who doesn't is blind or ignorant. No offense meant, of course.
Could you repost that with the inchorency filter turned off?
Just for you, here's the simplified form:
Two unequal situations that are similar in their inequality.
Slashdot readers complain because nobody's doing anything about one.
Slashdot readers complain because somebody's doing something about the other.
Only difference? Slashdotters tend to be in the majority case in the first (where the minority has it good), so they complain because they want to be the minority. Slashdotters also tend to be in the minority case in the second, so because something's being done, they complain about no longer enjoying the inequality that benefitted them.
Thus, ironic (adj, Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended), because one would expect consistency between the two scenarios, but they get opposite reactions.
Simple enough? Should I break it down into mathematical equations?
First off: dude, apples and oranges. You're comparing people starving to death from economic sanctions and soulless global capitalism with people who are unable to download porn quickly.
The scenarios may be apples v. oranges, but those apples sure do look like oranges (or is it the oranges that look like apples?). Think about it -- you have a system where resources are out of balance with the population (wealth vs. population, bandwidth usage vs. residents). In one case, the Slashbot crowd cries and moans because they're not part of that 5% with the money. In the other case, the Slashbot crowd cries and moans because they are part of the 2% that's overusing bandwidth.
Next, from my rather lefty perspective, I find an inordinate number of the Slashdot crowd irritatingly libertarian. It's all about perspective.
Very true. From my libertarian perspective, I find an inordinate number of the Slashdot crowd irritatingly socialist. (Isn't it interesting that you'll use the "libertarian" term for right-wingers, but you won't use the "socialist" term for yourself, instead prefering "lefty"? Just something to think about...)
I don't know where you're at, but every time I've been to a traffic violation hearing (which I've actually only gone to one myself, though my lawyer has gone to a couple on my behalf), there was no jury. It was just me and the judge (because I was young, and going for the deferred judgement where I go to a class and the ticket goes away in a year barring any other offenses; otherwise, there would've also been a prosecutor). Since you can only be deferred once every seven years, there's no point in me trying to get things deferred for another year or two. Therefore, I fight them with a lawyer, and win.
I've never heard of a juried traffic court. Maybe if the charge is something serious, like reckless driving or DUI (which is not a traffic violation), then there would be a jury. For anything less, to my knowledge, there's no jury (think about it -- it's a waste of money, because then the government not only has to pay the judge and the prosecutor, but also the twelve members of the jury, and that cuts seriously into the profits from the ticket, especially when there's no guarantee on how long a jury will deliberate).
"In the past, about 2% of the residents would use over 90% of the available bandwidth causing slowdowns and poor performance for everyone."
Isn't it ironic that the people that the people that complain about 90% of the world's wealth being held by 5% of the population (making a broad generalization of the Slashdot audience, based on the witnessed number of posts advocating anti-capitalism viewpoints, so that while the original poster may not follow that view, there's a better than 50% chance that s/he does) complain just as loudly when the situation is reversed? If 2% of the residents use 90% of the bandwidth (and the assumption is that the poster would be in that 2%), then how is that different from 5% of the world population holding 90% of the world wealth?
Personally, I'm the opposite. I don't care about the parity of wealth issue, and I think the university did the right thing limiting the P2P bandwidth.
Actually, sadly, I don't know Boston. It's one of those "Mecca" type places for me (along with Seattle, which is where I now live) -- somewhere I'd really love to go, but haven't yet. Several of my favorite bands are from there (like the Bosstones), which is my reason for wishing I were there.
You're at Harvard, in lovely Boston, Mass., and you're crying about not being able to use Kazaa? Good god man! Get out and see a show! Boston is home to many, many great bands (larger ones and smaller). You are definitely missing out if you're skipping the shows in favor of Kazaa.
You're going to university. University towns, in general, tend to have a good selection of new and used record stores, as well as a ton of live music. Rather than stealing music via a P2P file-sharing system, why not get out and go to the stores and shows? Okay, so it's not as cheap, and you're probably not going to get Britney Spears' latest, but what you're going to find is a lot of good music on the cheap. Plus, you'll be out of your room, meeting people. That's worth the few $$ you'll spend on the music right there.
If you don't know where to start, just ask around. Find the guys on your uni's quad (or whatever they call the big open area between buildings that every campus seems to have) playing guitars or bongos or whatever. They'll be able to tell you the names and locations of a few good record stores. Then those stores will be able to point you to a few more, and all the stores will know about upcoming live shows. In the process, you meet a number of interesting people, and have some fun. Now isn't that better than sitting in your dorm room, pirating N*Sync songs at 2am?
If you speed, then you've broken the law, no matter how silly it is. It's a choice you made, and choices have consequences. If the consequences are too severe for you than perhaps it's time to rethink your choices.
From the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", and from the charter of our fine country, even if I have broken the law, I am guaranteed a trial and proper representation, while the prosecution (in this case, the city or county where I've been caught speeding) must prove me guilty. The unfortunate thing is that speeding is such a cash cow, so my basic rights are pretty much done away with unless I fight to keep them. Yes, I'm given the option to go to court, but if I choose to do so, I'm not appointed a public defender if I cannot afford my own representation, and unless I ask for things like a discovery process, I'm denied that as well. Either traffic violations are criminal offenses, or they're nothing more than a form of income. Fine, but you can't have both. Either give me my full constitutionally-provided rights in a criminal trial, or own up to the fact that tickets are nothing more than a way to pay the courts and cops and don't penalize me through higher insurance rates (contrary to popular opinion, speed doesn't kill). Pick one.
The sad fact is that right now, traffic violations are both criminal offenses and profiteering, so to keep profits high my rights are done away with (and to keep people re-offending, nothing more than a fine is applied except in the worst of cases, in which case you may have a night in jail or a suspended license). Therefore, I take the rights that I have and use them. Since I have neither the time nor the knowledge to properly represent myself in court, I hire a lawyer (and a damned good one, too -- Jeannie Mucklestone has not lost a case in four years). Fix the system and maybe I'll go along with the rest of the sheep and do the "honorable thing". As long as the system is as fucked as it is, expect me to fight it every step of the way.
When it comes to traffic violations (re-read my post), then as long as it's not something completely outrageous (driving 150mph down a residential street), then yes, even if you're actually guilty. DUI isn't a traffic violation, nor is vehicular manslaughter, so don't even go there. I'm talking about speeding, plain and simple.
Hmmm, that's not my experience. I'm not talking about legal research as much as research regarding your particular situation. For example, this guy in the Ask Slashdot could go find a lot of authoritative references on the way Klez works, and take that to his lawyer to help him understand the situation. The lawyer's job is to figure out the legal angle, you can help him by finding specifics that he may have overlooked. You're not doing his job for him, you are helping him do his job more effectively.
I understand your argument, and perhaps that's the case, but I'd be wary of any lawyer that accepted any research I did at face value. Unless I can prove I'm some expert on whatever it is I'm researching, any legitimate lawyer would need to check your research. That's probably fewer billable hours than having them do the research for you, but it's still billable hours. If they didn't want to double-check my research, I'd immediately become suspicious and concerned, and probably start looking for a new lawyer (if they're not diligent with the information you're giving them, how can you expect them to be diligent in court where it actually matters?).
This is what is wrong with society. People can't take responsibility for their actions. The reason that U.S. courts are buried in countless lawsuits is because people always look for loopholes and can't do the honourable thing.
I'm sorry, but what? You're saying the "honorable thing" to do is act like a sheep and just blindly follow along? I'm sorry, but I was never consulted when speed limits where determined (not to mention that Congress has said that speed limits should be determined by the 85th percentile rule, in that a survey is done to determine the speeds at which people drive in an area, and the 85th percentile from the survey is then chosen as the speed limit -- however, very few places actually honor that, and many places have never even done speed surveys before arbitrarily choosing speed limits). When I get a ticket (and I've gotten my fair share of bullshit tickets), I'm given several choices:
Just pay the ticket and go on my way. This is what most people do, because fines are usually low enough that they don't think too much about it. However, while that ticket may only be $75, your insurance is going to increase by several hundred a year. How's that for doing the "honorable thing"?
Write a letter to the court mitigating the infraction. This is a joke. There's no possible letter you could write (with or without a lawyer's help) that would do anything. This is nothing more than a way for the court to claim they gave you the chance to defend yourself, while still taking your money.
Go to court. Now, you have two choices -- represent yourself (generally a bad idea), or get a lawyer (generally cheap in comparison to fines+insurance hikes). If you represent yourself, expect to lose. You have to be damned good (and no, you can't just argue, "But I was going with the speed of traffic," and get away with it -- not only is that not valid, you're admitting you were speeding and even if it wasn't as much as the ticket says, you're still screwed). Just get the lawyer and get things settled correctly.
As I said before, traffic tickets are nothing more than local governments milking you for money. There are many, many examples of small towns setting their speed limits artificially low simply to drum up money from speeders (check Concrete, WA, for a good example of this). Maybe you think the "honorable thing" to do is bend over and just take it, but as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing honorable about that.
Where do you live? In ontario at least a traffic offense would be a provincial matter, which by definition a criminal offense is federal only.
I live in the States of course (pardon my US-centric post, but whatever). In the US, a traffic ticket is not federal, but not all criminal offenses are federal. In fact, very few offenses are federal, limited to things like crossing state boundaries (anything dealing with mail fraud, for example). A traffic ticket is, technically, a criminal offense, but is a special case in that it has its own set of courts (traffic court), it's not juried, and not all criminal procedures are always followed (as I mentioned before, the discovery phase is mandatory in a criminal trial, but is generally not done by default in a traffic trial -- however, because a traffic violation is a criminal offense, the request for discovery cannot be denied).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, no, young grasshopper. Try using the software before critcizing it, next time. My software, just like Mozilla's popup-blocker, only blocks popups. It doesn't block banner ads, interstitials, flash ads, and all the other forms of online advertising. It blocks pop-ups, because I find them annoying. However, unlike Mozilla, you're given a choice on whether or not you want to allow popups from a site, or to a particular site (ie, filter on source or destination of a pop-up). If you have a site that uses pop-ups, and you particularly like the site and want to support them, great -- allow pop-ups from that site. If you have a certain pop-up you don't like, like X10's crap, then kill only that popup. In either case, the popup ad still has to load (just long enough to get the destination URL), so any advertiser paying by views rather than clicks will count the ad as "seen".
In other words, no hypocrisy here at all. My software only blocks one form of online advertising, and allows you to let that through for specific sites, if you want.
Uh ... 5-7-5, man. 5-7-5.
When writing haiku
You must be able to count
Or you will screw up
Because radar detectors are only illegal in a few backwards places, like D.C. and Virginia. And just so you know, people with high-performance domestic cars (say, a Mustang GT, or a Corvette, for example) also tend to have radar detectors where they're legal. It just makes sense -- sometimes you're going faster than you think. Ever driven a true performance car? No, that Honda Civic with the big-ass wing is not a performance car. If you've driven a real, true high-performance car (domestics like a Mustang GT or a Corvette, imports like any of the Porsche line, the sportier Mercedes and Bimmers, etc), you'll know that they can get going a lot faster than you expect, and when you're going 20 over, you really don't feel like you're gong 20 over. Therefore, a radar detector helps you keep that in check, by chirping at you when it detects something, causing you to slow down.
Of course, that's still an apples v. oranges comparison, because modchips are illegal as copyright circumvention devices, and radar detectors are not.
That's because you have to use component input for progressive scan, not because of progressive scan itself. The better detail and movement you mentioned is due to progressive scan, however.
Which is a real crock. All XBox games support progressive scan. It's not something the game developers do, it's a function of the console itself. If you have your XBox connected via the HD A/V pack to a TV that supports progressive scan, and you tell the XBox it does, then you get progressive scan automatically. Why the Gamecube doesn't do it this way I never understood.
Can you say "double standard"? When Microsoft has undocumented, private, internal APIs, everyone cries "Foul!" and accuses them of hiding these APIs from developers. When they then change those internal APIs, everyone again cries "Foul!" and accuses them of breaking these internal APIs intentionally. But when Apple does this, it's okay? I guess I just don't get it.
Ah, yes, ATI's component convertor. Sure, it was only $30, but most people who have one have reported flakiness and problems (check out places like the Home Theater Spot or AVS Forum).
No, the overscan is an issue of how TVs work -- all TVs have some amount of overscan, and TV broadcasts are designed to compensate for this. Even after having my RPTV professionally calibrated, I still have the recommended ~5% overscan on all sides (anything less and you start getting into geometry and convergence issues). nVidia graphics cards support any custom resolution you can define (within their hardware capabilities, of course, but 1080i doesn't even make nVidia cards break a sweat) , and thus you can define a custom resolution that compensates for overscan (you'll need something like EnTech's PowerStrip for this, of course). ATI cards are much less flexible in terms of custom resolutions (or, at least, the 7500 was, and I believe the 8500 was as well). Thus, my wishlist is that ATI would at least come up to the level of nVidia and properly handle custom resolutions.
Immersive's Holo3DGraph video processor card does have component inputs, but those only accept SD interlaced inputs (480i, basically), not HD or progressive scan inputs (480p, which isn't HD, or 740p or 1080i). I've heard mention of DirecTV units that can be captured from via coax input (something about the box will output whatever channel it happens to be on through channel 3 or 4 of the coax, so you'll need an HD tuner card in your PC to pick up the signal from the STB), but I haven't researched this very much, and I have no idea if AT&T will do something similar (they're bringing HDTV to digital cable in my area sometime in the next few months). If that doesn't work, then I'm SOL with my HTPC once HDTV gets here (and I'll definitely at least try the HDTV feed, because I've been pining for it for over a year).
Agreed. And here's the answer: a VGA to Component transcoder. Use that HD-compatible TV as a monitor for your computer. Now the only issue is whether or not ATI has added better custom resolution support for the 9700. The 7500 AIW I have sucks quite hard, as I can't get a custom resolution that gets rid of excessive overscan. nVidia can do it, so why can't ATI?
And as long as I'm making a wishlist, how about somebody make a VIVO card that accepts HD signals via YPrPb component input? I'd pay good money for that.
From the original poster's quote of the story:
and the original poster's post:
I can't see any other way of parsing that than that the original poster thought that Microsoft was running the website that was slashdotted.
You do realize that the story was neither written nor hosted by Microsoft, right?
The funny thing about the NES/atari/old school gamer crowd is that even back then there were a lot of clones. How many different clones of Pong were made? Of Breakout? How many side-scrolling platformers were made based on the popularity of Super Mario Bros.? You don't remember the clones, except maybe one or two that were exceptionally good, or one or two that were exceptionally bad. When you look back in ten years, you'll remember Quake, Half-Life (a Quake clone, but an exceptionally good one), and Daikatana (another Quake clone, but this time exceptionally bad). You'll forget all about the other clones, like SiN, because they were forgettable. Then, you'll pine for the "good old days", never remembering that there was just as much tripe then as there is now.
People have selective memories. The past is always better, because you remember it as being better. That doesn't mean it really was better, just that you have some idealized conception of it being better.
I was lucky enough to have my parents cover my tuition (which really wasn't that much, since I went to a state school), but I had a job to pay living expenses and other expenses. So no, I didn't have everything just given to me.
Please note I was not advocating going to Tower Records. I was talking about smaller shops, carrying small-label artists (which are usually sold cheaper) and used CDs (again, cheaper). A college student may not be able to afford $20 for a CD, but $10 is quite doable. Maybe you'll have to skip a beer or two next time you go out, but waaa.
Ah, but getting caught shoplifting will normally leave you with a criminal record (wiped away when you turn 18, or permanent afterwards), and community service. Speeding leaves you with a fine and an increased insurance premium. As I mentioned in another post, either make speeding a true crime, or acknowledge it for what it is (a way to make money) and stop penalizing me with things like increased insurance rates. Treat it like parking tickets -- you pay them, you go on, no big deal. So long as the current status quo holds (speeding is technically a criminal offense, but you're never going to see jail time or a criminal record until you step into the realm of reckless driving, which is not defined by me; but speeding is also a grand way to make money, both from writing tickets and grants from insurance companies like Geicko that have a vested interest in seeing more speeders, because that means they can charge higher premiums), I'll use all the legal options available to me to fight bullshit speeding tickets. Make speeding a real crime, and then the money's not there anymore, which means speed limits will generally be increased to sane levels, and so fewer people will truly be speeding. Make it into a pure profit-gathering phenomenon sans insurance hikes, and I'd just pay the fine. So long as there's a legal recourse (because it's technically a crime), then I'll use that recourse. Anybody who doesn't is blind or ignorant. No offense meant, of course.
Nope, I'm just as hypocritical. Takes one to know one, as they say.
Just for you, here's the simplified form:
Simple enough? Should I break it down into mathematical equations?
The scenarios may be apples v. oranges, but those apples sure do look like oranges (or is it the oranges that look like apples?). Think about it -- you have a system where resources are out of balance with the population (wealth vs. population, bandwidth usage vs. residents). In one case, the Slashbot crowd cries and moans because they're not part of that 5% with the money. In the other case, the Slashbot crowd cries and moans because they are part of the 2% that's overusing bandwidth.
Very true. From my libertarian perspective, I find an inordinate number of the Slashdot crowd irritatingly socialist. (Isn't it interesting that you'll use the "libertarian" term for right-wingers, but you won't use the "socialist" term for yourself, instead prefering "lefty"? Just something to think about ...)
I don't know where you're at, but every time I've been to a traffic violation hearing (which I've actually only gone to one myself, though my lawyer has gone to a couple on my behalf), there was no jury. It was just me and the judge (because I was young, and going for the deferred judgement where I go to a class and the ticket goes away in a year barring any other offenses; otherwise, there would've also been a prosecutor). Since you can only be deferred once every seven years, there's no point in me trying to get things deferred for another year or two. Therefore, I fight them with a lawyer, and win.
I've never heard of a juried traffic court. Maybe if the charge is something serious, like reckless driving or DUI (which is not a traffic violation), then there would be a jury. For anything less, to my knowledge, there's no jury (think about it -- it's a waste of money, because then the government not only has to pay the judge and the prosecutor, but also the twelve members of the jury, and that cuts seriously into the profits from the ticket, especially when there's no guarantee on how long a jury will deliberate).
Isn't it ironic that the people that the people that complain about 90% of the world's wealth being held by 5% of the population (making a broad generalization of the Slashdot audience, based on the witnessed number of posts advocating anti-capitalism viewpoints, so that while the original poster may not follow that view, there's a better than 50% chance that s/he does) complain just as loudly when the situation is reversed? If 2% of the residents use 90% of the bandwidth (and the assumption is that the poster would be in that 2%), then how is that different from 5% of the world population holding 90% of the world wealth?
Personally, I'm the opposite. I don't care about the parity of wealth issue, and I think the university did the right thing limiting the P2P bandwidth.
Actually, sadly, I don't know Boston. It's one of those "Mecca" type places for me (along with Seattle, which is where I now live) -- somewhere I'd really love to go, but haven't yet. Several of my favorite bands are from there (like the Bosstones), which is my reason for wishing I were there.
You're at Harvard, in lovely Boston, Mass., and you're crying about not being able to use Kazaa? Good god man! Get out and see a show! Boston is home to many, many great bands (larger ones and smaller). You are definitely missing out if you're skipping the shows in favor of Kazaa.
What a waste.
You're going to university. University towns, in general, tend to have a good selection of new and used record stores, as well as a ton of live music. Rather than stealing music via a P2P file-sharing system, why not get out and go to the stores and shows? Okay, so it's not as cheap, and you're probably not going to get Britney Spears' latest, but what you're going to find is a lot of good music on the cheap. Plus, you'll be out of your room, meeting people. That's worth the few $$ you'll spend on the music right there.
If you don't know where to start, just ask around. Find the guys on your uni's quad (or whatever they call the big open area between buildings that every campus seems to have) playing guitars or bongos or whatever. They'll be able to tell you the names and locations of a few good record stores. Then those stores will be able to point you to a few more, and all the stores will know about upcoming live shows. In the process, you meet a number of interesting people, and have some fun. Now isn't that better than sitting in your dorm room, pirating N*Sync songs at 2am?
From the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", and from the charter of our fine country, even if I have broken the law, I am guaranteed a trial and proper representation, while the prosecution (in this case, the city or county where I've been caught speeding) must prove me guilty. The unfortunate thing is that speeding is such a cash cow, so my basic rights are pretty much done away with unless I fight to keep them. Yes, I'm given the option to go to court, but if I choose to do so, I'm not appointed a public defender if I cannot afford my own representation, and unless I ask for things like a discovery process, I'm denied that as well. Either traffic violations are criminal offenses, or they're nothing more than a form of income. Fine, but you can't have both. Either give me my full constitutionally-provided rights in a criminal trial, or own up to the fact that tickets are nothing more than a way to pay the courts and cops and don't penalize me through higher insurance rates (contrary to popular opinion, speed doesn't kill). Pick one.
The sad fact is that right now, traffic violations are both criminal offenses and profiteering, so to keep profits high my rights are done away with (and to keep people re-offending, nothing more than a fine is applied except in the worst of cases, in which case you may have a night in jail or a suspended license). Therefore, I take the rights that I have and use them. Since I have neither the time nor the knowledge to properly represent myself in court, I hire a lawyer (and a damned good one, too -- Jeannie Mucklestone has not lost a case in four years). Fix the system and maybe I'll go along with the rest of the sheep and do the "honorable thing". As long as the system is as fucked as it is, expect me to fight it every step of the way.
When it comes to traffic violations (re-read my post), then as long as it's not something completely outrageous (driving 150mph down a residential street), then yes, even if you're actually guilty. DUI isn't a traffic violation, nor is vehicular manslaughter, so don't even go there. I'm talking about speeding, plain and simple.
I understand your argument, and perhaps that's the case, but I'd be wary of any lawyer that accepted any research I did at face value. Unless I can prove I'm some expert on whatever it is I'm researching, any legitimate lawyer would need to check your research. That's probably fewer billable hours than having them do the research for you, but it's still billable hours. If they didn't want to double-check my research, I'd immediately become suspicious and concerned, and probably start looking for a new lawyer (if they're not diligent with the information you're giving them, how can you expect them to be diligent in court where it actually matters?).
I'm sorry, but what? You're saying the "honorable thing" to do is act like a sheep and just blindly follow along? I'm sorry, but I was never consulted when speed limits where determined (not to mention that Congress has said that speed limits should be determined by the 85th percentile rule, in that a survey is done to determine the speeds at which people drive in an area, and the 85th percentile from the survey is then chosen as the speed limit -- however, very few places actually honor that, and many places have never even done speed surveys before arbitrarily choosing speed limits). When I get a ticket (and I've gotten my fair share of bullshit tickets), I'm given several choices:
As I said before, traffic tickets are nothing more than local governments milking you for money. There are many, many examples of small towns setting their speed limits artificially low simply to drum up money from speeders (check Concrete, WA, for a good example of this). Maybe you think the "honorable thing" to do is bend over and just take it, but as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing honorable about that.
I live in the States of course (pardon my US-centric post, but whatever). In the US, a traffic ticket is not federal, but not all criminal offenses are federal. In fact, very few offenses are federal, limited to things like crossing state boundaries (anything dealing with mail fraud, for example). A traffic ticket is, technically, a criminal offense, but is a special case in that it has its own set of courts (traffic court), it's not juried, and not all criminal procedures are always followed (as I mentioned before, the discovery phase is mandatory in a criminal trial, but is generally not done by default in a traffic trial -- however, because a traffic violation is a criminal offense, the request for discovery cannot be denied).
Caveat: IANAL, but I've dealt with them.