Joel has had exactly the level of representation that he's paid for - none.
Because in the US legal system, the rich are innocent, and the poor are guilty. You would save a lot of time if everyone just emailed bank statements to the courts and then no one would have to waste their time in a courtroom.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in the US. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in Russia. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in China. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in the DRC. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in Indonesia. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in Syria. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in North Korea. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
Is that more to your liking? If so, I agree. The US isn't the only state that is in flagrant breach of basic human rights. It isn't even the only democracy who the world media pretends is a good guy that is in flagrant breach of basic human rights. Most of the users on this site are from there though, you can't blame people for caring more about local news. US people: don't worry your country is not the only one who is responsible for unconscionable acts of cruelty, aggression and injustice. Everyone else: don't forget to point out the crimes of all nations, the US is just one. In a way you could say that as colonists the UK are actually responsible for everything the US has done, but that would be stupid, the UK has more than enough crimes to answer for.
You are doing it wrong. First you set up censorship systems and only block really hardcore illegal and semi-illegal porn. Then you say 'look it works all the nay-sayers were wrong'. Then you wait until it is in widespread use in every country. THEN you start blocking political speech. Honestly quit being so impatient.
This article is an excellent example of the types of future-energy that we'll need to rely on.
Please people. I love clean renewable sources of energy and argue in favour of them at every opportunity. Hydrogen production is not a source of energy. The primary cost of mass producing hydrogen is not platinum. Hydrogen is merely a very inefficient and unsafe way to store energy. Hydrogen is produced by expending twice as much energy as the thermal energy it contains. This means that even if you can burn it in an engine with 100% thermal efficiency you are roughly on par with a finely tuned engine burning any other fuel. But you can't burn it in an engine with 100% thermal efficiency and you never will. So it is worse. It is worse than petrol, it is worse than diesel. If you make hydrogen using electricity generated from brown coal, it is the most polluting fuel you could ever run an engine off. Energy crisis does not mean we have a crisis of not enough ways to waste energy. Hydrogen is a dead end, combustion engines are a dead end, private vehicles are a dead end. Move on please.
EMI probably knew that this was the probable outcome
Did they also know the outcome that a significant percentage of the sites customers will flock to tpb and other pirate sites? Yeah they probably did. More people to sue.
Its worse. Microsoft steals your work, you sue them, they spend 1M to crush you, and under Submitter's plan you would pay treble damages.
I have a better solution that would solve this problem (and the general problem of $ = win that plagues the US justice system).
Make a law that states that legal costs on both sides have to be equal. If one party can prove it cannot match the legal costs, the other party will have to cover them for the duration of the trial. Naturally the loser has to pay both parties costs at the end of the day. So if microsoft sued me for example, I could prove in court that I only have $94 in my bank account and a very small income. Microsoft would have the option of spending $94 prosecuting the suit, meaning its basically a coin flip as you can barely get a lawyer to pick up the phone for that. They would also have the option of spending x millions prosecuting, but they would have to pay 2(x million)-94 to do it, and then if they won I would be liable for that amount plus damages. They would know that legal expenditure on both sides would be equal and that due to this the case is likely to be decided on it's merits so they would only persue it if they were confident of winning. Likewise if I were to sue microsoft, I could spend $94 on a 5 minute legal consult, and then represent myself. Microsoft would get about 3 seconds of work out of their lawyers for that price and therefore would be forced to either not defend themselves, settle, or pay for me to have expensive lawyers too. If microsoft were confident they would win they would pay the money, and if they did win I would be screwed. If not they would settle. This is perfect and triple damages would be unneccesary, but not excluded. It would also have the added benefit that in legitimate cases where the verdict was uncertain, a drawn out process is risky for both parties and keeping the costs down would become a priority, so it might even help with the filibustering problem in some cases.
Last year, Google agreed to a settlement in which the FTC would monitor Google's privacy practices for an extended period of time
Does facebook have a similar agreement? This safari thing seems like peanuts compared to some of the stuff they pull. If I am wrong please feel free to explain to me how, I am not claiming to be an expert merely asking a question.
I don't see how. Once we let them start making exceptions on who can and can't vote, we're already going down the slope. Considering how stupid the government itself can be (they're humans, after all), I wouldn't trust them with such a power.
I'd much rather have it remain as it is than revoke people's right to vote.
This is a paradox. The way it is = felons cant vote. I think there is disenfranchisement for other things too.
I would like to add a note here on behalf of those Autistic people who are not high functioning, as many of them are unable to post on internet sites. I have worked with many of them and it is a really serious disability. High functioning autistic people are able to live fairly normal lives and can be fascinating people to know, at the other end of the spectrum though it can be pretty hard.
While whether X owns the copyright on Y is honoured in most of the world (with hugely varying degrees of enforcement), whether Z is in breach of that copyright is not. In Germany I can buy a cd and burn a copy for a family member, in the US I can't. If google loses this in the US they can still contest the same case in the EU, a US jury verdict does not override the EU justice system (thank god). The European courts are unlikely to rule so stupidly either, the post above is still true, it would do more damage to the economy in the US than anywhere else.
Any monetary spoils are beside the point. This is just one battle in a bigger war. This is about controlling all distribution channels in order to maintain a hegemony, which is where the real money is...
Exactly, if optus are allowed to do this they can legally build a national service capable of delivering video to cellphones nationwide. Then they can start offering their own content which is not owned by any tv licence holder, while still reaching the mindless tv watcher zombies market. This would inevitably result in the public seeing perspectives and facts that have not been pre-approved by the Murdoch global media hegemony (well maybe not global, but in Australia it is 99.9% of media). Then people might find out how badly the establishment is fucking them in the ass and do something about it.
Give me 1% of the budget of any of the big AAA titles that came out this year and I will demonstrate. Basically drop 99% percent of the art budget and spend what is left building an amazing gameplay engine. I have been saying this for years but only since the boom of indy games with shit graphics like minecraft people are starting to understand that it can work. An amazing gameplay engine in this context is to first create randomly generated worlds for replayability, then create a real language engine so that you can converse with NPC's in a more natural way. Yes I realise that second thing is a major undertaking, but you could start out basic and small on the first game, and as your studio progressed it would improve with each game. Now if only I had 1% of the budget of anything.
My biology teacher told me this in high school. That was more than 12 years ago. Yay someone confirmed the theory, but it is hardly tech news. In case anyone is interested and didn't know this, many plants and animals have this mechanism, but only migratory birds and a few others have it well developed enough to use it as a sense.
And yet there's a Slashdot user named mbone that repeatedly claims otherwise... either he's an extremely well researched troll or he's on to something.
Thanks, that link is way more interesting and informative than anything on this thread
"We really have no idea, even to within orders of magnitude, how probable abiogenesis is, and we show that no evidence exists to substantially change that."..also...
Would someone like to calculate how many orders of magnitude of improbability you would need for there to be absolutely no life anywhere outside of earth?
Given the size of universe that the current evidence suggests, and the number of galaxies in it, and the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets around the stars, all of which we have some evidence of, I think we are talking some pretty high numbers.
Gather 40 or 50 million people outside Congress / the White House with torches and pitchforks, and we will test that theory.
You gave me both laughter and hope with just one sentence, you are truly a master wordsmith. I don't even hate Obama and I still really really want to see this happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Joel has had exactly the level of representation that he's paid for - none.
Because in the US legal system, the rich are innocent, and the poor are guilty. You would save a lot of time if everyone just emailed bank statements to the courts and then no one would have to waste their time in a courtroom.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in the US. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in Russia. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in China. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in the DRC. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in Indonesia. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in Syria. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
It sounds like the trial-less imprisonment here in North Korea. He's a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve a (fair) trial.
Is that more to your liking? If so, I agree. The US isn't the only state that is in flagrant breach of basic human rights. It isn't even the only democracy who the world media pretends is a good guy that is in flagrant breach of basic human rights. Most of the users on this site are from there though, you can't blame people for caring more about local news. US people: don't worry your country is not the only one who is responsible for unconscionable acts of cruelty, aggression and injustice. Everyone else: don't forget to point out the crimes of all nations, the US is just one. In a way you could say that as colonists the UK are actually responsible for everything the US has done, but that would be stupid, the UK has more than enough crimes to answer for.
Slashdot poster claims Internetuser1248 "might be the best lover, and also the coolest person in the known universe"
You are doing it wrong. First you set up censorship systems and only block really hardcore illegal and semi-illegal porn. Then you say 'look it works all the nay-sayers were wrong'. Then you wait until it is in widespread use in every country. THEN you start blocking political speech. Honestly quit being so impatient.
This article is an excellent example of the types of future-energy that we'll need to rely on.
Please people. I love clean renewable sources of energy and argue in favour of them at every opportunity. Hydrogen production is not a source of energy. The primary cost of mass producing hydrogen is not platinum. Hydrogen is merely a very inefficient and unsafe way to store energy. Hydrogen is produced by expending twice as much energy as the thermal energy it contains. This means that even if you can burn it in an engine with 100% thermal efficiency you are roughly on par with a finely tuned engine burning any other fuel. But you can't burn it in an engine with 100% thermal efficiency and you never will. So it is worse. It is worse than petrol, it is worse than diesel. If you make hydrogen using electricity generated from brown coal, it is the most polluting fuel you could ever run an engine off. Energy crisis does not mean we have a crisis of not enough ways to waste energy. Hydrogen is a dead end, combustion engines are a dead end, private vehicles are a dead end. Move on please.
EMI probably knew that this was the probable outcome
Did they also know the outcome that a significant percentage of the sites customers will flock to tpb and other pirate sites? Yeah they probably did. More people to sue.
Yeah one or two
Its worse. Microsoft steals your work, you sue them, they spend 1M to crush you, and under Submitter's plan you would pay treble damages.
I have a better solution that would solve this problem (and the general problem of $ = win that plagues the US justice system).
Make a law that states that legal costs on both sides have to be equal. If one party can prove it cannot match the legal costs, the other party will have to cover them for the duration of the trial. Naturally the loser has to pay both parties costs at the end of the day. So if microsoft sued me for example, I could prove in court that I only have $94 in my bank account and a very small income. Microsoft would have the option of spending $94 prosecuting the suit, meaning its basically a coin flip as you can barely get a lawyer to pick up the phone for that. They would also have the option of spending x millions prosecuting, but they would have to pay 2(x million)-94 to do it, and then if they won I would be liable for that amount plus damages. They would know that legal expenditure on both sides would be equal and that due to this the case is likely to be decided on it's merits so they would only persue it if they were confident of winning. Likewise if I were to sue microsoft, I could spend $94 on a 5 minute legal consult, and then represent myself. Microsoft would get about 3 seconds of work out of their lawyers for that price and therefore would be forced to either not defend themselves, settle, or pay for me to have expensive lawyers too. If microsoft were confident they would win they would pay the money, and if they did win I would be screwed. If not they would settle. This is perfect and triple damages would be unneccesary, but not excluded. It would also have the added benefit that in legitimate cases where the verdict was uncertain, a drawn out process is risky for both parties and keeping the costs down would become a priority, so it might even help with the filibustering problem in some cases.
Last year, Google agreed to a settlement in which the FTC would monitor Google's privacy practices for an extended period of time
Does facebook have a similar agreement? This safari thing seems like peanuts compared to some of the stuff they pull. If I am wrong please feel free to explain to me how, I am not claiming to be an expert merely asking a question.
I don't see how. Once we let them start making exceptions on who can and can't vote, we're already going down the slope. Considering how stupid the government itself can be (they're humans, after all), I wouldn't trust them with such a power.
I'd much rather have it remain as it is than revoke people's right to vote.
This is a paradox. The way it is = felons cant vote. I think there is disenfranchisement for other things too.
I would like to add a note here on behalf of those Autistic people who are not high functioning, as many of them are unable to post on internet sites. I have worked with many of them and it is a really serious disability. High functioning autistic people are able to live fairly normal lives and can be fascinating people to know, at the other end of the spectrum though it can be pretty hard.
Man when I saw the headline I was really hoping for the slashdot bureau of investigation. Do it.
Not to mention the US did support the Shah in Iran. I think that pissed some of them off.
As Billy Connolly Said: 72 virgins is not a reward, it's a punishment. Give me 2 sluts any day.
So, the answer to our piracy and IP idiocy is to abolish recordings and limit ourselves to live performances?
No I think he was saying nobody gives a shit what you do about your copyright problem.
Terrorists can more easily get access to software in other countries
Keep telling yourself that. It may not be true but it's an argument the politicians might understand
While whether X owns the copyright on Y is honoured in most of the world (with hugely varying degrees of enforcement), whether Z is in breach of that copyright is not. In Germany I can buy a cd and burn a copy for a family member, in the US I can't. If google loses this in the US they can still contest the same case in the EU, a US jury verdict does not override the EU justice system (thank god). The European courts are unlikely to rule so stupidly either, the post above is still true, it would do more damage to the economy in the US than anywhere else.
Sure, bio-gas, solar panels, it all sounds great. But, it's not like we are growing this stuff on trees.
Funny you should mention it, but biogas can be generated from any source of biodegradable mass... so yes it grows on trees.
there are others. I personally use kickass they have a nice interface.
Any monetary spoils are beside the point. This is just one battle in a bigger war. This is about controlling all distribution channels in order to maintain a hegemony, which is where the real money is...
Exactly, if optus are allowed to do this they can legally build a national service capable of delivering video to cellphones nationwide. Then they can start offering their own content which is not owned by any tv licence holder, while still reaching the mindless tv watcher zombies market. This would inevitably result in the public seeing perspectives and facts that have not been pre-approved by the Murdoch global media hegemony (well maybe not global, but in Australia it is 99.9% of media). Then people might find out how badly the establishment is fucking them in the ass and do something about it.
Like everything, it is about power not money.
Give me 1% of the budget of any of the big AAA titles that came out this year and I will demonstrate. Basically drop 99% percent of the art budget and spend what is left building an amazing gameplay engine. I have been saying this for years but only since the boom of indy games with shit graphics like minecraft people are starting to understand that it can work. An amazing gameplay engine in this context is to first create randomly generated worlds for replayability, then create a real language engine so that you can converse with NPC's in a more natural way. Yes I realise that second thing is a major undertaking, but you could start out basic and small on the first game, and as your studio progressed it would improve with each game. Now if only I had 1% of the budget of anything.
My biology teacher told me this in high school. That was more than 12 years ago. Yay someone confirmed the theory, but it is hardly tech news. In case anyone is interested and didn't know this, many plants and animals have this mechanism, but only migratory birds and a few others have it well developed enough to use it as a sense.
And yet there's a Slashdot user named mbone that repeatedly claims otherwise ... either he's an extremely well researched troll or he's on to something.
Thanks, that link is way more interesting and informative than anything on this thread
"We really have no idea, even to within orders of magnitude, how probable abiogenesis is, and we show that no evidence exists to substantially change that." ..also...
Would someone like to calculate how many orders of magnitude of improbability you would need for there to be absolutely no life anywhere outside of earth?
Given the size of universe that the current evidence suggests, and the number of galaxies in it, and the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets around the stars, all of which we have some evidence of, I think we are talking some pretty high numbers.
Gather 40 or 50 million people outside Congress / the White House with torches and pitchforks, and we will test that theory.
You gave me both laughter and hope with just one sentence, you are truly a master wordsmith. I don't even hate Obama and I still really really want to see this happen.