Subject is my take on it. Whether it is done to pro- or demote one's merchandize or a political leader, it is still abuse and should be frowned upon and condemned.
The intended beneficiaries of the practice should speak out against it, and the victims should weight their legal options.
Because of the extraordinary variability of voting technologies and procedures from state to state, the entire country presents a morass of special cases to the writer who would lay out a generally applicable scenario of electronic election theft.
It is even harder for the would-be perp, who not only has to describe such a scenario in theory (to herself and co-conspirators), but also implement it in practice...
As particular models (such as the writer-picked Diebold AccuVote TS) get more popular, the diversity diminishes, though.
They are nifty devices, that are pleasant to touch, easy to use (apparently), and light to carry. There is a valuable market of compatible devices, and even some new cars come with "iPod jacks".
Just don't buy iTunes, and — when ripping your own CDs — be sure to use MP3 format.
You may have something there, but the companies you accuse of being in an illegal cartel compete with each other viciously... I doubt, they are colluding in the sense of the anti-trust laws you are referring to.
Even if that means they download it from a file sharing network or they put up with DRM that prevents future generations from being able to hear the music they will. [...] with DRM that prevents future generations from being able to hear the music they will.
Then so be it — it is just entertainment for crying out loud. And the future generations will still be able to hear it, they just may have to pay for it — that's part of the deal, and if you don't like it (I don't), then don't buy it.
The solution is not to try to change society, but to change the laws so that they give society what it wants.
Valuing my own intellectual property, I'm rather concerned about the efforts to erode somebody else's rights to theirs — however foolishly they may be using them.
But if they are, as you allege, in an illegal cartel, then no changes of the laws are needed — just the enforcement of the existing one(s)...
All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" — what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.
The "Joe Sixpack" you pretend to be concerned about may be excused, but you — your real concern — may not. You — the/.-crowd — know full well, that the DVD you are buying can not be put online for everyone to donwload (whether it is, actually, stealing, or merely copyright violation is irrelevant). You knew, iTunes will limit your downloads and sharing abilities...
So, why do you buy these things from these corporations and other entities you so dislike? Was life really so miserable before DVDs and portable digital-audio players? It was not. And now, despite all of the above-listed limitations, it is only better...
But back to the main point, the US Supreme Court in Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) bitchslapped government prosecutors who attempted to equate copyright infringment with theft.
I did not attempt such equating — you are attacking a strawman. Theft or not, copyright infringment is still wrong, and Mr. Dowling is still guilty of it — even after the "bitchslapping" you attempt to celebrate. From the article on the subject:
the Supreme Court made plain in its ruling that the Copyright Act already contains a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of the statute being used to prosecute Dowling intended for it to cover copyright infringement in addition to theft of goods.
Is it possible for a blocking company to define a 'hate site' in a consistent way, without including conservative groups that might file a First Amendment lawsuit
As if First Amendment anti-censorship lawsuits were limited to "conservative" groups!
As if being being anti-immigration was so limited!
In WHOSE opinion? Yours? Your mama's? Or a random guy's on the street? Or the judge's? Of all these, only one's own and the judge's (or the jury's) opinion matters.
In America's opinion, our resumption of hostilities against Iraq were the fully logical and legal consequences of Iraq's violations of the earlier cease-fire agreement.
Whoever wants to claim otherwise, will need to convince some kind of recognized court or another.
Innocent/guilty is a different scale.
Sounds like a false dichotomy (legal/illegal vs. innocent/guilty), but I'm unsure, what you mean by "scale".
The only thing, that could make an action between countries "illegal" is a UN Security Council's (or some other recognized international organization's) resolution condemning the action as such. Would you be able to refer me to a resolution condeming our resumption of hostilities against Iraq after 12 years of Iraq's violations of cease fire? Oh, wait, you were simply engaged in flamebaiting, never mind.
deep into the bottom of the hurt locker real soon now
Gee, start holding your breath now, then, would you, please? Please, please, please — with a strawberry on top?.. Thank you!
Not only are you flamebaiting, you are also widely off-topic — whatever is going to happen to our wealth "real soon now", and whatever the reasons for it happening, is irrelevant.
What matters is that we are rich now, which allows us to spend so much on entertnainment and, consequently, keeps so many different entertainers around and well fed — from Barbara Streissand to Sean Hanity.
Again, whatever your hate-filled heart predicts for US, we are wealthy now and thus can afford "culture", that spills over much to the annoyance of those, who — unable to speed up themselves — are trying to slow us down.
I respect their desire to reduce the impact of Western cultural hegemony, but the better way to do this is to encourage your own culture to flourish, not to make others illicit.
It is not "the better way", it is "the only way"... Western's culture is dominant, because it is better — West's substantial wealth allows a lot more people to be involved in "cultural" pursuits, and our liberties allow them the required freedom to do so.
On contrast, the best-known writer of Iranian origin is Salman Rushdie — an expatriate with a credible death threat against him from an Iranian mullah.
When Iranian government pretends to "sponsor art", they sponsor an exhibition mocking the Holocaust tragedy...
"Western's cultural hegemony" would be a terrific improvement for them. When they become rich and wealthy, their own culture will be able to compete again...
Which part of my posting are you referring to as "that"? Don't bother answering. You'll learn to discuss things as you grow up. Talk to you later...
Can you jump on a train without any identification or a bus for that matter?
I can't, but it does not mean, I'm prevented from traveling. I don't even need special documentation, which could be denied to certain undesirables...
"Godwin's Law" doesnt mean shit in this instance...
Godwin's Law means, though shall not invoke Hitler (or Nazis) in vain. America's privacy, although diminished, is still quite on par with great many countries, so you could invoke any one of them instead. But it would've deflated your argument: "America is so bad now, it reminds me of Turkey," — so you went for "Nazi Germany", and immediately lost your audience and the point. Nazi Germany may have had similar restrictions on movement, and the vast majority of them had two hands (another frightening similarity with today's Americans!), but that is not why we hate them.
No it was a removal of basic Rights of those that didn't fall into party lines that perpetuated the rise of the Nazi party.
Contrary to your continuing assertions, there was never a Right to anonymous travel in the United States. It just happened to be that way, that you could travel anonymously (although you could never stay in a hotel without registering). It sucks, that you no longer can, but it does not signify any lost Right. Nor does it imply imminent genocide(s), and human-burning ovens — the things, for which we really hate the Nazis...
It does not — you can still move, and you don't need special documentation for it. What you can't do is move anonymously. Although this anonymity was never guaranteed, it was a fact of life for some time, and taking it away diminishes the privacy, which was the topic of the forum.
Kinda reminds me of Nazi Germany " Where are your papers" does anyone ever get the feeling that there is a serious lack of understanding history?
Have you even heard of Godwin's Law? You can't pull out "Nazi Germany" as an example, unless you are talking about genocide, ovens, and gas chambers...
Sorry to have offended, but with barely what -- five cities for your entire continent -- there is still some way to go on developing. Indeed, you only have just over 20 million residents... Anyway, what is your fertility rate down there (the children per sheila component)?
Similar, actually, goes for Canada -- their lands are vastly underpopulated. Although comparable in size with US, the country has only 33 million people or so...
You sure have electricity (and your own power plugs), but you don't have enough population density:-)
Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries? Which demographics are producing most children? How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?
Wider-spread religiosity and gender-equality are the factors according to this article.
America is the only developed nation which is still robustly growing. Our own average fertility rate is just above 2 kids per woman, which is enough to sustain population. The substantial immigration provides grows.
Economist thinks, religion has something to do with the fenomenon...
When they started requiring names for air-travel? Now they require it even on trains and buses (although some bus-lines don't — yet — comply)...
When the newly introduced automatic toll-payment devices required name and license plate (like North-Eastern "EZ-Pass") — instead of being anonymous like calling cards? Now, certain toll plazas mandate such devices at certain times, which means you can not possibly cross that bridge/tunnel and remain anonymous...
Of course, the fact that different telephony standards have evolved in the world in different ways long before the ITU became involved couldn't possibly account for world's oldest international organization.regional differences.
You really have to dig deeper into your ignorance, don't you? ITU, for your information, is the world's oldest international organization...
So you want the ITU and UN to have lots more power over national governments to allow them to fix these problems.
That's a different subject. My point was and remains, ITU has failed on numerous counts, of which you are now aware (although you claimed initially to have never heard "too many complaints"). Whatever its reasons for failure, UN's control over Internet will be no different and thus also a failure.
mad cow comes from feeding dead animals back to herbivores as a cheap source of protein. Nope, corporate farming wasn't responsible for that, it was the WHO! Bird flu. Hmm, a diseas spread by migratory birds, that's heavily investigated and local governments assisted by the WHO to try and prevent spreading further. Gotta hate that UN. Polio is coming back in the poor areas because governments aren't vaccinating, despite help to do so from the WHO. Yes, that's the UN's fault.
You claimed initially, that there are no complains about UN's "handling of international disease prevention". I listed a few, of which you must've heard. WHO may have done a lot of things to stop the diseases, but they continue to spread, thus their work is faulty (not sure, where that "hate" is coming from, though)...
Your explanations and justifications for their failures may have some merit, but failures they remain, and that is the point. ITU and WHO may be staffed with wonderful people, but the UN's entire framework is awful and nothing new should be made its responsibility, unless there is absolutely no one else to do it. US has been managing Internet for a while, and it certainly works better than telephones...
On the other hand we have a country that's invaded [...]
Yada-yada. Don't change the topic.
and has courts that don't seem to care that the defendant is from another country
Finally back to topic, even if still in the wrong. Courts in most countries would accept a local party's claim against a foreign party. Most certainly -- and rightly so...
All through 2001-2003 Sadam NEVER stoped the UN inspectors of doing their "job" and checking all over Iraq.
And you accuse "us people" of re-writing history? How about UN's formal report at the end of Jan. 2003, in which Blix, I quote, said:
Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.
They were warned US was gonna invade so they simply bailed out.
Because by 2003 it was too late anyway -- Iraq initially agreed to completely disarm within a year. It having dragged for 12 years (including the 2 years, during which -- according to you, even if not to Hans Blix -- UN inspectors were finally able to work unrestricted) instead was a perfectly good reason to resume hostilities. Clinton should've attacked years earlier...
Man, WHEN will you people stop lying and twisting things around?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not?!
Subject is my take on it. Whether it is done to pro- or demote one's merchandize or a political leader, it is still abuse and should be frowned upon and condemned.
The intended beneficiaries of the practice should speak out against it, and the victims should weight their legal options.
It is even harder for the would-be perp, who not only has to describe such a scenario in theory (to herself and co-conspirators), but also implement it in practice...
As particular models (such as the writer-picked Diebold AccuVote TS) get more popular, the diversity diminishes, though.
For once, I find myself against standartization.
They are nifty devices, that are pleasant to touch, easy to use (apparently), and light to carry. There is a valuable market of compatible devices, and even some new cars come with "iPod jacks".
Just don't buy iTunes, and — when ripping your own CDs — be sure to use MP3 format.
You may have something there, but the companies you accuse of being in an illegal cartel compete with each other viciously... I doubt, they are colluding in the sense of the anti-trust laws you are referring to.
Then so be it — it is just entertainment for crying out loud. And the future generations will still be able to hear it, they just may have to pay for it — that's part of the deal, and if you don't like it (I don't), then don't buy it.
Valuing my own intellectual property, I'm rather concerned about the efforts to erode somebody else's rights to theirs — however foolishly they may be using them.
But if they are, as you allege, in an illegal cartel, then no changes of the laws are needed — just the enforcement of the existing one(s)...
All of these lamentations about Apple cheating and *AA "suing its customers" — what is your problem? It is Apple's own device, and it is *AA's customers. If you don't like these companies, then stop using the darn things.
The "Joe Sixpack" you pretend to be concerned about may be excused, but you — your real concern — may not. You — the /.-crowd — know full well, that the DVD you are buying can not be put online for everyone to donwload (whether it is, actually, stealing, or merely copyright violation is irrelevant). You knew, iTunes will limit your downloads and sharing abilities...
So, why do you buy these things from these corporations and other entities you so dislike? Was life really so miserable before DVDs and portable digital-audio players? It was not. And now, despite all of the above-listed limitations, it is only better...
Space Elevator and the X-Prize competition, or the Canadian participants of it?
"Oh, look, Canadians — how cute"?
You gave him the ability to listen to it, which was yours, and to give it away further — which was not.
I did not attempt such equating — you are attacking a strawman. Theft or not, copyright infringment is still wrong, and Mr. Dowling is still guilty of it — even after the "bitchslapping" you attempt to celebrate. From the article on the subject:
Which part of the "nor give away something, that is not yours" was so difficult to grasp?
Where/when it is not, RIAA loses...
Nor give away something, that is not yours.
The folks at RIAA may be unpleasant, but they are in the right on this.
As if First Amendment anti-censorship lawsuits were limited to "conservative" groups!
As if being being anti-immigration was so limited!
In WHOSE opinion? Yours? Your mama's? Or a random guy's on the street? Or the judge's? Of all these, only one's own and the judge's (or the jury's) opinion matters.
In America's opinion, our resumption of hostilities against Iraq were the fully logical and legal consequences of Iraq's violations of the earlier cease-fire agreement.
Whoever wants to claim otherwise, will need to convince some kind of recognized court or another.
Sounds like a false dichotomy (legal/illegal vs. innocent/guilty), but I'm unsure, what you mean by "scale".
"Innocent until proven guilty in the court of law".
My point exactly...
The only thing, that could make an action between countries "illegal" is a UN Security Council's (or some other recognized international organization's) resolution condemning the action as such. Would you be able to refer me to a resolution condeming our resumption of hostilities against Iraq after 12 years of Iraq's violations of cease fire? Oh, wait, you were simply engaged in flamebaiting, never mind.
Gee, start holding your breath now, then, would you, please? Please, please, please — with a strawberry on top?.. Thank you!
Not only are you flamebaiting, you are also widely off-topic — whatever is going to happen to our wealth "real soon now", and whatever the reasons for it happening, is irrelevant.
What matters is that we are rich now, which allows us to spend so much on entertnainment and, consequently, keeps so many different entertainers around and well fed — from Barbara Streissand to Sean Hanity.
Again, whatever your hate-filled heart predicts for US, we are wealthy now and thus can afford "culture", that spills over much to the annoyance of those, who — unable to speed up themselves — are trying to slow us down.
It is not "the better way", it is "the only way"... Western's culture is dominant, because it is better — West's substantial wealth allows a lot more people to be involved in "cultural" pursuits, and our liberties allow them the required freedom to do so.
On contrast, the best-known writer of Iranian origin is Salman Rushdie — an expatriate with a credible death threat against him from an Iranian mullah.
When Iranian government pretends to "sponsor art", they sponsor an exhibition mocking the Holocaust tragedy...
"Western's cultural hegemony" would be a terrific improvement for them. When they become rich and wealthy, their own culture will be able to compete again...
Which part of my posting are you referring to as "that"? Don't bother answering. You'll learn to discuss things as you grow up. Talk to you later...
I can't, but it does not mean, I'm prevented from traveling. I don't even need special documentation, which could be denied to certain undesirables...
Godwin's Law means, though shall not invoke Hitler (or Nazis) in vain. America's privacy, although diminished, is still quite on par with great many countries, so you could invoke any one of them instead. But it would've deflated your argument: "America is so bad now, it reminds me of Turkey," — so you went for "Nazi Germany", and immediately lost your audience and the point. Nazi Germany may have had similar restrictions on movement, and the vast majority of them had two hands (another frightening similarity with today's Americans!), but that is not why we hate them.
Contrary to your continuing assertions, there was never a Right to anonymous travel in the United States. It just happened to be that way, that you could travel anonymously (although you could never stay in a hotel without registering). It sucks, that you no longer can, but it does not signify any lost Right. Nor does it imply imminent genocide(s), and human-burning ovens — the things, for which we really hate the Nazis...
It does not — you can still move, and you don't need special documentation for it. What you can't do is move anonymously. Although this anonymity was never guaranteed, it was a fact of life for some time, and taking it away diminishes the privacy, which was the topic of the forum.
Have you even heard of Godwin's Law? You can't pull out "Nazi Germany" as an example, unless you are talking about genocide, ovens, and gas chambers...
Sorry to have offended, but with barely what -- five cities for your entire continent -- there is still some way to go on developing. Indeed, you only have just over 20 million residents... Anyway, what is your fertility rate down there (the children per sheila component)?
Similar, actually, goes for Canada -- their lands are vastly underpopulated. Although comparable in size with US, the country has only 33 million people or so...
You sure have electricity (and your own power plugs), but you don't have enough population density :-)
Wider-spread religiosity and gender-equality are the factors according to this article.
America is the only developed nation which is still robustly growing. Our own average fertility rate is just above 2 kids per woman, which is enough to sustain population. The substantial immigration provides grows.
Economist thinks, religion has something to do with the fenomenon...
You really have to dig deeper into your ignorance, don't you? ITU, for your information, is the world's oldest international organization...
That's a different subject. My point was and remains, ITU has failed on numerous counts, of which you are now aware (although you claimed initially to have never heard "too many complaints"). Whatever its reasons for failure, UN's control over Internet will be no different and thus also a failure.
You claimed initially, that there are no complains about UN's "handling of international disease prevention". I listed a few, of which you must've heard. WHO may have done a lot of things to stop the diseases, but they continue to spread, thus their work is faulty (not sure, where that "hate" is coming from, though)...
Your explanations and justifications for their failures may have some merit, but failures they remain, and that is the point. ITU and WHO may be staffed with wonderful people, but the UN's entire framework is awful and nothing new should be made its responsibility, unless there is absolutely no one else to do it. US has been managing Internet for a while, and it certainly works better than telephones...
Yada-yada. Don't change the topic.
Finally back to topic, even if still in the wrong. Courts in most countries would accept a local party's claim against a foreign party. Most certainly -- and rightly so...
And you accuse "us people" of re-writing history? How about UN's formal report at the end of Jan. 2003, in which Blix, I quote, said:
They were warned US was gonna invade so they simply bailed out.Because by 2003 it was too late anyway -- Iraq initially agreed to completely disarm within a year. It having dragged for 12 years (including the 2 years, during which -- according to you, even if not to Hans Blix -- UN inspectors were finally able to work unrestricted) instead was a perfectly good reason to resume hostilities. Clinton should've attacked years earlier...
Indeed, when will you?