Clarification: I'm complaining about the government creating trivial and unimportant laws (ie pandering to the recording industry) while the world as we have come to know and enjoy it, is being destroyed.
Um... I don't think you read the OP's (my) statement with the right context in mind. I'll give you a hint, the people that I am referring to that are a "joke" are our elected officials, also know collectively as "the government".
I live in new jersey, a few thousand miles away. What would you like me to do about the oil disaster? Fly a plane to New Orleans, then drive a car to the shore to hop on a boat which will putter out to the scene in hopes of scooping up some oil at which point I'll be told by BP that I'm not allowed to be there, sending me back through that chain of events in reverse? What does reading and posting on slashdot really have anything to do with the topic except to inform and generate discussion about the topic? Really, what's your point?
I'll tell you what I am doing, to the best of my abilities... With the exception of getting to and from work and picking up groceries, I'm not joy riding around in my fucking car. I ride my bike or take the high speed line to travel locally. Whenever possible I'm going to refrain from using as many oil based products as I possibly can. I'm going to make sure I utilize digital downloads for software or entertainment media rather then contribute to creating yet more packaging waste. I don't use plastic bags when i go shopping. I recycle as much plastic, glass, and paper as they will let me. I do as much as I can to make sure that whatever waste I do generate is properly disposed of. I'm seriously considering moving out of the car centric suburbs where every road is a highway and the infrastructure was design for driving in a car everywhere, pedestrians be damned. And yes, I do not purchase any music from any record labels who believe in this insane copyright war against their own customers (not that I would ever listen to that crap music even if it was free). There is plenty of awesome music out there by musicians who really just care more about sharing their music with the rest of us rather then fame and wealth.
Ultimately, over the last several years, I've been working on decreasing my contribution to companies and business practices that are wasteful and to which I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with as much as I possibly can. I've been speaking out whenever possible when I see people and business doing something that I believe is inherently wrong such that others are made aware of it and are given the opportunity to think about it and make up their own minds as well as to if they wish to support such madness as well.
My point still stands, that the government, republicrat that it is, is more concerned about their business partners making a buck than anything that would seriously benefit the citizens of this country. While everyone seems to be flag waving and voting their party lines, in hopes that they will be the next person to be handed free money, the planet, our home, is being destroyed at a record pace. So yeah, our government wasting time and energy to ensure that a hand full of greedy evil bastards and whinny welfare musicians get mandatory handouts for life while it does absolutely nothing of any value to ensure the integrity of the environment we live is IS A FUCKING JOKE. I also add that it's completely corrupt and worthless for any but a select few who value anything but their own selfish desire to generate needless wealth.
Hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil are spewing into the Gulf of Mexico each day, an entire ecology is dying, and these assholes are fucking worried that some moneyless students aren't buying enough Britney Spears.
Even better don't buy the CD, download the free music from that millions of great artist out there that have chosen not to bother with trying to make money from recorded music, and instead spend your money on going to shows, an experience that cannot be duplicated in a recording.
Really? Your going to spit hairs on taking an AAC file to AIFF then back to MP3? If you are such an audiophile that this process is going to be degrading your listening experience, you probably shouldn't be purchasing from iTunes to begin with. lol
Seriously, the difference is so negligible to the casual ear it's ridiculous for you to even bring this up.
"Whitmore says the investment Apple's customers have made in content for those devices in terms of apps, videos, and music purchased at the iTunes Store creates Apple's 'stickiness.' "
So it's hard to make a playlist, put a blank disk in the drive, hit "burn to disk", and select "Audio Disk"?
It's so easy even a Fucking Apple Fanboi could do it. Hell I could also do it with iTunes for Windows does that make me a Fucking Microsoft Fanboi as well?
Burn your DRM ladden iTunes Music Store purchaces to disk then rip that disk to mp3 (or whatever format of your choice). OMG DRM free music from the iTunes Music Store that you can "jump ship" with! I know... it's almost rocket surgery, but come on! lol
I think the problem we are all having in this debate, including myself, is our perception of devices like the iPhone and iPad as general computing devices. Most of us want to believe that the iPhone/iPad are much like our desktop/laptop computers and that we should be able to enjoy using them as such. Apple, and no doubt, many other companies, want us to view these devices (including Sony's PS3, which is having similar trouble removing it's ability to utilize 3rd party OS) more like we would view a Walkman, TV, or perhaps even the blender in your kitchen. Apple, Sony, et el, want full control over these devices so that they can maximize their potential to profit from them. As was mentioned last week in an article, general computing devices are getting less and less profitable as their prices decrease due to cheaper production process and increased demand.
Unfortunately for most of our tech heads, the general public doesn't care if these devices are general computing devices that let us hack them to do any job we want them to, they just want to listen to music, watch movies, read a book, or play a video game. In other words, so long as the Walkman is adequately playing the tape cassettes in their collection, the general public are going to be satisfied with their purchase.
I would just like to add that the issue I was previously trying to state was that as a juror it is your RIGHT and DUTY to vote your conscience should the law be "wrong" in the particular case you are participating in. The case mentioned in this topic is precisely just such a case and it was unfortunate that the jurors were not aware that it was their RIGHT and DUTY to vote their conscience. It seems that they were not informed of this fact and that this is a major point of contention in the Jury Nullification debate whereby a defense team is not permitted to notify the jury of such.
In my opinion, justice was not served in this case and it is a travesty that such a thing should happen in our supposedly free state.
Jury Nullification does not mean what you think it means. You seem to be implying that Jury Nullification is a process by which a jury's verdict is "nullified" in some manner, which just isn't the case. I'm not sure what else I can say. Please go to the wikipedia page that I linked to previously. It clearly defines the Jury Nullification process. Specifically... "Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her."
There is no questioning whether or not this process exists within the US court system, only a debate as to whether or not it is a desirable. I'm not sure what else I can say.
Let me preface what I'm going to say with this, that's a lot of jibber jabber you just wrote and to be quite honest I'm not sure what all your logical wraglings are all about. That said, you either don't understand what it is I am saying (and doubly so with my quoted text), or if you don't believe that a jury should have the right and duty to vote their conscience, then just say so.
Anyway, to address your points...
"The only possible ambiguity in your post was your use of the word "just", which I took to mean "per conscience" or "per common sense" (rather than "per the letter of the law", as the two are not in perfect intersection for all values of conscience)."
You are correct in your assumption.
"Put simply, there are only two ways that a juror can vote - by letter of law, or by individual conscience. And your quoted definition of Jury Nullification only agrees with what I'm saying, **which is that the jury can be biased and are fallible.**"
Huh? I'm not sure I really understand your simply put statement. Are you implying, by your choise of the words "biased and fallible", that anyone who votes their conscience, rather then the letter of the law, is performing their duty as a jurer in some negative and therefore unacceptable fashion?
"In your above post, you state that the jury exist to provide conscience."
Yes, in that it is my belief that the machine of the state REQUIRES the counter balance of human intuition.
"In your above post, you state that the jury exist to provide conscience. That logically demands that the jury's decision is unquestioned and infallible, because there's no way to verify someone's conscience beyond their word. It's absurd to say "your verdict is wrong because it's not what you really feel" (why on earth would you vote against yourself, and how on earth could someone prove it even if you did?). But it's not absurd to say "your verdict is wrong because it contradicts law or fact" (which is what Jury Nullification is)."...and this is where you loose me. I mean WTF are you talking about?
"... I'm really not sure where you see the contradiction. Jury nullification is the striking down of a jury's vote because it disregards legal process..."
Actually that's not at all what Jury Nullification means but who am I to argue with your preconceived notions.
"Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her. [1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law--that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge--which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is--but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)
Either you misunderstood what I was saying or you totally have a misunderstanding of Jury Nullification.
The whole point of having a jury of your peers is such that they CAN vote against what the law might state if they believe that it is not ultimately just. *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, no problem.
Clarification: I'm complaining about the government creating trivial and unimportant laws (ie pandering to the recording industry) while the world as we have come to know and enjoy it, is being destroyed.
Um... I don't think you read the OP's (my) statement with the right context in mind. I'll give you a hint, the people that I am referring to that are a "joke" are our elected officials, also know collectively as "the government".
Ironic? Nice try. Go back to QQing about being moded a troll, it was more insightful.
I live in new jersey, a few thousand miles away. What would you like me to do about the oil disaster? Fly a plane to New Orleans, then drive a car to the shore to hop on a boat which will putter out to the scene in hopes of scooping up some oil at which point I'll be told by BP that I'm not allowed to be there, sending me back through that chain of events in reverse? What does reading and posting on slashdot really have anything to do with the topic except to inform and generate discussion about the topic? Really, what's your point?
I'll tell you what I am doing, to the best of my abilities... With the exception of getting to and from work and picking up groceries, I'm not joy riding around in my fucking car. I ride my bike or take the high speed line to travel locally. Whenever possible I'm going to refrain from using as many oil based products as I possibly can. I'm going to make sure I utilize digital downloads for software or entertainment media rather then contribute to creating yet more packaging waste. I don't use plastic bags when i go shopping. I recycle as much plastic, glass, and paper as they will let me. I do as much as I can to make sure that whatever waste I do generate is properly disposed of. I'm seriously considering moving out of the car centric suburbs where every road is a highway and the infrastructure was design for driving in a car everywhere, pedestrians be damned. And yes, I do not purchase any music from any record labels who believe in this insane copyright war against their own customers (not that I would ever listen to that crap music even if it was free). There is plenty of awesome music out there by musicians who really just care more about sharing their music with the rest of us rather then fame and wealth.
Ultimately, over the last several years, I've been working on decreasing my contribution to companies and business practices that are wasteful and to which I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with as much as I possibly can. I've been speaking out whenever possible when I see people and business doing something that I believe is inherently wrong such that others are made aware of it and are given the opportunity to think about it and make up their own minds as well as to if they wish to support such madness as well.
My point still stands, that the government, republicrat that it is, is more concerned about their business partners making a buck than anything that would seriously benefit the citizens of this country. While everyone seems to be flag waving and voting their party lines, in hopes that they will be the next person to be handed free money, the planet, our home, is being destroyed at a record pace. So yeah, our government wasting time and energy to ensure that a hand full of greedy evil bastards and whinny welfare musicians get mandatory handouts for life while it does absolutely nothing of any value to ensure the integrity of the environment we live is IS A FUCKING JOKE. I also add that it's completely corrupt and worthless for any but a select few who value anything but their own selfish desire to generate needless wealth.
What are YOU doing?
Hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil are spewing into the Gulf of Mexico each day, an entire ecology is dying, and these assholes are fucking worried that some moneyless students aren't buying enough Britney Spears.
I'm going to call bullshit on this one.
The viewer is NOT the customer. The Advertisers are the customer. You are just an inconvient reality of their business model. ;)
I was being silly. :p
and they'd have to be willing to have points put on their license and have their insurance rates raised.
So, being lazy is the hinderance.
"Newsflash, people being lazy bastards prevents them from enacting change despite it possibly being better for them."
Great story!
Even better don't buy the CD, download the free music from that millions of great artist out there that have chosen not to bother with trying to make money from recorded music, and instead spend your money on going to shows, an experience that cannot be duplicated in a recording.
Really? Your going to spit hairs on taking an AAC file to AIFF then back to MP3? If you are such an audiophile that this process is going to be degrading your listening experience, you probably shouldn't be purchasing from iTunes to begin with. lol
Seriously, the difference is so negligible to the casual ear it's ridiculous for you to even bring this up.
Really? Harder then what? Not using the computer at all? lol
how so? Is that just your personal observation or do you have some data to back your statement up?
"Whitmore says the investment Apple's customers have made in content for those devices in terms of apps, videos, and music purchased at the iTunes Store creates Apple's 'stickiness.' "
Music - burn to audio disk
Videos - http://www.aimersoft.com/tutorial/burn-itunes-movie-to-dvd.html
Apps - Your SoL, but isn't that the case for any user switching between operating systems/platforms?
So it's hard to make a playlist, put a blank disk in the drive, hit "burn to disk", and select "Audio Disk"?
It's so easy even a Fucking Apple Fanboi could do it. Hell I could also do it with iTunes for Windows does that make me a Fucking Microsoft Fanboi as well?
Burn your DRM ladden iTunes Music Store purchaces to disk then rip that disk to mp3 (or whatever format of your choice). OMG DRM free music from the iTunes Music Store that you can "jump ship" with! I know... it's almost rocket surgery, but come on! lol
...and it is not ours. Are you going to be prepared for when it comes?
I think the problem we are all having in this debate, including myself, is our perception of devices like the iPhone and iPad as general computing devices. Most of us want to believe that the iPhone/iPad are much like our desktop/laptop computers and that we should be able to enjoy using them as such. Apple, and no doubt, many other companies, want us to view these devices (including Sony's PS3, which is having similar trouble removing it's ability to utilize 3rd party OS) more like we would view a Walkman, TV, or perhaps even the blender in your kitchen. Apple, Sony, et el, want full control over these devices so that they can maximize their potential to profit from them. As was mentioned last week in an article, general computing devices are getting less and less profitable as their prices decrease due to cheaper production process and increased demand.
Unfortunately for most of our tech heads, the general public doesn't care if these devices are general computing devices that let us hack them to do any job we want them to, they just want to listen to music, watch movies, read a book, or play a video game. In other words, so long as the Walkman is adequately playing the tape cassettes in their collection, the general public are going to be satisfied with their purchase.
I dropped the Cable/Internet package from Comcast for $120 / month (basic cable w/ internet) for $40 / month DSL.
I would just like to add that the issue I was previously trying to state was that as a juror it is your RIGHT and DUTY to vote your conscience should the law be "wrong" in the particular case you are participating in. The case mentioned in this topic is precisely just such a case and it was unfortunate that the jurors were not aware that it was their RIGHT and DUTY to vote their conscience. It seems that they were not informed of this fact and that this is a major point of contention in the Jury Nullification debate whereby a defense team is not permitted to notify the jury of such.
In my opinion, justice was not served in this case and it is a travesty that such a thing should happen in our supposedly free state.
Jury Nullification does not mean what you think it means. You seem to be implying that Jury Nullification is a process by which a jury's verdict is "nullified" in some manner, which just isn't the case. I'm not sure what else I can say. Please go to the wikipedia page that I linked to previously. It clearly defines the Jury Nullification process. Specifically... "Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her."
There is no questioning whether or not this process exists within the US court system, only a debate as to whether or not it is a desirable. I'm not sure what else I can say.
Let me preface what I'm going to say with this, that's a lot of jibber jabber you just wrote and to be quite honest I'm not sure what all your logical wraglings are all about. That said, you either don't understand what it is I am saying (and doubly so with my quoted text), or if you don't believe that a jury should have the right and duty to vote their conscience, then just say so.
Anyway, to address your points...
"The only possible ambiguity in your post was your use of the word "just", which I took to mean "per conscience" or "per common sense" (rather than "per the letter of the law", as the two are not in perfect intersection for all values of conscience)."
You are correct in your assumption.
"Put simply, there are only two ways that a juror can vote - by letter of law, or by individual conscience. And your quoted definition of Jury Nullification only agrees with what I'm saying, **which is that the jury can be biased and are fallible.**"
Huh? I'm not sure I really understand your simply put statement. Are you implying, by your choise of the words "biased and fallible", that anyone who votes their conscience, rather then the letter of the law, is performing their duty as a jurer in some negative and therefore unacceptable fashion?
"In your above post, you state that the jury exist to provide conscience."
Yes, in that it is my belief that the machine of the state REQUIRES the counter balance of human intuition.
"In your above post, you state that the jury exist to provide conscience. That logically demands that the jury's decision is unquestioned and infallible, because there's no way to verify someone's conscience beyond their word. It's absurd to say "your verdict is wrong because it's not what you really feel" (why on earth would you vote against yourself, and how on earth could someone prove it even if you did?). But it's not absurd to say "your verdict is wrong because it contradicts law or fact" (which is what Jury Nullification is)." ...and this is where you loose me. I mean WTF are you talking about?
"... I'm really not sure where you see the contradiction. Jury nullification is the striking down of a jury's vote because it disregards legal process..."
Actually that's not at all what Jury Nullification means but who am I to argue with your preconceived notions.
Thanks for playing.
Um...
"Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her. [1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law--that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge--which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is--but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)
Either you misunderstood what I was saying or you totally have a misunderstanding of Jury Nullification.
Anyway... something about "hell in a handbasket".
The whole point of having a jury of your peers is such that they CAN vote against what the law might state if they believe that it is not ultimately just. *sigh*