The problem with your argument is that this fellow doesn't claim that his being fired for rape was a rumour - he states it as a fact following his subject line assertion that he worked for the man. The only thing he calls a rumour is that this individual was bumped into management for being an incompetent sysadmin, a claim the post you are criticizing does not even address. I think claiming the author of an unpopular article was fired from a position for attempted rape is fair game to be called a troll. It certainly has worked like a troll, and has now been appropriately moderated as a troll. Your post, on the other hand, is appropriately scored at 1 (unmoderated) because for reasons I have never understood there is no available moderation for "-1 dumbass."
Oh Jesus Christ. I think it's perfectly fair to state opinion when it is self-evidently true. Meanwhile, hurt the bloggers fight for acceptance as part of the media? Fucking self-important much? Maybe the fact that you can't figure out the difference between Slashdot and the BBC explains why you're such a humorless twat. The people who modded this insightful should have their typing fingers broken.
The First Amendment Center regularly polls Americans about their feelings about the First Amendment - and as the second URL, an assessment of the 2004 report reveals, it's an exercise that reveals that as a population we are ambivalent and conflicted about the freedom of speech, often asserting contradictory opinions about related topics. I think this is an example of the same issue. We overwhelmingly support the First Amendment in principle... but when it gets to the specifics we get sketchy. And I can sort of understand this: when asked about freedom of speech we think about general principles, abstractions. When asked about something like posting personal information on the internet we imagine personal scenarios: our own information or the information of our loved ones being made public (of course we're not talking about information that is otherwise truly private, but the question focuses attention on a specific scenario), bad things happening as a result. It's not surprising we're conflicted.
You've got my vote. In addition to weblog being a stupid term (Captain Kirk had (has? will have, in a fictional future universe?) a log, okay? You've got a fucking diary. Or whatever), you don't make contractions like that. I don't call a duck blink a kblind. If I did people would call me stupid. And they would be right.
Another thing about the term is that it makes a very broad form of publishing in a very nascent state an easier target. It sounds stupid, and an inordinate percentage of the people who seriously apply it to their own work are douchebags.
Digital self-publishing. It's that simple. It might be something like a newspaper or a magazine, it could be a novel in progress or a published correspondence, a latter day Abelard and Heloise. Talking about "blogs" being this or that is like talking about paper being this or that. It's just a freaking medium, folks. Talkies... pshaw, it's a gimmick, nobody really wants talking pictures.
Re:Shoot me for my ignorance...
on
Sin City Trailer
·
· Score: 1
Well, and more to the point, you know, it's the whole post-modern reversioning of the old "hard boiled" genre that to a large degree Dashiell Hammett invented (an assertion that I imagine could start a whole other argument)... at this point in the game, playing the who influenced who game is sorta a moot point... However, a shorter and less, um, intellectually masturbatory answer would be, Max Payne was originally released in July, 2001, and if I'm not mistaken the first installment of Sin City was in Dark Horse Presents #51which came out June 1991, so I would say Sin City missed being influenced by Max Payne by a good decade, hmm?
I'm sorry, I couldn't think of anything funny to say about it. Just, man, BEARD.
Beard beard beard.
On topic, these things always sound the same to me: a lot of blue sky about technologies that are gonna get there real soon now... I know only a bit about the topic, I think it's naive to think that drastic life extension is impossible, but a couple things occur. The first is that, I think that considering the vital role of cell senescence and death in biological processes, it will be continuously surprising how many problems extending mortality will create. The second is, it is stupidly obvious this kind of thing, if it is developed, is only going to be available to the super-rich. I mean, bleeding edge medical technology, and like insurance companies are going to pay you to stick around longer to rack up more medical bills. So a more accurate quote might be "I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already... and really, really, really rich."
And then you email your buddy the MP3. The problem with file sharing as a method of mass-distributing illegally duplicated copyrighted content is the same problem pirate radio has: there's no particular technical challenge in generating a pirate signal; but everything that makes a radio signal particularly useful (stays in one spot on the band, is strong, runs on a regular schedule) makes it easy to get caught. Likewise, anything that makes it easy for strangers to locate a particular illegally duplicated tune available for distribution makes it easy for copyright holders or their legal representatives to locate and prosecute the perpetrators. Napster, in other words, painted a big old target on their foreheads and surprise surprise.
In other news, you know, the RIAA is not the Death Star. As far as I know they have not managed to shut down a single legitimate file sharing application. They can't even shut down Kazaa. Kazaa is using the recent court opinion as an advertising strategy for their product (to whit, "having Kazaa is 100% legal").
Let me get this straight. Music sharing isn't actually hurting the music industry, maybe it's even helping them, but you should do as much of it as possible because it will bring down the evil music monopoly and then we'll be living in paradise, so don't buy a CD because it won't really help any artist, just download their copyrighted material for free so that you help end the evil empire of the RIAA after which we won't continue to just freely distribute whatever we want to through this massive network of unregulated, uncontrollable digital distribution we've created, instead somehow all the artists will be fairly compensated, I think by some kind of magical money fairy that flies right out of my ass. The whole premise of downward battle is on crack. If you don't like the pusher, don't buy the product. It's that simple, or else come out and simple own up to the fact that you want unlimited access to copyrighted material without having to play by the rules or face any consequences of breaking the law - a stance I don't agree with (and think is fairly impossible) but can at least somewhat respect for honesty. Pretending that you're somehow contributing to "change" because you get illegal bootlegs of major label product for free is ridiculous.
I would consider any radioactive byproduct of the process of weaponizing uranium or preparing it for production of energy as nuclear waste. Everything in the universe is all natural. It is how it is used which has the potential to cause problems in the lives of humans here and now.
I don't think that the military use of depleted uranium (DU) is necessarily an argument against nuclear power, though it is certainly an argument against yet another short-sighted, dangerous and irresponsible component of our overall conduct in the utilization of nuclear energy to date. Military grade DU is a minor component of the overall toxic/radioactive waste stream generated by conventional nuclear power plants, and its use in arms is a decision driven by military rather than disposal considerations.
I agree that the use of depleted uranium in the military is one of the great underreported stories of modern warfare, that the evidence of a correlation between exposure to DU and health problems in soldiers and civilians and their offspring is compelling, disturbing, and demands closer inspection. I think history will judge our use of DU in warfare very harshly.
I generally agree with the article, but just to be the trouble-maker - what exactly are Mr. Chris Mooney's credentials for critiquing reporting on science? According to his bio (http://www.chriscmooney.com/about.asp) he studied English and his only background is in Journalism. There's no indication he has ever studied science except as a journalist and layman, there is no indication he's made any formal or credible study of the history or philosophy of science. There's every indication that he would happily rip someone for citing, in the context of a scientific dispute, the opinion of an individual of his own credentials. I don't see that this article really lives up to the very standard of evidence it purports to advocate. It isn't enough to simply say "all the REAL scientists know this is the way it is." If there is to be a higher order of accuracy in scientific reporting it is going to take more than this guy is dishing up to sell it to the overwhelmingly scientifically illterate general populace.
I guess it depends on how you define large scale. I mean, where it works, wind simply pays for itself. Where it doesn't it just won't. I don't think we're anywhere near exploiting all the wind we could profitably do so. My basic issue with nuclear is that we have not dealt with the waste problem. We just haven't. I live in urban Minnesota and I honestly appreciate the reality of cheap nuclear power. But the waste issue is not being appropriately dealt with, and it is going to cost us plenty some day. That's not some liberal knee-jerk response, that's just the way it is. If they can get some of these better nuclear technologies to work, I'm all for it, and I don't think it is right to just ignore nuclear. But we should acknowledge there is a huge waste issue just from existing plants that nobody wants in their backyard.
Of course I think that with appropriate technological investment and regulation, coal could remain a really reasonable alternative for the next 500 years, so basically I'm crazy, most would say.
Hey, if information does indeed (as it seems) contain some sort of anti-entropic power, force or energy, it stands to reason that, entropy being what it is, if you don't maintain it it will decay. May the process releases some kind of particle, otherwise the universal capacity for information would eventually be used up. And why? Because you insisted on uploading your stupid collection of 10 million animated gifs to the super-stable diamond disks in that giant automated space station.
On a less speculative note, my observation is that in most if not all cases, one has the alternative to upgrade their data to more viable formats - the people who have problems are those who refuse to abandon software formats whose time has come. If your data is important enough that the thought of losing it bothers you inordinately, then by all means manage it. But try to remember that the sun WILL eventually expand to engulf the earth.
(My 1956 paperback copy of The Critique of Pure Reason - purchased used for $1.50 - still works just fine, incidentally...)
Does this point the way of the future for other weeds?
Heck, this is the PRESENT truth for weeds. Resistance is a fact of agriculture. The reason "Roundup Ready" crops are one of the most successful commercial GMO products is they can take those extra-heavy loads of pesticides needed to do the job.
It's little surprise, with heavy spraying of coca, that resistant varieties would develop. Coca is an ubiquitous and hardy shrub. It's what nature does.
More to the point, would anyone choose a turd sandwich over a douche? I mean, I'm a man so a douche is irrelevant to me. I guess maybe I would have to exchange it for an enema. But a turd sandwich, presumably, you gotta eat. I'll take a little squirt of water up the privates any day over eating shit on bread. Even if you aren't being FORCED to use the item in question, I'd rather have a douche sitting around in the medicine cabinet rather than exrement on whole wheat. It's a totally obvious choice. I'm beginning to think the guy that made that comment wasn't all that damn bright, in fact.
Does it bother anyone else that due to our inability to stop needing to kill one another to acheive our political goals, the human race seems to blithely be living out the plot of the Terminator franchise?
I'm trying to imagine the convoluted and restrictive EULA they would have to slap onto a piece of software designed to essentially give you legal advice. Aiee, I'm caught in an infinite loop!
I can summarize it in half a paragraph: don't agree to anything that doesn't come from a legitimate organization or individual you recognize and trust, and that thing you just clicked says, you can do pretty much whatever you want with this thing except sell it, but we're not responsible for ANYTHING that happens as a result of your using it.
Show me a legitimately published example of someone running afoul in some significant way of a click-through agreement and I'll believe this is worth anyone's resources. Willfully downloading things like DumbassCursor or Scumgator Bwoser Buddy don't count: there is no software in the world that can provide a proof against individual stupidity.
(and no, I make nowhere near 200K but I'm in one of the highest brackets)
Okay, so you just admitted that your initial premise is invalid:
"Deloitte analysts estimate that Sen. Kerry would raise taxes for married couples filing jointly with adjusted gross incomes of about $225,000 or higher, and for single taxpayers with an income of $185,000 or higher. These estimates are based on representative taxpayers with typical itemized deductions."
I'm sorry you live in a locale where housing prices are disproportionate to your income. That would be difficult. But are you seriously claiming that your tax burden is causing this situation? That the continued presidency of George Bush is going to make it easier for you to buy a house, or that A Kerry presidency would make it more difficult?
I don't mind people having a firm stance on lowering taxes but my problem with the current administration is their habit of LOWERING revenues while RAISING expenses resulting in RECORD DEFICITS. I was under the impression that conservatives valued something called "fiscal conservatism?" I'm having a hard time figuring that one out in the current administration.
Your argument is not without merit, but recognize that the question of copyright is not wholly circular. In the USA, anyway, the broader constitutional justification of intellectual property laws is to promote creative and inventive activities. By providing a limited, exclusive license to profit from a piece of intellectual property, a greater incentive is provided to create such things in the first place. I happen to think this is a reasonable argument. I also think that artists whose work I want to possess copies of deserve the minimum of my respect that I purchase the copies they have sanctioned - even if I don't care for the agents they elected to transact such business (in fact I have ceased to purchase new works from some of my former favorite artists because I've become so fed up with the agents they have signed their property away to).
Even physical property is a legal creation. You could posit a total anarchic system where the only rule was possession: after all, all matter in the world being preexisting, and humanity being but a transient thing, nobody can really ever "own" anything. These legal creations help us coexist. What is VERY reasonable to point out is that copyright in particular has been pushed and extended far past its original intent, with little or no justification. Though in my opinion the proper way to address this is legislatively. But then I like Quixotic endeavors.
Meantime, a thought experiment: we know it is legal to buy a used CD. We know it is legal to transfer the data on this CD to, say, a computer so that it may be played on, say, an iPod. We know that it is legal to resell the used CD. Now, while the spirit of the law might suggest that one should delete all copies/derivatives of the information contained on the resold CD, the letter of the law contains no such injunction. One could imagine a totally legal method of "file sharing" mediated entirely by mail, like Netflix.
I also question whether it's worth it in a case like this to go after the person who took the site, whether you have a legal case or not. I mean really, If I'm looking for a political website, I don't just start typing in random combinations of the candidate's names and the date. If I want to see what John Kerry has to say I put "John Kerry" into Google, and whaddya know, his official website is the first thing that comes up. You put "Chris Van Hollen" into Google, the first two hits are from his official congressional page, the third is his official website. So it's URL is www.vanhollen2002.com? Who cares, it comes up in Google tagged "Van Hollen for Congress."
In fact, you'd be better off not giving your opponent any free publicity for their stupid hijacked site. But in any event, I think it's a non-issue. There was a pretty prominent hijacked Bush site in the 2000 election, used to say all manner of unkind things about him: obviously he managed to overcome the setback without any additional limits being imposed on free speech. I agree with Garg: a cheap jack little trick like this is only likely to turn me against the perpetrator and make me fell more kindly to the victim... unless of course the victim responds with legal wranglings to subvert free speech in the name of supposed informational real estate rights. Note to future politicians: just let the natural dumbassery of your opponents actions do their work. Save your energy and money for making your case, not trying to suppress theirs.
Hear Hear! And furthermore, sir, I have GRAVE ISSUES with this so called "postal service," with which, I have it on good authority, nefarious tune-peddlers are exchanging many the Victrola phono-graph via some sort of criminal hotbed called eBay without returning a whit of recompense to the artists in question!
Slashdot Mirror
no, but you may be the sixteenth to point out the irony of that statement.
microsoft...
can't crash...
must... make... joke... before head explodes...
The problem with your argument is that this fellow doesn't claim that his being fired for rape was a rumour - he states it as a fact following his subject line assertion that he worked for the man. The only thing he calls a rumour is that this individual was bumped into management for being an incompetent sysadmin, a claim the post you are criticizing does not even address. I think claiming the author of an unpopular article was fired from a position for attempted rape is fair game to be called a troll. It certainly has worked like a troll, and has now been appropriately moderated as a troll. Your post, on the other hand, is appropriately scored at 1 (unmoderated) because for reasons I have never understood there is no available moderation for "-1 dumbass."
Dumbass.
Oh Jesus Christ. I think it's perfectly fair to state opinion when it is self-evidently true. Meanwhile, hurt the bloggers fight for acceptance as part of the media? Fucking self-important much? Maybe the fact that you can't figure out the difference between Slashdot and the BBC explains why you're such a humorless twat. The people who modded this insightful should have their typing fingers broken.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/f irstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx? id=13575
http://www.
The First Amendment Center regularly polls Americans about their feelings about the First Amendment - and as the second URL, an assessment of the 2004 report reveals, it's an exercise that reveals that as a population we are ambivalent and conflicted about the freedom of speech, often asserting contradictory opinions about related topics. I think this is an example of the same issue. We overwhelmingly support the First Amendment in principle... but when it gets to the specifics we get sketchy. And I can sort of understand this: when asked about freedom of speech we think about general principles, abstractions. When asked about something like posting personal information on the internet we imagine personal scenarios: our own information or the information of our loved ones being made public (of course we're not talking about information that is otherwise truly private, but the question focuses attention on a specific scenario), bad things happening as a result. It's not surprising we're conflicted.
You've got my vote. In addition to weblog being a stupid term (Captain Kirk had (has? will have, in a fictional future universe?) a log, okay? You've got a fucking diary. Or whatever), you don't make contractions like that. I don't call a duck blink a kblind. If I did people would call me stupid. And they would be right.
Another thing about the term is that it makes a very broad form of publishing in a very nascent state an easier target. It sounds stupid, and an inordinate percentage of the people who seriously apply it to their own work are douchebags.
Digital self-publishing. It's that simple. It might be something like a newspaper or a magazine, it could be a novel in progress or a published correspondence, a latter day Abelard and Heloise. Talking about "blogs" being this or that is like talking about paper being this or that. It's just a freaking medium, folks. Talkies... pshaw, it's a gimmick, nobody really wants talking pictures.
Well, and more to the point, you know, it's the whole post-modern reversioning of the old "hard boiled" genre that to a large degree Dashiell Hammett invented (an assertion that I imagine could start a whole other argument)... at this point in the game, playing the who influenced who game is sorta a moot point... However, a shorter and less, um, intellectually masturbatory answer would be, Max Payne was originally released in July, 2001, and if I'm not mistaken the first installment of Sin City was in Dark Horse Presents #51which came out June 1991, so I would say Sin City missed being influenced by Max Payne by a good decade, hmm?
I'm sorry, I couldn't think of anything funny to say about it. Just, man, BEARD.
Beard beard beard.
On topic, these things always sound the same to me: a lot of blue sky about technologies that are gonna get there real soon now... I know only a bit about the topic, I think it's naive to think that drastic life extension is impossible, but a couple things occur. The first is that, I think that considering the vital role of cell senescence and death in biological processes, it will be continuously surprising how many problems extending mortality will create. The second is, it is stupidly obvious this kind of thing, if it is developed, is only going to be available to the super-rich. I mean, bleeding edge medical technology, and like insurance companies are going to pay you to stick around longer to rack up more medical bills. So a more accurate quote might be "I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already... and really, really, really rich."
And finally, BEARD!!!!!
Here's my plug-in:
:)
>OMG do U have the new Brittney trax??!?!
>YEAH!!!! It R0X0RS!!!! What's UR email?
And then you email your buddy the MP3. The problem with file sharing as a method of mass-distributing illegally duplicated copyrighted content is the same problem pirate radio has: there's no particular technical challenge in generating a pirate signal; but everything that makes a radio signal particularly useful (stays in one spot on the band, is strong, runs on a regular schedule) makes it easy to get caught. Likewise, anything that makes it easy for strangers to locate a particular illegally duplicated tune available for distribution makes it easy for copyright holders or their legal representatives to locate and prosecute the perpetrators. Napster, in other words, painted a big old target on their foreheads and surprise surprise.
In other news, you know, the RIAA is not the Death Star. As far as I know they have not managed to shut down a single legitimate file sharing application. They can't even shut down Kazaa. Kazaa is using the recent court opinion as an advertising strategy for their product (to whit, "having Kazaa is 100% legal").
Let me get this straight. Music sharing isn't actually hurting the music industry, maybe it's even helping them, but you should do as much of it as possible because it will bring down the evil music monopoly and then we'll be living in paradise, so don't buy a CD because it won't really help any artist, just download their copyrighted material for free so that you help end the evil empire of the RIAA after which we won't continue to just freely distribute whatever we want to through this massive network of unregulated, uncontrollable digital distribution we've created, instead somehow all the artists will be fairly compensated, I think by some kind of magical money fairy that flies right out of my ass. The whole premise of downward battle is on crack. If you don't like the pusher, don't buy the product. It's that simple, or else come out and simple own up to the fact that you want unlimited access to copyrighted material without having to play by the rules or face any consequences of breaking the law - a stance I don't agree with (and think is fairly impossible) but can at least somewhat respect for honesty. Pretending that you're somehow contributing to "change" because you get illegal bootlegs of major label product for free is ridiculous.
I would consider any radioactive byproduct of the process of weaponizing uranium or preparing it for production of energy as nuclear waste. Everything in the universe is all natural. It is how it is used which has the potential to cause problems in the lives of humans here and now.
I don't think that the military use of depleted uranium (DU) is necessarily an argument against nuclear power, though it is certainly an argument against yet another short-sighted, dangerous and irresponsible component of our overall conduct in the utilization of nuclear energy to date. Military grade DU is a minor component of the overall toxic/radioactive waste stream generated by conventional nuclear power plants, and its use in arms is a decision driven by military rather than disposal considerations.
I agree that the use of depleted uranium in the military is one of the great underreported stories of modern warfare, that the evidence of a correlation between exposure to DU and health problems in soldiers and civilians and their offspring is compelling, disturbing, and demands closer inspection. I think history will judge our use of DU in warfare very harshly.
I generally agree with the article, but just to be the trouble-maker - what exactly are Mr. Chris Mooney's credentials for critiquing reporting on science? According to his bio (http://www.chriscmooney.com/about.asp) he studied English and his only background is in Journalism. There's no indication he has ever studied science except as a journalist and layman, there is no indication he's made any formal or credible study of the history or philosophy of science. There's every indication that he would happily rip someone for citing, in the context of a scientific dispute, the opinion of an individual of his own credentials. I don't see that this article really lives up to the very standard of evidence it purports to advocate. It isn't enough to simply say "all the REAL scientists know this is the way it is." If there is to be a higher order of accuracy in scientific reporting it is going to take more than this guy is dishing up to sell it to the overwhelmingly scientifically illterate general populace.
I guess it depends on how you define large scale. I mean, where it works, wind simply pays for itself. Where it doesn't it just won't. I don't think we're anywhere near exploiting all the wind we could profitably do so. My basic issue with nuclear is that we have not dealt with the waste problem. We just haven't. I live in urban Minnesota and I honestly appreciate the reality of cheap nuclear power. But the waste issue is not being appropriately dealt with, and it is going to cost us plenty some day. That's not some liberal knee-jerk response, that's just the way it is. If they can get some of these better nuclear technologies to work, I'm all for it, and I don't think it is right to just ignore nuclear. But we should acknowledge there is a huge waste issue just from existing plants that nobody wants in their backyard.
Of course I think that with appropriate technological investment and regulation, coal could remain a really reasonable alternative for the next 500 years, so basically I'm crazy, most would say.
Yeah, cool, but some of us sort of think we should start out thinking about shit that actually works now.
Hey, if information does indeed (as it seems) contain some sort of anti-entropic power, force or energy, it stands to reason that, entropy being what it is, if you don't maintain it it will decay. May the process releases some kind of particle, otherwise the universal capacity for information would eventually be used up. And why? Because you insisted on uploading your stupid collection of 10 million animated gifs to the super-stable diamond disks in that giant automated space station.
On a less speculative note, my observation is that in most if not all cases, one has the alternative to upgrade their data to more viable formats - the people who have problems are those who refuse to abandon software formats whose time has come. If your data is important enough that the thought of losing it bothers you inordinately, then by all means manage it. But try to remember that the sun WILL eventually expand to engulf the earth.
(My 1956 paperback copy of The Critique of Pure Reason - purchased used for $1.50 - still works just fine, incidentally...)
Does this point the way of the future for other weeds?
Heck, this is the PRESENT truth for weeds. Resistance is a fact of agriculture. The reason "Roundup Ready" crops are one of the most successful commercial GMO products is they can take those extra-heavy loads of pesticides needed to do the job.
It's little surprise, with heavy spraying of coca, that resistant varieties would develop. Coca is an ubiquitous and hardy shrub. It's what nature does.
More to the point, would anyone choose a turd sandwich over a douche? I mean, I'm a man so a douche is irrelevant to me. I guess maybe I would have to exchange it for an enema. But a turd sandwich, presumably, you gotta eat. I'll take a little squirt of water up the privates any day over eating shit on bread. Even if you aren't being FORCED to use the item in question, I'd rather have a douche sitting around in the medicine cabinet rather than exrement on whole wheat. It's a totally obvious choice. I'm beginning to think the guy that made that comment wasn't all that damn bright, in fact.
Does it bother anyone else that due to our inability to stop needing to kill one another to acheive our political goals, the human race seems to blithely be living out the plot of the Terminator franchise?
Anyone else comment on the fact that one day the Penny Arcade link (along with several others) just done dissapeared off the front page of /.?
What was that, just quietly reclaiming some real estate? I actually had no idea what the URL was (I figured it out).
I'm trying to imagine the convoluted and restrictive EULA they would have to slap onto a piece of software designed to essentially give you legal advice. Aiee, I'm caught in an infinite loop!
I can summarize it in half a paragraph: don't agree to anything that doesn't come from a legitimate organization or individual you recognize and trust, and that thing you just clicked says, you can do pretty much whatever you want with this thing except sell it, but we're not responsible for ANYTHING that happens as a result of your using it.
Show me a legitimately published example of someone running afoul in some significant way of a click-through agreement and I'll believe this is worth anyone's resources. Willfully downloading things like DumbassCursor or Scumgator Bwoser Buddy don't count: there is no software in the world that can provide a proof against individual stupidity.
(and no, I make nowhere near 200K but I'm in one of the highest brackets)
0 04 ,0,5373621.story
Okay, so you just admitted that your initial premise is invalid:
"Deloitte analysts estimate that Sen. Kerry would raise taxes for married couples filing jointly with adjusted gross incomes of about $225,000 or higher, and for single taxpayers with an income of $185,000 or higher. These estimates are based on representative taxpayers with typical itemized deductions."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-tax083
I'm sorry you live in a locale where housing prices are disproportionate to your income. That would be difficult. But are you seriously claiming that your tax burden is causing this situation? That the continued presidency of George Bush is going to make it easier for you to buy a house, or that A Kerry presidency would make it more difficult?
I don't mind people having a firm stance on lowering taxes but my problem with the current administration is their habit of LOWERING revenues while RAISING expenses resulting in RECORD DEFICITS. I was under the impression that conservatives valued something called "fiscal conservatism?" I'm having a hard time figuring that one out in the current administration.
The gold in this economy is, as it was, shareholder value, not IP.
Courtesy of our gracious hosts - the SCO one year stock profile. Oooh. Aaaah.
http://ir.sco.com/stock.cfm
Your argument is not without merit, but recognize that the question of copyright is not wholly circular. In the USA, anyway, the broader constitutional justification of intellectual property laws is to promote creative and inventive activities. By providing a limited, exclusive license to profit from a piece of intellectual property, a greater incentive is provided to create such things in the first place. I happen to think this is a reasonable argument. I also think that artists whose work I want to possess copies of deserve the minimum of my respect that I purchase the copies they have sanctioned - even if I don't care for the agents they elected to transact such business (in fact I have ceased to purchase new works from some of my former favorite artists because I've become so fed up with the agents they have signed their property away to).
Even physical property is a legal creation. You could posit a total anarchic system where the only rule was possession: after all, all matter in the world being preexisting, and humanity being but a transient thing, nobody can really ever "own" anything. These legal creations help us coexist. What is VERY reasonable to point out is that copyright in particular has been pushed and extended far past its original intent, with little or no justification. Though in my opinion the proper way to address this is legislatively. But then I like Quixotic endeavors.
Meantime, a thought experiment: we know it is legal to buy a used CD. We know it is legal to transfer the data on this CD to, say, a computer so that it may be played on, say, an iPod. We know that it is legal to resell the used CD. Now, while the spirit of the law might suggest that one should delete all copies/derivatives of the information contained on the resold CD, the letter of the law contains no such injunction. One could imagine a totally legal method of "file sharing" mediated entirely by mail, like Netflix.
I also question whether it's worth it in a case like this to go after the person who took the site, whether you have a legal case or not. I mean really, If I'm looking for a political website, I don't just start typing in random combinations of the candidate's names and the date. If I want to see what John Kerry has to say I put "John Kerry" into Google, and whaddya know, his official website is the first thing that comes up. You put "Chris Van Hollen" into Google, the first two hits are from his official congressional page, the third is his official website. So it's URL is www.vanhollen2002.com? Who cares, it comes up in Google tagged "Van Hollen for Congress."
In fact, you'd be better off not giving your opponent any free publicity for their stupid hijacked site. But in any event, I think it's a non-issue. There was a pretty prominent hijacked Bush site in the 2000 election, used to say all manner of unkind things about him: obviously he managed to overcome the setback without any additional limits being imposed on free speech. I agree with Garg: a cheap jack little trick like this is only likely to turn me against the perpetrator and make me fell more kindly to the victim... unless of course the victim responds with legal wranglings to subvert free speech in the name of supposed informational real estate rights. Note to future politicians: just let the natural dumbassery of your opponents actions do their work. Save your energy and money for making your case, not trying to suppress theirs.
Hear Hear! And furthermore, sir, I have GRAVE ISSUES with this so called "postal service," with which, I have it on good authority, nefarious tune-peddlers are exchanging many the Victrola phono-graph via some sort of criminal hotbed called eBay without returning a whit of recompense to the artists in question!