Yes, you are correct about his chances. But that's not the point. Its a chicken and egg problem. Does the main sream media not cover him because he has no chance, or does he have no chance because the main stream media refuses to cover him? I suspect its the latter, but its the former I have a big problem with. By what right does the media decide which candidates we should be informed about, and which we should not? Who are they to tell us who is viable, and who is not? Is that how a democracy is supposed to work? Sometimes I wonder why we even bother to hold the actual election. At this point, it seems that the MSM has already declared McCain the winner on the Republican side. I'm just saying, it would be nice if someone like Ron Paul could have his views and positions considered by the people, and then they could decide if they want to vote for him based on that. Instead, very few people even know what his positions are, and he's not factored into people's decision at all.
By the way, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter at all - my state has a closed primary and I am registered democrat, so I cannot vote for him this Tuesday, and its pretty much a forgone conclusion that none of us will have the chance to vote for him in the general election. But even if I could I would not. Although he has a few positions I agree with, by and large his views are very much the opposite of my own. That being said, his positions seem to resonate with a lot of people once they understand what his positions are. The fact that the vast majority of people will never even have the chance to understand them ticks me off. And I would say the same for almost every other so called "minor" or "non-viable" candidate that has come and gone in this race: Gravel, Kucinich, Duncan Hunter, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson etc. etc. etc. As soon as you fail to finish in the top 2 or 3 in Iowa or New Hampshire, the media, if it doesn't ignore you, actively starts promoting your campaign as dead.
Ah yes, the same circular logic used by the main stream media to ensure that only certain people have a chance to win.
a) declare some candidates "viable", and some candidates "non-viable" b) only discuss the "viable" candidates and refuse to discuss the "non-viable" candidates, ensuring that only the "viable" candidates have any visibility with the electorate, and virtually disallowing the average voter to even consider voting for the "non-viable" candidate c) Use the resulting poll numbers to validate the declaration that some candidates are "viable" while others are "non-viable". d) wash, rinse, and repeat
IMHO, any of the remaining candidates, including Ron Paul and Huckabee, is in reality a viable candidate. If any of them had a miraculous turn around, there are still more than enough delegates available for them to secure the nomination. So until someone has secured the nomination, I'd thank you to not tell me or anyone else who is or who is not a "viable" candidate.
Ya. Hobbyists beware. If a bunch of middle eastern guys show up and want you to teach them how to fly RC aircraft, but aren't interested in learning how to land the aircraft, best call the FBI.
Apparently these wiretaps deal with issues that are important enough that the government feels that it needs to set asside our civil rights. Yet these issues and our civil rights are not as important as the phone company being paid on time. Why don't these laws force the phone companies to maintain the wiretaps regardless of when payment is received?
Yes, by real property I did mean land. Unfortunately, I would have to say that the USCC seems to be in the pocket of the copyright holders on most issues (see recent decisions about Internet radio). I'd be interested to know if there are any court decisions backing their opinion, or if this is only their opinion.
I just read the wikipedia article on the Takings clause of the Constitution and don't see how it applies, since it seems to be limitted to real property?
However, I note that somehow it doesn't seem to be illegal to extend copyrights every time some special interest, like Disney wants them extended. How is it that copyright owners get to have their cake and eat it too?
I don't know if 5 years is the right number, but 120 is ridiculously high. If I invent something, it should be protected for generations and the protection should extend beyond my own lifespan? That's absurd. Currently, a work is protected for 70 years after the author dies. WTF?
As a good first step, the copyright laws should be changed to at least limit the protections that a work can receive to the protection that was in place when that work was created - so we can at least do away with this business of magically extending the copyright protection period every time the copyrights on Mickey Mouse are about to expire.
As a second step, companies that can be objectively identified as abusers of copyright law - such as those who insist that there is no fair use of the works they own copyrights on, or those who attempt to circumvent fair use by encrypting the works and then declaring any attempt to break said encryption to be illegal - should loose their copyrights or have their terms severly restricted.
"Welcome. Welcome, to City 17. You have chosen, or been chosen, to relocate to one of our finest remaining urban centers. I thought so much of City 17, that I elected to establish my administration, here, in the citadel, so thoughtfully provided by our benefactors. I am proud to call City 17 my home. And so, whether you are here to stay, or passing through to parts unknown, welcome, to City 17. It's safer here. "
"...*.doubleclick.net in my host file?...This being the case, if everyone were to do this would doubleclick even be in the picture these days?"
Without trying to answer your question, I'd just like to point outthat if Microsoft ever puts out another O/S that people actually will upgrade to, they could very easily accomplish that for a huge swath of the marketplace. Or through Windows Update.
USB = VHS USB 2.0 = Super VHS FireWire = Beta - technically superior but doomed due to lack of marketplace penetration.
Seems to me that the iPod was the first real killer Firewire app for the masses (yeah, video and audio pro's had their own killer apps for Firewire, but they didn't represent enough of the marketplace for that to matter. If Apple had kept the iPod's Firewire only devices (as were the first generations) something would have had to give. Either the iPod would have been DOA (in the PC world at least, since every new Mac has had at least one Firewire port for years), or PC manufacturers would have been forced to start making Firewire the standard due to demand.
I think what someone who wasn't old enough to see the original trilogy during its first theater run might not realise is that the effects in the original film were revolutionary - no one had done that before. If anything, the effects in the 2nd trilogy were evolutionary, not revolutionary. Certainly, the quantity of the effects was impressive and perhaps unprecedented, but the individual effects themselves were no big deal. I don't think there were many people who saw the original Star Wars who didn't leave the theater with a big "wow" factor just from the effects - and that helped to cover the story's weaknesses - combine that with the passage of time and the nostalgia it brings, and its easy to see why people still love these films. Even when the 1st trilogy was re-released with updated effects, it didn't really change the movies for me. I certainly did not leave the theater with that "wow" impression from the updated effects - again, evolutionary and not revolutionary.
Lets face it, by the time the 2nd trilogy was made, the Star Wars brand was so massive that the title "Star Wars" could have been slapped on nearly any movie, no matter how awful, and it would have been a massive commercial success. Lucas knew this, and knew that he could do all his playing around with CGI and computers in these movies because no matter what, they'd be successful at the box office and he wouldn't loose his shirt doing it. When could he ever get an opportunity like that again - to experiement to his heart's content without worrying about the financial consequences? So that is when it jumped the shark, IMHO - that moment where the thought first formed in Lucas's mind that his chance to go balls to the wall with the effects and the technology were more important than just telling a good story, and that the story could be crap as long as the movie was a visual "wow".
If the website designer has to pay for bits each time you view their website without viewing their banner ads, are you engaged in theft?
By that logic, isn't the website designer engaged in theft too? The designer is earning revenue by sending me unwanted ads that consume bandwidth (and the electricity to run my PC during that time, the CPU cycles consumed by displaying that ad, etc) that I'm paying for. Same for Radio / TV - they use electricity with their unwanted ads.
Advertiser supported content ceased to be a all-or-nothing / take-it-or-leave-it package deal as soon as people learned to skip over ads in the newspaper, change channels during commercials on the radio, fast forward commercials on thier VCR lately come TIVO. Is that theft? all that's happening now is that the web is catching up. Content providers will have to adjust - and by the way, historically they have adjusted: Short advertisements spoken during radio shows ("And now its time for the sports update brought to you by Roto Rooter!"), and on Television, banner ads / tickers / popups during the regular show and during the credits, billboards in sports stadiums that show up on TV during the game, etc.
Yeah, but the "Got Milk?" campaign is different. It might be all of the milk companies getting together to pursue a common goal, but they are not getting together and doing something that is detrimental to the competition between them or detrimental to the consumer.
As an example, if all Milk producers got together and agreed that none of them would sell milk for more than a penny a gallon, this would be perfectly legal since it helps the consumer and they have not fixed the price, only capped it. On the other hand, if they all got together and decided that none of them would sell milk for *less* than a penny a gallon, that would be a direct violation of the anti-trust laws, as this would constitute price fixing against the consumer and an anti-competitive practice.
Ah, but I think they do care about that sort of thing. Weren't the RIAA members a few years ago busted by the FTC or another government agency for mandating either that stores did not sell their products below a certain price, or at least not advertise their products below a certain price?
in fact, if someone had the resources to put that together it might convince some of these labels that it is actually giving them a competitive edge, exactly as you suggest.
Competitive edge? Perhaps. But the result of that competitive edge might be more market share of an overall smaller market, and thus not necessarily more sales or profits. Would you rather have 50% of a 5 billion a year market, or 20% of a 20 billion a year market?
Ah, but the plantiffs in a class action lawsuit must pass the legal hurdle of class certification before their lawsuit can proceed to trial. Why do the member companies of the RIAA not have to be certified as a class before their lawsuits can proceed? Instead, simply by showing up together and saying "We're the RIAA!", they skip this step.
Doesn't "all Americans" include Democrats? If all America is to be proud of the next AG, doesn't that require the person be someone who Democrats (and Republicans) can support. Or are we only trying to make one half of America proud? Oh wait, I forgot, us liberals are un-American scum because we refuse to blindly do everything W. says.
"certainly Gonzales hasn't been able to do anything in his official capacity, because the liberal propaganda machine has not let him do it. "
Lets see. IIRC, Gonzale's official capacity would include being truthful when called to testify before Congress. Did the liberal propaganda machine prevent him from telling the truth?
"All Presidents have the right to do this and most do when they take office. So Bush waited then fired them...why is that wrong?"
Apparently this is a very difficult concept to explain to Republicans, but I'll try again anyway. The Department of Justice is a part of the United States Government. It is not part of the Republican Party. This is true even when the President and the Attorney General happen to be Republicans. This means that the President and the Attorney General do not get to decide who to hire and who to fire using criteria such as "How many Democrats did so and so prosecute last year?" or "Did he dismiss the charges against the President's political allies like we told him to?" Moreover, presuring the Justice Department to apply the law in a partisan manner is not allowed.
Again, no. If I seize your assets, I can do with them as I wish, including selling them. If I freeze your assets, I can't sell them, but I prevent you from selling them.
I don't think so. Suppose I am suspected of a crime. The police obtain a warrant, search my house and remove, say, my computer as evidence. They did not freeze my computer, they siezed it, per the 4th ammendment -which actually uses the word siezure. And even though the police have siezed my computer, they cannot, contrary to what you have stated, sell it. If, at the conclusion of my legal troubles, I am found not guilty, or never go to trial, the computer must be returned to me, which cannot be done if it has since been sold by the police.
Is barking up the wrong tree if their aim is to prevent Internet radio from being used as a means to pirate music. If I hear a song on Internet radio, I'd sooner download it illegally, or get it from iTunes, than I would bother to go through the pain in the ass of recording it off of the radio station. Maybe in some misguided RIAA fantasy, they think they'll actually shut down LimeWire, Kazaa, and all the others, and then Internet radio would be the last bastion of pirated music on the Internet unless they stop it now. Dream on....
I think the RIAA knows this. I think that they are trying to hinder the experience of Internet radio, which, at the end of the day, probably helps artists not on the RIAA lables a lot more than it does helps those who are.
Since when are schools in the law enforcement business, or the crime prevention business?
That's the jurisdiction of the police. Enforcing federal laws (like copyright laws) and preventing violations of federal laws is the jurisdiction of federal police, like the FBI. Congress funds the FBI. If Congress wants this problem tackled, they should provide more money to the FBI to police the universities in question. And since most of the piracy in question happens via the Internet, and since the government is currently able to see most of what happens on the internet due to AT&T's willingness to allow them to use their fascilities to abuse the law, this ought to be a simple matter for them.
See the CCD actually takes the image 3 times on the same 10MP backing within a few milliseconds. This is why you sometimes get some funny colored lines on the edges of high contrast objects.
No, the funny colored lines on the edges of high contrast objects are an optical artifact of the lens known as a chromatic aberation. Typically, more expensive lenses do a better job controlling this phenomenon and minimizing it than do cheaper lenses. Wide angle lenses are also usually more prone to this.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up please.
Now all we need is for Clinton and Obama to run on the same ticket, and McCain / Romney to tap Jeb for VP and we're set.
Yes, you are correct about his chances. But that's not the point. Its a chicken and egg problem. Does the main sream media not cover him because he has no chance, or does he have no chance because the main stream media refuses to cover him? I suspect its the latter, but its the former I have a big problem with. By what right does the media decide which candidates we should be informed about, and which we should not? Who are they to tell us who is viable, and who is not? Is that how a democracy is supposed to work? Sometimes I wonder why we even bother to hold the actual election. At this point, it seems that the MSM has already declared McCain the winner on the Republican side. I'm just saying, it would be nice if someone like Ron Paul could have his views and positions considered by the people, and then they could decide if they want to vote for him based on that. Instead, very few people even know what his positions are, and he's not factored into people's decision at all.
By the way, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter at all - my state has a closed primary and I am registered democrat, so I cannot vote for him this Tuesday, and its pretty much a forgone conclusion that none of us will have the chance to vote for him in the general election. But even if I could I would not. Although he has a few positions I agree with, by and large his views are very much the opposite of my own. That being said, his positions seem to resonate with a lot of people once they understand what his positions are. The fact that the vast majority of people will never even have the chance to understand them ticks me off. And I would say the same for almost every other so called "minor" or "non-viable" candidate that has come and gone in this race: Gravel, Kucinich, Duncan Hunter, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson etc. etc. etc. As soon as you fail to finish in the top 2 or 3 in Iowa or New Hampshire, the media, if it doesn't ignore you, actively starts promoting your campaign as dead.
Ah yes, the same circular logic used by the main stream media to ensure that only certain people have a chance to win.
a) declare some candidates "viable", and some candidates "non-viable"
b) only discuss the "viable" candidates and refuse to discuss the "non-viable" candidates, ensuring that only the "viable" candidates have any visibility with the electorate, and virtually disallowing the average voter to even consider voting for the "non-viable" candidate
c) Use the resulting poll numbers to validate the declaration that some candidates are "viable" while others are "non-viable".
d) wash, rinse, and repeat
IMHO, any of the remaining candidates, including Ron Paul and Huckabee, is in reality a viable candidate. If any of them had a miraculous turn around, there are still more than enough delegates available for them to secure the nomination. So until someone has secured the nomination, I'd thank you to not tell me or anyone else who is or who is not a "viable" candidate.
Ya. Hobbyists beware. If a bunch of middle eastern guys show up and want you to teach them how to fly RC aircraft, but aren't interested in learning how to land the aircraft, best call the FBI.
Apparently these wiretaps deal with issues that are important enough that the government feels that it needs to set asside our civil rights. Yet these issues and our civil rights are not as important as the phone company being paid on time. Why don't these laws force the phone companies to maintain the wiretaps regardless of when payment is received?
Yes, by real property I did mean land. Unfortunately, I would have to say that the USCC seems to be in the pocket of the copyright holders on most issues (see recent decisions about Internet radio). I'd be interested to know if there are any court decisions backing their opinion, or if this is only their opinion.
I just read the wikipedia article on the Takings clause of the Constitution and don't see how it applies, since it seems to be limitted to real property?
However, I note that somehow it doesn't seem to be illegal to extend copyrights every time some special interest, like Disney wants them extended. How is it that copyright owners get to have their cake and eat it too?
I don't know if 5 years is the right number, but 120 is ridiculously high. If I invent something, it should be protected for generations and the protection should extend beyond my own lifespan? That's absurd. Currently, a work is protected for 70 years after the author dies. WTF?
As a good first step, the copyright laws should be changed to at least limit the protections that a work can receive to the protection that was in place when that work was created - so we can at least do away with this business of magically extending the copyright protection period every time the copyrights on Mickey Mouse are about to expire.
As a second step, companies that can be objectively identified as abusers of copyright law - such as those who insist that there is no fair use of the works they own copyrights on, or those who attempt to circumvent fair use by encrypting the works and then declaring any attempt to break said encryption to be illegal - should loose their copyrights or have their terms severly restricted.
"Welcome. Welcome, to City 17. You have chosen, or been chosen, to relocate to one of our finest remaining urban centers. I thought so much of City 17, that I elected to establish my administration, here, in the citadel, so thoughtfully provided by our benefactors. I am proud to call City 17 my home. And so, whether you are here to stay, or passing through to parts unknown, welcome, to City 17. It's safer here. "
"...*.doubleclick.net in my host file?...This being the case, if everyone were to do this would doubleclick even be in the picture these days?"
Without trying to answer your question, I'd just like to point outthat if Microsoft ever puts out another O/S that people actually will upgrade to, they could very easily accomplish that for a huge swath of the marketplace. Or through Windows Update.
"Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot?"
Yes, its a very, very spicy vodka.
USB = VHS
USB 2.0 = Super VHS
FireWire = Beta - technically superior but doomed due to lack of marketplace penetration.
Seems to me that the iPod was the first real killer Firewire app for the masses (yeah, video and audio pro's had their own killer apps for Firewire, but they didn't represent enough of the marketplace for that to matter. If Apple had kept the iPod's Firewire only devices (as were the first generations) something would have had to give. Either the iPod would have been DOA (in the PC world at least, since every new Mac has had at least one Firewire port for years), or PC manufacturers would have been forced to start making Firewire the standard due to demand.
I think what someone who wasn't old enough to see the original trilogy during its first theater run might not realise is that the effects in the original film were revolutionary - no one had done that before. If anything, the effects in the 2nd trilogy were evolutionary, not revolutionary. Certainly, the quantity of the effects was impressive and perhaps unprecedented, but the individual effects themselves were no big deal. I don't think there were many people who saw the original Star Wars who didn't leave the theater with a big "wow" factor just from the effects - and that helped to cover the story's weaknesses - combine that with the passage of time and the nostalgia it brings, and its easy to see why people still love these films. Even when the 1st trilogy was re-released with updated effects, it didn't really change the movies for me. I certainly did not leave the theater with that "wow" impression from the updated effects - again, evolutionary and not revolutionary.
Lets face it, by the time the 2nd trilogy was made, the Star Wars brand was so massive that the title "Star Wars" could have been slapped on nearly any movie, no matter how awful, and it would have been a massive commercial success. Lucas knew this, and knew that he could do all his playing around with CGI and computers in these movies because no matter what, they'd be successful at the box office and he wouldn't loose his shirt doing it. When could he ever get an opportunity like that again - to experiement to his heart's content without worrying about the financial consequences? So that is when it jumped the shark, IMHO - that moment where the thought first formed in Lucas's mind that his chance to go balls to the wall with the effects and the technology were more important than just telling a good story, and that the story could be crap as long as the movie was a visual "wow".
If the website designer has to pay for bits each time you view their website without viewing their banner ads, are you engaged in theft?
By that logic, isn't the website designer engaged in theft too? The designer is earning revenue by sending me unwanted ads that consume bandwidth (and the electricity to run my PC during that time, the CPU cycles consumed by displaying that ad, etc) that I'm paying for. Same for Radio / TV - they use electricity with their unwanted ads.
Advertiser supported content ceased to be a all-or-nothing / take-it-or-leave-it package deal as soon as people learned to skip over ads in the newspaper, change channels during commercials on the radio, fast forward commercials on thier VCR lately come TIVO. Is that theft? all that's happening now is that the web is catching up. Content providers will have to adjust - and by the way, historically they have adjusted: Short advertisements spoken during radio shows ("And now its time for the sports update brought to you by Roto Rooter!"), and on Television, banner ads / tickers / popups during the regular show and during the credits, billboards in sports stadiums that show up on TV during the game, etc.
Yeah, but the "Got Milk?" campaign is different. It might be all of the milk companies getting together to pursue a common goal, but they are not getting together and doing something that is detrimental to the competition between them or detrimental to the consumer.
As an example, if all Milk producers got together and agreed that none of them would sell milk for more than a penny a gallon, this would be perfectly legal since it helps the consumer and they have not fixed the price, only capped it. On the other hand, if they all got together and decided that none of them would sell milk for *less* than a penny a gallon, that would be a direct violation of the anti-trust laws, as this would constitute price fixing against the consumer and an anti-competitive practice.
Ah, but I think they do care about that sort of thing. Weren't the RIAA members a few years ago busted by the FTC or another government agency for mandating either that stores did not sell their products below a certain price, or at least not advertise their products below a certain price?
Competitive edge? Perhaps. But the result of that competitive edge might be more market share of an overall smaller market, and thus not necessarily more sales or profits. Would you rather have 50% of a 5 billion a year market, or 20% of a 20 billion a year market?
Ah, but the plantiffs in a class action lawsuit must pass the legal hurdle of class certification before their lawsuit can proceed to trial. Why do the member companies of the RIAA not have to be certified as a class before their lawsuits can proceed? Instead, simply by showing up together and saying "We're the RIAA!", they skip this step.
Doesn't "all Americans" include Democrats? If all America is to be proud of the next AG, doesn't that require the person be someone who Democrats (and Republicans) can support. Or are we only trying to make one half of America proud? Oh wait, I forgot, us liberals are un-American scum because we refuse to blindly do everything W. says.
"certainly Gonzales hasn't been able to do anything in his official capacity, because the liberal propaganda machine has not let him do it. "
Lets see. IIRC, Gonzale's official capacity would include being truthful when called to testify before Congress. Did the liberal propaganda machine prevent him from telling the truth?
"All Presidents have the right to do this and most do when they take office. So Bush waited then fired them...why is that wrong?"
Apparently this is a very difficult concept to explain to Republicans, but I'll try again anyway. The Department of Justice is a part of the United States Government. It is not part of the Republican Party. This is true even when the President and the Attorney General happen to be Republicans. This means that the President and the Attorney General do not get to decide who to hire and who to fire using criteria such as "How many Democrats did so and so prosecute last year?" or "Did he dismiss the charges against the President's political allies like we told him to?" Moreover, presuring the Justice Department to apply the law in a partisan manner is not allowed.
Again, no. If I seize your assets, I can do with them as I wish, including selling them. If I freeze your assets, I can't sell them, but I prevent you from selling them.
I don't think so. Suppose I am suspected of a crime. The police obtain a warrant, search my house and remove, say, my computer as evidence. They did not freeze my computer, they siezed it, per the 4th ammendment -which actually uses the word siezure. And even though the police have siezed my computer, they cannot, contrary to what you have stated, sell it. If, at the conclusion of my legal troubles, I am found not guilty, or never go to trial, the computer must be returned to me, which cannot be done if it has since been sold by the police.
Is barking up the wrong tree if their aim is to prevent Internet radio from being used as a means to pirate music. If I hear a song on Internet radio, I'd sooner download it illegally, or get it from iTunes, than I would bother to go through the pain in the ass of recording it off of the radio station. Maybe in some misguided RIAA fantasy, they think they'll actually shut down LimeWire, Kazaa, and all the others, and then Internet radio would be the last bastion of pirated music on the Internet unless they stop it now. Dream on....
I think the RIAA knows this. I think that they are trying to hinder the experience of Internet radio, which, at the end of the day, probably helps artists not on the RIAA lables a lot more than it does helps those who are.
Since when are schools in the law enforcement business, or the crime prevention business?
That's the jurisdiction of the police. Enforcing federal laws (like copyright laws) and preventing violations of federal laws is the jurisdiction of federal police, like the FBI. Congress funds the FBI. If Congress wants this problem tackled, they should provide more money to the FBI to police the universities in question. And since most of the piracy in question happens via the Internet, and since the government is currently able to see most of what happens on the internet due to AT&T's willingness to allow them to use their fascilities to abuse the law, this ought to be a simple matter for them.
No, the funny colored lines on the edges of high contrast objects are an optical artifact of the lens known as a chromatic aberation. Typically, more expensive lenses do a better job controlling this phenomenon and minimizing it than do cheaper lenses. Wide angle lenses are also usually more prone to this.